[Changleen]

Now here is a great example of doing things the wrong way:

NY commuters face random searches

Passengers using the New York subway are to be subject to random searches in a new security measure designed to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks.

The city's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, announced the move hours after the latest bombings in London.

He admitted that passengers would be inconvenienced, but added that such security measures were growing increasingly necessary.

Around 4.5 million people use the New York subway system every working day.

With more than 450 subway stations on the network, it is unclear whether the searches of passengers with bags or backpacks can be any more than a token deterrent.

Civil liberties groups have warned that random searches may be unconstitutional.

And here's the truly retarded bit:

But the New York police chief Ray Kelly has offered a guarantee that the searches will be truly random and that passengers will not be selected because of their apparent race or religion.

The recent attacks on the Underground system in London have served as a warning that the threat against mass transit systems is serious and potentially deadly.

What is the point? I mean, really. Stop that middle aged white woman! She has a rucksack.

 

[Toshi]

random searches will give new yorkers just enough of a taste of the police state to come that that much less lube will be necessary down the road.

ps: i like to mix metaphors, yessiree

 

[Changleen]

'Police State' and 'lubricate' in the same sentance just makes me think of rubber gloves.

What would be really bad now is if there actually was an attack on the NY tube - the fact that security is deployed, but due to the stupid methods they have elected to use they are highly unlikely to prevent an attack - would make the public backlash and desire for security after the bombing that much more reactionary. It's almost like setting yourself up to be in a good political position to implement extreme measures should the worst happen.

 

[valve bouncer]

Lokks like London may have (almost literally) dodged a bullet. Apparently the bombs were shoddily made and didn't explode. Obviously if suspects are in custody it gives the Poms a better chance of catching the mastermind.

 

[Changleen]

I don't think they've arrested anyone yet. They arrested two guys straight away, but they turned out to be regular punters and have been released. But there is a bunch of good stuff this time like they have at least one of th unexploded bombs, eyewitness and CCTV of the guys running from the scene and so on.

On another note I see congress has voted to extent the Patriot act. Sucks for you.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Uh, I'm all for civil liberties and all but sometimes common sense is more important. No, a middle aged white woman will not be carrying a backpack full of explosives. Thats not profiling, its a fact. Saving lives is more important than ideological bull****.

 

[Changleen]

Indeed.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Uh, I'm all for civil liberties and all but sometimes common sense is more important. No, a middle aged white woman will not be carrying a backpack full of explosives. Thats not profiling, its a fact. Saving lives is more important than ideological bull****.

Amen brotha.....................

 

[Mackie]

Yeah - I'm here in NYC, and I'm almost all for the random searches.
My issue is one that the civil liberties folks have raised.
Let's say that they choose to seach someone, and they open the bag, and thee's an ounce of weed sitting in there with some textbooks.
Do the cops:
1) Arrest the dude
or
2) Say - we're after bombs, not bongs, dude. You got lucky!

Well, if the arrest the dude, that's an illegal search, which is constitutionally prohibited. In my opinion, this issue needs to be worked out and clarified boefore these searches go too far.

 

[DRB]

Yeah - I'm here in NYC, and I'm almost all for the random searches.
My issue is one that the civil liberties folks have raised.
Let's say that they choose to seach someone, and they open the bag, and thee's an ounce of weed sitting in there with some textbooks.
Do the cops:
1) Arrest the dude
or
2) Say - we're after bombs, not bongs, dude. You got lucky!

Well, if the arrest the dude, that's an illegal search, which is constitutionally prohibited. In my opinion, this issue needs to be worked out and clarified boefore these searches go too far.

What if they find a bomb or a gun or someone's head? What they find doesn't matter its an illegal search.

 

[Changleen]

Well, about your weed son, You know, don'tcha that jaywalking is a route to speeding is a route to streetracing is a route to gambling is a route to drugs is a route to prostitution is a route to extorsion is a route to murder is a route to....

Sorry son, you see what I'm saying, I gotta take you in now. You've gotta answer for that fat-tip. Death.

For some reason Republicans talk to the end of such scales almost exclusivly now. It's not true. I've never extorted anyone. have you? I've jaywalked a few fackin times though. Am I evil?

 

[clancy98]

I've never extorted anyone.

yeah but I bet you've never been arrested for weed under an illegal search under the patriot act either, but you're SURE that happens...


Those darn republicans and their Patriot Act.

 

[Mackie]

What if they find a bomb or a gun or someone's head? What they find doesn't matter its an illegal search.

The bomb or gun (perhaps the head???) would be covered by the Patriot Act. The weed, presumably, would not be.

I'm not really saying that the searches are wrong, i just want some legal clarification of exactly what's going on.

 

[Andyman_1970]

So the question becomes does the greater good of the safety of the public using mass transit usurp one's right to a legal search - using the weed example?

 

[clancy98]

that is essentially the patriot act argument in a nutshell.

It definitely has the potential to be misused.

If it is happening like Changleen said it would only take some links to convince me. But I haven't seen it yet.

 

[DRB]

The bomb or gun (perhaps the head???) would be covered by the Patriot Act. The weed, presumably, would not be.

Why do you think that?

 

[Cooter Brown]

here's an article from the village voice about the so called right to refuse such searches, yeah right




Reacting to the NYPD's announcement Thursday afternoon that police would randomly—but routinely—search the bags of commuters, one concerned New Yorker quickly created a way for civil libertarians to make their views black-and-white.
In a few outraged moments, local immigrant rights activist Tony Lu designed t-shirts bearing the text, "i do not consent to being searched." The minimalist protest-wear can be purchased here, in various styles and sizes. (Lu will not get a cut. The shirts' manufacture, sale, and shipment, will be handled by the online retailer. Lu encourages budget-conscious New Yorkers to make their own and wear them everywhere.)

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had announced the legally obvious—that New Yorkers are free to decline a search and "turn around and leave." But Lu, who is a lawyer at Urban Justice Center, warned that even well-intentioned cops could interpret people's natural nervousness or anger as "reasonable suspicion." The possibility of unjustified interrogation and even arrest is real, Lu said.

Although police promised they would not engage in racial profiling, Lu said that, as with all street-level policing, people of color and poor immigrants would be particularly vulnerable, especially if encounters lead to arrests.

 

[Mackie]

Why do you think that?

Because it's an anti-terrorism act, and guns & bombs are weapons, and can be used in acts of terror. Other illegal items may not meet the "weapon" criterion.

 

[Mackie]

So the question becomes does the greater good of the safety of the public using mass transit usurp one's right to a legal search - using the weed example?

Yeah, I think that is the issue. Note that weed is not critical to the argument. Substitute "stolen watch" if you like. Regardless, the right to not be randomly searched is a basic one. Something needs to be clarified here. I did hear Kelly say that the searches were not mandatory - he said if you didn't want a search, don't take the train. I suppose this will be their legal loophole for conducting the searches - getting onto the train is not entering a public space, it's entering the property of the MTA/NY government.

 

[clancy98]

that's sucky logic. (the private property thing)

But they'd probably still use it. I'd still be pissed.

 

[valve bouncer]

I'm worried about this because who can say who is suspect. There's blue eyed bombers, christ the last lot included an African-Englishman. Passport checks as you go through? Won't stop it. I'm thinking we can't stop it it, but we can. We can take away their reason. And that means we will not support fake regimes, we will support democracy absolutely and if you do not support democracy then we will have nothing to do with you. What we have is an absolute and complete support for democracy and fairness. Take away the reason for this and what we have will prevail. Absolutely.

 

[Andyman_1970]

that's sucky logic. (the private property thing).

I disagree, I think it makes sense. You don't have to use the subway, and they have informed the public ahead of time to be prepared that you might get searched. So in the case of the pot smoker and their weed, if you're going to take the subway leave the herb at home or don't take the subway.

 

[Mackie]

I disagree, I think it makes sense. You don't have to use the subway, and they have informed the public ahead of time to be prepared that you might get searched. So in the case of the pot smoker and their weed, if you're going to take the subway leave the herb at home or don't take the subway.

I'll be interested to see how far they can try to push the "private property" thing.
Here in New York there are some super crowded public spaces with real value as symbolic targets. Washington DC has it's fair share as well.
I wonder if things will get bad enough that the Gov will try to start conducting random seacrhes there as well.........
Thats when the ACLU would really go bananas.

 

[clancy98]

I disagree, I think it makes sense. You don't have to use the subway, and they have informed the public ahead of time to be prepared that you might get searched. So in the case of the pot smoker and their weed, if you're going to take the subway leave the herb at home or don't take the subway.

Good point andyman... I am just wondering where that line is, what would be "US private property" and where would that end...

 

[Silver]

So, that's that for the fourth amendment then. Not a big loss, it been at a Schiavo like level of functioning for a long time now...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Uh, I'm all for civil liberties and all but sometimes common sense is more important. No, a middle aged white woman will not be carrying a backpack full of explosives. Thats not profiling, its a fact. Saving lives is more important than ideological bull****.

are you sure??

here is one "new yorker middle aged white woman" terrorist...

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Heres a couple of links to examples of non-terror related usage of the Patriot Act:
Philly
Seattle
Vegas

As for the constitutionality of the searches, we have precedent:

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”

Article here.

 

[Changleen]

So you're not protected by the constitution if you're drunk?

 

[clancy98]

apparently not.

and thats too bad, cause I do alot of ranting about the constitution when I'm drunk.

What simple irony.