These police searches???

[fastfast]

i still think that random bag searches are wrong because someone who has something can still easily slip through the cracks while our rights are being taken away....plus, its really annoying. Don't think that Im crazy, but I always carry mace in my bag just to stay safe since im always taking the trains by myself at like 3 in the morning....and when i heard that they were doing random bag searches, i had to take the mace out....so now what happens if someone were to attack me or force themselves on me or something??? i think that that's really unfair....

Luckily, I havent actually seen anybody's bags getting searched...i heard they were doing it a lot on the staten island ferry...but i always take the train from jfk airport and switch over to another train in the port authority, and i still havent seen any searches...

i dont want to jinx myself bc my bag is hella bag and it would just be really annoying to have to empty everything out before i get on the train...

just put the mace in a pocket book , if that is not available have a little bag in your bag ....and put in there and take out when thru..

minor inconveince

also you forget how much safer trains are with all the police presence for these searches...

so you may not need that mace..

but I think you def should keep it ....ya never know

[veknyc]

couldn't have said it better if i tried

who would you profile?

the second group of london bombers were blacks.

the first group of london bombers were Pakistani

the 9/11 hijackers were mostly saudi arabian

richard reid...the shoe bomber was jamican

vincent padilla....who was plotting terror attacks was hispanic

john walker lindh, timothy mcveigh, the unambomber, and the atlanta olympics bomber were all white

[veknyc]

two choices: get on a plane that had its passengers searched or a plane that did not, which one are you getting on? I f you answered the one with searches "You are correct sir" same goes for any transportation. I f i cannot ride the subways with peace of mind than my liberty has been taking away, my right to live. searches and profiling are just a couple of tools that make up the whole of what we have to achieve. You do not go looking for mafia suspects in Harlem or Bed-stuy, thats profiling, thats the way of life. Al-queda will probably have a hard time recruiting your 85 yr old grandma, so therefore the cops time should not be wasted checking her 40 pound purse. Just the idea of a potential search is a deterent to terrorists.

a plane is a different story all together for several reasons. 1: a plane by itself can be an instrument of terror, a train cannot (fuck woody harrelson and wesley snipes, lol); 2: airlines are privately owned, and for the most part, or at least much more so than the mta, privately funded; 3: planes are technically not a necessity, or at least much less of one than the mta in nyc. i have to give you credit for raising the age old question of "freedom from, or freedom to?", and i can see that this is where our fundemental difference in opinion or lifestyle lies. i look at examples in history and current events and see the futility of these searches (read: israel) as far as security is concerned, and take more notice of the examples of a government exploiting fear and basing public policies on it (read: Mcarthyism, Japanese internment camps, Rockafellar Laws etc.). Look at any of these examples or countless others and you will find a similar pattern. cheers

[southbound24]

Israel is not a futile example, since they have implemented searches of ALL public transportation, suicide bombings and victems dropped dramatically, the tougher security is one reason why the bombings ended and everyone is back at the negotiating table. Planes are not a different story, they are privately owned but its tickets are sale to the general public, just like the Mta, we cannot differentiate between modes of transportation, all are subject to terrorism

[southbound24]

Accept and adapt, could not have said it better myself

[fastfast]

a plane is a different story all together for several reasons. 1: a plane by itself can be an instrument of terror, a train cannot (fuck woody harrelson and wesley snipes, lol); 2: airlines are privately owned, and for the most part, or at least much more so than the mta, privately funded; 3: planes are technically not a necessity, or at least much less of one than the mta in nyc. i have to give you credit for raising the age old question of "freedom from, or freedom to?", and i can see that this is where our fundemental difference in opinion or lifestyle lies. i look at examples in history and current events and see the futility of these searches (read: israel) as far as security is concerned, and take more notice of the examples of a government exploiting fear and basing public policies on it (read: Mcarthyism, Japanese internment camps, Rockafellar Laws etc.). Look at any of these examples or countless others and you will find a similar pattern. cheers

i think israel is a bad example ...

1. liek southbound said it has dropped dramatically...check stats form years ago to today;s

2. that is a war between 2 nations living side by side, or intertwined more or less

there are not that many al queda living here (so we hope) ...as there are palestinians over there who are ready to attack.

they had to take a more proactive approach to their security and safety..

i wonder how the israeli people feel about it ?

i am sure they are more then happy, I have read many stories of bombers getting caught at checkpoints...yes some have blown themselves up, but imagine how many more lives woudl have been lost if they made their intended targets.

imagine how many lives woudl be lost if a bomber made it on board a packed 7 train, traveling at 30 mph in a tunnel along side another train .....

lots of lives.

but I guess your willing to take that chance all because you have some conspiracy theory as to the "REAL" motives behind this war on terror, (what did you mean by that anyway )

I am not sure what you think, but it sounds like you feel the governement is doing this as a controling facotor and not for our own safety...

it's goal is not to catch johhny drug dealer on the train ...althought he is fucked if he is caught ..and rightfully so....it is to PROTECT YOU ....and ME...and YOUR FAMILY....and MY FAMILY...and every other american who has the freedom to go where they want in this country .....but they also have the expectation of safety by provided by their government and this is a sing of the times that everyone must accept.

[veknyc]

Accept and adapt, could not have said it better myself

I could not have said moo or baahh better myself. as for israel -

"Washington, July 12, 2005 -- The United States is strongly condemning Tuesday's suicide bombing in Israel, which State Department officials say appeared aimed at torpedoing the planned Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. Officials also say U.S. and Israeli officials are discussing new U.S. financial support for the disengagement process.

Officials here are acknowledging Israel's right to self-defense following the Netanya attack. But they also say they hope Israel will consider the consequences of retaliatory action, if any, and that they are hopeful the Gaza pullout proceeds on schedule next month."

check http://www.militaryconnections.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=1582

so, so much for that excuse. as for differentiating beteen a plane and a train, and public or private, well that should be as easy as making a distinction between a republic and a plutocracy, hmmm.

[veknyc]

if you would like to use the example of a nation that stole the land of another people,and is now referring to the people that are fighting to get that land back as terrorists, well then, isn't that just wonderful company to keep.

btw, i am in no way pro-palestine, just stating the facts.

[rudeboyyouth]

our supreme court is no way going to alow our rights to be trampled on...but they sure as hell will let them be bent to preserve human life and safety of our citizens....and i dont mind.

With all due respect, that's a nonsensical proposition. The Supreme Court does much more than simply allow our rights to be trampled on. The Supreme Court already has trampled upon, and continues to trample upon, fundamental rights in areas of racial and sexual equality, and gender rights. The Supreme Court is a reactionary body of individuals, and it selects many of its issues for review based on both the political climate at the time and the executive powers at play. That explains how certain majority opinions of the Supreme Court over the past 12 years have either disregarded or blindly ignored well-established fundamental rights for certain individuals -- i.e., the right to privacy in the marital bedroom, the right to obtain contraception, and the right to marry -- despite the fact that pervasive federal Constitutional case law has enunciated and upheld such rights. If you really think the Supreme Court is comprised of individuals who would never trample the rights of citizens, read a book titled "The Rehnquist Court: Judicial Activism on the Right," edited by Herman Schwartz, and you'll learn quite a bit about our good Justice Renqhuist, who has been presiding on the bench for the past 30 years (handing down some important constitutional decisions). Some of his endeavors not too long before he was appointed in 1972 included running "ballot security programs" for the Republican party, challenging the literacy of black citizens who actually came to the polls to vote, and, during his time as judicial clerk for Robert Jackson, advocating for the overturning of the Brown v. Board of Education decision (which held that legally-imposed segregation in public schools violated Equal Protection principles under the 14th amendment). He also believed very strongly that Plessy v. Ferguson (a case ruling that segregation was ok, since there should be political, but not social equality in this country) should be reaffirmed. These are the types of conservatives who were considered for appointment to the highest court in our country only a few years ago, and their Constitutional decisions over the years in the area of fundamental rights clearly reflects their archaic notions of what equal rights should really mean in our society. The Supreme court does (and has done) quite a bit to trample the rights of American citizens in this country, and has actually helped to effectuate that trampling in many instances. The Supreme Court bench is granted quite a bit of autonomy for various reasons, and they are subject only to a few Congressional, Executive, statutory, and federal common law restrictions. Otherwise, they have quite a bit of power to trample rights, and they do it quite often.

you shoudl be a good american and do your part ...(not you specifically)...everoyne shoudl do what they can inthese times to put people as ease..

There's a theoretical appeal to what you write, and then there are the practical effects. Unfortunately, we live in a society where local and municipal authorities do not always exercise their powers responsibly. Take a close look at the instances of discrimination and racial / religious profiling that have occurred since the expansion of the Patriot Act. There have been countless instances of reported discrimination at the hands of authorities, as well as constitutoinal challenges to state and local authorities by individuals who were profiled and stereotyped based on limited characteristics, such as race, religious affiliation, religious attire. These characteristics, by themselves, with nothing more, are simply not adequate factors by which to stop and search people under the overly-broad guise of National Security. Much of this has occurred (and is still occurring) because local authorities were simply granted the broad authority under the Patriot Act, but were not educated thoroughly on how one dimensional characteristics such as race are not reasonable factors by which to profile. When you grant authorities such broad powers, they also need to be educated on how to exercise those powers responsibly, and how not to use them as yet another means to discriminate against people based on stereotypical characterstics. The unfortunate effect of the Patriot Act expansion is that many individuals who are Arab, Arab American, Pakistani, Hindu, West-Indian, who look Middle-eastern, or who have middle-eastern sounding last names, are simply stopped, detained, and searched without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It's very easy to assert the semantical argument that "people should simply do the best for their country in times of National Security" when the effects of restrictive government policies don't fall so disproportionately on your culture or ethnicity. The fact of the matter is that, given the instances of discrimination and racial profiling that have arisen since the expansion of the Patriot Act, there will undboutedly be situations where the newly-instituted search policy will be effectuated in a discriminatory fashion. Why? Becuase that's simply the current sentiment among many in this country (not merely officers of the law) -- that these "towel-heads" are really the ones to be profiling. Such is the situation when you have municipalities and local bodies of authority who aren't willing to educate their officers. So, even though you have a policy that wasn't passed with the intention to discriminate, it winds up having a significantly negative discriminatory effect upon an identifiable racial or religious group because of the way it's implemented. Ultimately, regardless of how genuine the intentions may have been in pushing forth the search policy, its faulty implementation winds up being violative of state and federal constitutional law, including (but not limited to) equal protection principles under the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Also, the argument that we should "all do our part in times of National Security" is purely semantical. The same line of rationalization has been used, abused, and exploited time and time again throughout history to enact overly-broad policies that deny specific segments of the populatoin equal rights. For instance, it wasn't very long ago that the FBI and local police officers throughout the US were invading the privacy rights of any African American citizens who were thought to be involved with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, since such individuals were thought to be part of some vast communist threat. All you need to do is take a good look back to literature and articles from that period, and you will see how serious the threat of communism was in the minds of many. In fact, in the minds of many at the time, the threat of communism was just as imminent as the threat of terrorism currently is for us. As a result, the Supreme Court (which, of course, would never do anything to trample our rights) flatly denied and dismissed Constitutional cases brought forth by aggrieved African American citizens who had their privacy rights unjustly invaded. The popular American sentiment at that time was that "any African American who has nothing to hide, and who has nothing to fear, shouldn't have a problem forfeitting his / her rights for National Security." We now look back and realize how half-assed and shameful that line of rationalization was.

The same overly-broad guise of "National Security" was touted as the reason for forcing many Japanese and Japanese Americans into quasi-internment camps during World War II. The same popular American sentiment existed at the time -- that, "if Japanese Americans have nothing to hide, then they should have no problem forfeitting their rights." Again, a very easy proposition to assert when you're not the individual who feels the real effects of the profiling.

Granted, the forfeittal of rights that are incident to the newly-instituted search policies are nowhere nearly as drastic or sweeping as the forfeittals that occurred in the aforementioned instances, but the effects will still be disproportionately discriminatory against Arabs or anyone who satisfies the criteria of what many local authorities believe a stereotypical Arab to be. Why? Because the popular sentiment is that people who share those stereotypical traits are the perpetrators of terrorism, and even though the policy itself does not entail stereotyping and profiling Arabs, that will be the inevitable result. So, even though the searches are supposed to be random, and may infact seem random, they ultimately impact cetain minorities in a much more discriminatory fashion. The fact of the matter is that the newly-instituted search policy will likely give rise to discrimination, and such discrimination should not be written off as some inherent risk that is associated with random searches. Such stereotyping does nothing but increase the division and animus in an already intensifying society, because Islam and/or Islamic fundamentalism spans many cultures, races, creeds, etc., and can not be "rooted out" by profiling based on such stereotypical characteristics. Ultimately, such discrimination should be taken very seriously, and should be incorporated into the education that local authorities should be receiving before they are allowed to exercise such broad powers. Considering what has been occurring since the expansion of the Patriot Act, I wouldn't be surprised to read about a considerable number of discriminatory acts by authorities during these "random" searches. We'll see within a very short period of time how "random" these searches really are.

Furthermore, given the many inconsistencies and falsehoods that have arisen since Bush's decision to invade Iraq, many people in this country are naturally a little bit suspect about the many haphazard declarations of "National Security" that are spewed by Bush, his cabinet, his press secretary, his appointees, and conservative voices on the Supreme Court bench whenever the term works to support a restrictive federal policy. The term is perverted and used so flagrantly by the Bush administration that many people in the general public don't know what to believe anymore (and for good cause).

4th amendment was written a long time ago in a different world...not saying it is stupid and useless...god no.

Also, not to seem insulting, but this proposition strikes me as being very misplaced. First, you're right -- the 4th amendment was written quite some time ago. However, the 4th amendment, since its original promulgation, has been refined, expanded, and explicated through Constitutional jurisprudence (both at the State and Federal levels) to encompass many other areas of privacy that weren't foreseen by the framers of the Constitution. The amendment has evolved into one of the most important provisions in the Constitution, since it affords citizens a considerable degree of privacy in their persons, homes, and personal belongings. Granted, the rights afforded by the 4th amendment are not unqualified; they can in fact be restricted, but certainly not under an overly- broad, vague guise like "National Security," which can (and has been) spewed at many moments throughout history where it's convenient for both the executive branch and Congress to do so. There has been quite a bit of federal and state caselaw over the years that has broadened the scope of the 4th amendment, so the amendment is hardly some archaic legal doctrine of yesteryear. In fact, given the new expansions under the Patriot Act, and the gradual dissolution of fundamental rights, the amendment is probably more relevant and applicable today than it ever was.

[mattm2o]

Yeah thats my legal advisor Rudeboyyouth at his finest!

Go Rudy!

[veknyc]

rudeboyyouth, if i could give you more reputation, i would. it's a shame that people involved in a counter culture wouldn't question the world around them a little more.

[veknyc]

and on that note..... i believe that this discussion is over. cheers

[oldtimer]

rudeboyyouth, if i could give you more reputation, i would. it's a shame that people involved in a counter culture wouldn't question the world around them a little more.

i question the world around me... just because we disagree doesn't mean i don't make my own decisions..

i just happen to believe that if there is a terrorist looking to do some damage maybe subway searches will prevent an attack from happening... do i live in fear and never leave my house because i might get killed by a terrorist.. lol no of course not... but do i feel safer riding a subway with a greater police presence.. of course..

[djoner]

My man right here just schooled ya'll son. He is totally right imagine the day that they can just start searchin people at random!? No more days of relax calm walks through the parks. Just at random, cops cans search a womens panties ... and when thing escolate to that level, well then ... thats the day i sell out and join the force!

This is why the right for us to bear arms should not be restricted so much. The government has a huge army and they outnumber citizens with arms by a large multiplier. What will happen when we are nearing dictatorship and need to abolish the government in order to start a new one like the declaration of independance says we should?

[agentplaya1]

Profile people who fit the "profile" of these terrorists: young, male, (sorry but it's true) dark-skinned folk, whether black, pakistani, saudi, jamaican. It doesnt mean you stop every single person that looks like this, it just means be even more wary of those that fit this profile.

Lindh, mcveigh, unabomber, were not suicide bombers and had totally different motivations than these terrorists. These isolated incidents do not make the rule. And sure all they would have to do is get a white guy with blonde hair and blue eyes to be a suicide bomber and he might easily slip past a profile, but I dont think there are many white guys looking to blow themselves up in the name of allah. I doubt even Lindh wouldve had the guts to strap explosives to himself.

who would you profile?

the second group of london bombers were blacks.

the first group of london bombers were Pakistani

the 9/11 hijackers were mostly saudi arabian

richard reid...the shoe bomber was jamican

vincent padilla....who was plotting terror attacks was hispanic

john walker lindh, timothy mcveigh, the unambomber, and the atlanta olympics bomber were all white

[agentplaya1]

I see, so because there are searches in Israel yet suicide bombings continue, then we should just give up and do nothing, because whatever we do we will always be susceptible to bombers. Thats some good logic there chief. Terrorists rely on this kind of thinking to gain control over others. I'm glad the majority of people in this country arent as eager as you are to give up and surrender to these terrorists.

If subway searches deter or make it harder for these bombers to hit us, then hey I'll take it, since it's better than DOING NOTHING AT ALL, which seems to be your philosophy seeing as you don't offer any other alternatives to searches.

By the way you never did answer, what exactly are the "true intentions" behind the war on terror? Enlighten us since you seem to have some kind of inside info.

I could not have said moo or baahh better myself. as for israel -

"Washington, July 12, 2005 -- The United States is strongly condemning Tuesday's suicide bombing in Israel, which State Department officials say appeared aimed at torpedoing the planned Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. Officials also say U.S. and Israeli officials are discussing new U.S. financial support for the disengagement process.

Officials here are acknowledging Israel's right to self-defense following the Netanya attack. But they also say they hope Israel will consider the consequences of retaliatory action, if any, and that they are hopeful the Gaza pullout proceeds on schedule next month."

check http://www.militaryconnections.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=1582

so, so much for that excuse. as for differentiating beteen a plane and a train, and public or private, well that should be as easy as making a distinction between a republic and a plutocracy, hmmm.

[backupqueen]

Why is this thread still going on? The searches seems to be over now, or be on the phasing out mode ...