home

ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:16:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The ACLU will be filing suit today against random subway bag searches.

The lawsuit, to be filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, contends that the searches are "virtually certain neither to catch any person trying to carry explosives into the subway nor to deter such an effort." It also says that many riders have been selected in a "discriminatory and arbitrary" manner, creating the potential for racial profiling.

Also check out TalkLeft's 4th Amendment subway tote (click on larger version.) Somehow, it seems appropriate to hand a bag that reminds the officer of the wording of that great Amendment as he or she is searching through your personal items without a warrant or probable cause.

< Amnesty to Release New Report of U.S. Torture | Fitzgerald, Cooper, Sauber, Rove , Luskin and Ginsberg >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches | 52 comments (52 topical)
    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#1)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    Does anyone know if the the ACLU has a proposal for measures it feels would be acceptable? If so, what are they? It's easy to throw stones when you don't have the job of protecting the windows. I'm not a fan of this kind of random searching, but it sure beats being blown to hell on a subway. If the ACLU has a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    Thank you ACLU, some of us appreciate the effort in protecting our freedom. My "better idea" is for the MTA to stop replacing token clerks with metrocard machines. The machines don't have eyes and ears to report suspicious activity, token clerks do. I know metrocard machines don't require a living wage, but is this the time to pinch pennies? Bring back the clerks, put a couple cops on patrol in the station, stay out of my bag and my business. Various experts have come out to say random searches are a paper tiger, they don't make the trains any safer, but they make people "feel better", aka a false sense of security. I'll take freedom over a false sense of security anyday. The sooner we all realize that there is pretty much nothing we can do to prevent a madman from bombing someplace and learn to live with it as a cost of being free, the better off we will be. I refuse to give terrorists the satisfaction of my fear. Suck it up, live free, and go about your business.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    kdog.... Various experts have come out to say random searches are a paper tiger, they don't make the trains any safer, Agreed...100%! Searching grandma's bag because she is the 25th person through the line is completely bogus. However, seaching the ME looking male between 15 & 60 makes much more sense. Common sense!

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#4)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    Justpaul- The ACLU’s mission isn’t to protect security, but rather protect liberty. It is the chore of the authorities to find measures that ensure your security while leaving liberty intact. Unfortunately the task has highlighted a marked lack of ingenuity and imagination. The subway is a public resource and so it is most certainly a violation of folk’s fourth amendment rights to require a search (for that unlucky tenth person) to ride.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    BB-"Common sense!"

    Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

    Albert Einstein
    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#6)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    Pigwiggle, In other words, the ACLU agrees with Kdog that we should just admit defeat and wait to be blown up. Brilliant. As I said, throwing stones is easy. If the ACLU is so concerned about liberty, it should spend some of its resources suggesting better ways to protect all of them, and life, rather than cherry picking fights with those who are trying to do both. Maybe you agree with Kdog that your allegedly god-given right to ride the subway is more important than your life itself. If so, please be sure your will states that you wish to have "Died so that others may feel free to bomb again" on your tombstone. There has got to be a better answer than endless lawsuits and stupid random searches, but you won't be getting it from the ACLU. They have picked their mission.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    I strongly disagree jpaul. To me, random searches of free citizens is defeat in and of itself. You don't honestly believe random bag searches will prevent a bombing, do you? A) The madman can strap it to his chest. B) The madman can blow the bomb as he's being searched. C) The madman can go to the mall instead. All random searches does is erode our liberty with no visible benefit. No thanks. BB...As I stated on another thread...I'm a 2osomething male w/ Mid Eastern features thanks to my saint of a Lebanese grandmother, is my freedom worth less? There are numerous other countries I could live in that allows agents of the state to paw through my belongings with no cause. I was taught to believe my country was different. I feel lied to.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#8)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    kdog - The problem is, we can't tell the terrorists from the "free citizens." It is a tough issue, but a couple of bombings will make it more so. Will random searches work? They would help, given that the terrorists want to get to a certain place/situation before they decide to take up residence in hell, by making it more difficult. Profiling would help even more by focusing on the appearance of the group that is causing the problem, as well as other things. Would it be perfect? No, but it would be a lot better than NOT checking them because it is deemed politically incorrect. You might check El Al's record on hi-jackings.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#9)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    Justpaul-
    “In other words, the ACLU agrees with Kdog that we should just admit defeat and wait to be blown up. Brilliant.”
    Wrong, I believe the ACLU’s position is that the authorities are simply making their job easy by crippling liberty; it’s certainly my position. There is a way, likely many, to make a subway ride safe without infringing on the liberty of the riders. It isn’t the chore of the ACLU to think these up for the authorities, nor mine. Folks are getting paid good money to think up ways to protect us without crippling basic rights. If they can’t then they should be replaced.
    “As I said, throwing stones is easy”
    As you are demonstrating; however it isn’t a sound argument for giving the authorities a pass on doing their job.
    “Maybe you agree with Kdog that your allegedly god-given right to ride the subway is more important than your life itself.”
    The subway is funded by money taken from folks willing or not; the first trespass by the state. Not allowing folks the benefit of the coerced funds unless they relinquish a basic right reflected by the fourth amendment; the second trespass.
    “If so, please be sure your will states that you wish to have "Died so that others may feel free to bomb again" on your tombstone.”
    AQ and other ideologically aligned groups have said and shown that they intend to use the freedoms of the western world as avenues of attack. So then, we have a couple of choices; remove the freedoms they use or come up with intelligent and creative ways to retain these freedoms and simultaneously thwart their plans. As I said, if the folks we are paying to protect us can’t do the job they should be replaced by some smarter folks. My job is incredibly difficult and intellectually challenging. I’m in the process of having the folks who fund my project (DoD, DOE, and the Army) reviewing my results. If I were to tell them their goals were too difficult so I simplified the project I would be fired immediately and replaced by someone smarter. You should be glad to hear this; it’s your money.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    but it would be a lot better than NOT checking them because it is deemed politically incorrect
    Not because it is "poitically incorrect", because it violates the 4th amendment. I would argue random searches are in fact politically correct, judging by the vast support they receive from the cowardly public. Politically correct, but constitutionally and morally wrong. My wish is for my tombstone to state that the 4th amendment was still in effect at my passing. That would be enough for me.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    Cheetah... Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein Very good... but I like my definition better. "Common sense" = something the liberal left has no concept of! Kdog... You don't honestly believe random bag searches will prevent a bombing, do you? No...I sure don't. As I said search those that are causing the trouble. No...your freedon isn't worth less, however at this point in time you happen to be among the group that is being singled out. It's a shame that this has happened...but it has and until things improve some citizens are going to be put out. Pigwiggle.... remove the freedoms they use or come up with intelligent and creative ways to retain these freedoms and simultaneously thwart their plans I'm still ticked about metal detectors at airports. I can remember a time when those didn't exist. Yes we all pissed & moaned for awhile and now we just deal with it. I firmly believe if we had delt with the terrorist groups back in the 60's & 70's we might not be dealing with them now.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    BB
    something the liberal left has no concept of!
    If that's the case, it's only because we gave up those collections of adolescent prejudices long, long ago.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    I say, random search away. Until a better method is found, I support random searches as a way of preventing subway attacks. Our "liberty" will be of no use to us if we're dead...

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    "I’m in the process of having the folks who fund my project (DoD, DOE, and the Army) reviewing my results. [snip] You should be glad to hear this; it’s your money." pw, despite the fact that I agree with a lot of what you say, I'd be a lot gladder if you'd start working and stop blogging on my dime.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#15)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    There's no need for random searches, and IMO it is a shortcut for laziness. In today's world and with current laws, cops can make valid stops (Detentions & consensual contacts) in the subways or anywhere else for that matter, for any number of legitimate reasons. All that is needed is a mindful public that is willing to report suspicious behavior and smart, well-trained police officers who know the difference between racial profiling and including a person's race in a potential profile. Common sense frequently has nothing to do with what is lawful at any given moment. P.S. I hate to agree with Kdog on anything ;-) and I'm sure he's not so keen on it when I do.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#16)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    “Our "liberty" will be of no use to us if we're dead...”
    I guess I’m more of a ‘give me liberty or give me death’ kind of guy. As long as people are lining up could the ‘life before liberty’ folks be kind enough to tape one of these to their backside.
    I'd be a lot gladder if you'd start working and stop blogging on my dime.
    Don’t worry boss, I get paid for the product and not the time.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    Fair enough pw. My brother works for Picatinny Arsenal and I find his name all over the 'net...

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    This is about Mayor Bloomberg's re election campaign, $15 mil of police overtime to date, and scaring the populace into willingly giving up their civil rights . These searches do not make people feel safer. Osama said that part of his terror campaign was to turn USA and others into fascist states so that the citizens could suffer. Looks like it is working. Oddly enough, because of the PBA lobby NY lost most of its senior police force after 9/11. This hurt NYC because we lost the experienced cops to early retirement. Police retirement pension is is based on the income, not salary, gained in the year before retirement. During 9/11 NYC police did record overtime and now have record pensions. Having lived through that charade, it seemed more about overtime and show, than any thing that made us safer. Yes the police did stop the tourists from getting too close to ground zero, which allowed the workers to do their job unimpeeded by the gawking hoards, but the rest...pretty silly.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    Patrick...I'll take my support where I can get it brother, me and pw seem vastly outnumbered on the issue. Glad to hear a bunch of murderous thugs haven't shook your faith in the Bill of Rights. Give me liberty or give me death...amen pw. It is so much more to me than an empty patriotic slogan. It's time to put up or shut up America. I hate to sound like Gdub, but here it goes...You either believe in freedom and it's inherent risk or you don't...you're either with freedom or against it. I see no middle ground here, no "sugar free freedom".

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    You have at least one more supporter here, kdog. Live free or die. One of the finest mottos you could choose to live by.

    I'll take my chances with freedom over fear any day. The day we give that up is the day the true enemy has beaten us.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#21)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    Freedom is hard. It requires courage. It is courageous to say "I will not give up my freedom just because some terrorist wants to intimidate me." It is cowardly and un-American to say "Everybody else should give up their freedom so I can feel safer." Particularly when there is absolutely zero evidence that the curb on freedom would actually deter a single terrorist. So you do random searches on people in the subway. Fine. If they're carrying a bomb that day, they just leave and go to another entrance. Or they find another group of people to blow up (as an earlier poster suggested). In fact, they're probably done with subways for now. (I flew on the first day after 9/11 that flights were allowed -- partly because I'm not giving up my freedom and partly because I figured that if there were more terrorist attacks, they'd probably try something different.)

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#22)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Those who relinquish their freedom for safety receive, and deserve, neither. =Or something like that, said by some guy smarter than me. Seems like a coalition of the rational going on here, I'm with you Kdog!

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    kdog-Right back at ya, brother!

    Keep fighting the good fight!

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#25)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    When the snipers were still wandering about where I live and work there was fear. There were also a lot of people out and about in their cars and mall and stores, and generaly living. Only the outsides of schools were eerily empty. Freedom means showing the **wirtydird** the middle finger by carrying on with life. If you're too scared to ride the subway unless the entire city of New York voids the 4th ammendement stay away from the subway. When rights are taken away for a few (like... say.. middle eastern looking folks) they cease to be rights and become priveledges for everyone else. My mother flew to DC to visit me the 3 weeks after 9/11. Her courage was my example a year later. LIVE FREE OR DIE. Even if I die for it. PS Jennifer's rule of common sense: "It ain't."

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Buy a bill of rights tote! I would also like one that gives the words posted TL's "How to deal when the police do not take no for an answer" I tend to lose it, which is clearly ineffective.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    It is this brave, principled spirit that has made this country great, and kept this country free for so long. Let's not defeat ourselves.
    If you're too scared to ride the subway unless the entire city of New York voids the 4th ammendement stay away from the subway
    Excellent point Jen, let's not void the 4th amendment for a bunch of fraidy cats. If you are so scared, bolt your doors, get out the duct tape and let others live free.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    I don't like the idea of these searches and don't think they're very effective, but I just don't believe they violate the 4th amendment. Riding the subway isn't a constitutional right, it's a voluntary (though necessary for many)act, like going to a concert, entering a store, or riding a plane. You're open to searches at all these places. Hell, they x-ray your bags at the airport, and many people use planes as often as others use the subway. The fact they're supported by our taxes doesn't sway me either. So are schools, but you don't have a 'right' to walk into one. As somebody above said, they'll have to come up with creative solutions. They won't be simple, and they won't be pretty. Here's a lousy one that wouldn't be implemented, but would be fairly effective: no bags allowed. Huge pain in the butt, but you'd be hard-pressed to say your rights are being violated. And maybe then my wife would stop bringing home so much crap.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#29)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Scott, Leaving your house is a voluntary act. Are you saying it's OK to search anyone anywhere? And don't forget, just because the Constitution doesn't have the word "subway" in it, doesn't mean you're not protected there. There are inalienable rights, such as life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. There is also right to be be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects (sound familiar). And no, the founding fathers didn't know the term for backpack, but they understood the concept, which is why they said persons, papers, and effects. And there are a couple of other amendments (I think they come after the 8th Amendment), which have some relevance.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Are you saying it's OK to search anyone anywhere?
    Great idea! I sure will "feel safer". Sarcasm aside, random searches anywhere anytime is what we will end up with unless the people put their foot down on this issue.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Pete, by that reasoning all the examples of searches I listed above are also unconstitutional. That 'leaving your house' line is just silly.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Unfortunately, I believe Scott is correct on this one. Even the ACLU is not predicting win. What they can not do is profile or search after one refuses. They will arrest you if you refuse to be searched and enter the subway anyway. This issue is not about terror it is about politics Bloomberg wants to win next election; he lost my vote long ago.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Scott...a concert or a store is private property. The owner could refuse you entry for any reason. Planes are also private property. The subway system is not.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    "The owner could refuse you entry for any reason." No they can't. "Planes are also private property. The subway system is not." See my comment about schools.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#35)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Scott, The "leaving your house" line was to demonstrate that your standard of "voluntary" made absolutely no sense. Study up a little on 4th Amendment law and standards (there's still a little bit left of that amendment). And, as kdog said, learn the difference between private and public. The only way they're sneaking the searches through right now is by sliding around the 4th amendment by claiming that the searches are voluntary (not that riding the subway is voluntary). If they said that anyone entering the subway can be randomly required to searched, that would be a clear violation of 4th Amendment, despite the fact that riding the subway is voluntary. They're trying to get around it by saying that if you're asked to be searched, you can turn it down and leave the subway without being searched and without any repercussions. So the only way they're doing searches is by claiming that people are volunteering to be searched (not voluntarily riding the subway).

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Ya got me. I stand corrected.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#37)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Scott, Additionally, courts have ruled that schools are a different situation. You still cannot be searched without "reasonable suspicion" (a slightly looser requirement than the "probable cause" used elsewhere).

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#38)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Pete, by that reasoning all the examples of searches I listed above are also unconstitutional.
    That is an absolutely correct statement. All searches other than those conducted with a search warrant are prime facia illegal. That's why the burden of proof rests with the prosecutor in establishing their legality.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#39)
    by jackl2400 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    You know, guys, we wouldn't even be having the discussion today if the pigs and enemies of freedom had only sought the emergency post-9/11 powers in a legitimate way to defeat "terror", rather than having had the agenda that the new police-state like powers would be a dandy way to enforce other laws, like drug and financial reporting laws. It has been stated policy that it's a good thing that this "mission creep" of patriot act crap to drug crimes in particular is wunderbar. I've had this privately confirmed by two social aquaintences who work for the fed homeland security...that, well, if you can't get a "terra" bust, well, drugs is almost as good to the retrograde Walters/Ashcroft/Bush Department of Injustice. Take the drug tunnel in Vancouver or the Marc Emery bust..."terra" has morphed into kind buds from British Colombia who have killed no one. The horror...and all the surveillance on that tunnel was done with FISA warrants, because the tunnel could have been used for smuggling, well, terrorists (instead of the marijuana it was being actually used for). But take the most relevant poster child for this whole debate: Dionne Warwick. She's the reason I wanted to talk about the general idea of trust to take public transportation or submit to body or bag searches to leave your house, basically. If the legitimate purpose of security screenings or searches is to protect public safety from bombs or weapons, and the public willingly sumbits to such searches in derogation of what the Founding Fathers obviously intended, it's because they have accepted a mutual limitation on their former freedoms out of the neccessity of safety in preserving life from a deadly threat. So what, then, was the freekin' justification for some pigs to be rooting around in Dionne Warwick's purse...her lipstick case, to be precise. Is it because her lipstick case could have been part of a bomb? A gun? I don't THINK so! So, when the pigs found a few pathetic joints, INSIDE Warwick's lipstick case, in this unneccessary intrusive security search, THEN what EINSTEIN decided the appropriate thing to do is to not just quietly confiscate the "contraband" without further incident, rather than to call the cops, precipitate an arrest, generate a newspaper story that may cost someone their jobs, etc. etc., and to not only do that to Ms. Warwick as an isolated instance, but because some GENIUS who shall remain nameless because he or she is some nameless apparatchik in some law enforcement security organ who decreed that all crime was fair game for the new terror-enhanced police powers of the state. And the fact that the airport or subway (or getting into a concert) for since 9/11 was another big feed to the drug war "gotcha" maw of enforcement, or terrorizing the more easily cowed to hew to only government-approved vices has eroded the social compact and trust needed to allow people to submit to searches. There you have it in a nutshell. When the pigs back off at a high high policy level from the monster they created of repurposing police state terror powers, then the ACLU will back off. And I for one am cheering them on. If you need to search subway passengers with a fine tooth comb for something as bulky as 20# of explosives, and laying off the Operation Condor type crap where minor "criminality" is pursued with Taliban-like fury, especially in poor neighborhoods, don't expect people to cooperate with the man. My 0.03,

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    jakki- you are right, it is not justpolitics as I said before, it is also giving them license to get as as much on everyone as they can. Law enforcement is like an organism that will epand ans expand infinately until it is checked. That is their job; they need to be checked and told enough, by our lawmakers, or we will vote those lawmakers out.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#41)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    Jackl, Now THAT was a comment.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    jackl, great post and example. I worked with Ms Warwick several years ago when she came into my studio to rehearse for a Vegas show. She is a lady and a class act. Si nce you aren't supposed to be able to look for an elephant in a cigar box, what right does the gov't have to require warrantess searches that are more extreme. The ports aren't any safer, weapons and nucuuuler facilities aren't any safer, what is served by expending resources on harassing citizens?

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    jackl...more eloquent than I, well said. You nailed the main reason everyone should be against these searches, because they have nothing to do with terrorism.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#44)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    The war on terror was about drugs from the beginning. The original Patriot Act was all about drugs (and had nothing to do with patriotism). Now, the feds say that pot is a bigger problem than meth, what a joke!

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    Jackl..../ Kdog... You nailed the main reason everyone should be against these searches, I agree 100%. Things like this should not be happening! That's why 'profiling' is what we should be doing. Middle aged black women aren't a threat right now. Leave them alone. Middle Eastern men are the problem...! This isn't rocket science.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    All these "Wars on ----" creates jobs and is good for the economy...but which economy?

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    Middle Eastern men are the problem
    I thought terrorists were the problem. Scratch that, my biggest problem is cowards cheering the erosion of civil liberties for a false sense of security. For all of our sakes, I hope we don't end up with the country these cowards deserve.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    Kdog..... I thought terrorists were the problem. Yes indeed...and these just happen to ALL be of MiddleEastern dissent. So we can run around and check every 10th person and pretend it's doing something...or we can actually target those individuals that are causing all the problems... like I said... it isn't rocket science. As far as "erosion of civil liberties" is concerned, that doesn't need to happen to everybody like it does now when they pull grandma out of line because she is #10. Will Middle Eastern males get ticked off? Maybe... but their gripe is with their bretheren and not the US government. C'mon Kdog..you know this wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for the current situation. No matter how much you hate the government, you know they wouldn't be seaching anybody just for the hell of it. Sorry, but for the good of the majority... the minority will have to be 'put out' for awhile. Common sense...yes?

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    The individuals who will be targeted are people like peaceful ol' me, BB. NY born and raised, of Middle Eastern descent, mid 20's , male. My freedom and privacy is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I don't undertand why I should relenquish these rights for no visible benefit.
    No matter how much you hate the government, you know they wouldn't be seaching anybody just for the hell of it.
    Sure they would BB. How else they gonna find drugs? The founding fathers knew better, that's why the 4th amendment exists. Govt.'s throughout history have always looked for ways to search, seize, and detain. Ours is no different, except for the fact we have protections in place for the individual. Y'know, the protections many have fought and died for, the ones everybody seems to want to throw away over an irrational fear of a bunch of murderous allah-freaks. You, the majority, may think random searches (or racial profiling) are not such a big deal, but in America the individual is protected from the tyranny of the majority. This "middle eastern looking guy" sure does have a beef with my breathren....my fellow American citizens. for wanting to single me out for govt. intrusion into my life. There is no "middle east looking" exemption to the bill of rights.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#50)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    “No matter how much you hate the government, you know they wouldn't be seaching anybody just for the hell of it.”
    Um, he11 yah they would. The authorities are just folks like you, me, and the millions of other Americans; good and evil. Maybe that guy just wants to stop your attractive wife and rummage her freshly purchased lingerie while he tries to make time. Maybe that TSA agent just wants to stop your attractive wife for a grope. Maybe they just don’t like the way you look and want to give you the business; steal a bit of your time. When I was 16 I was written a ticket for speeding when I wasn’t. After all was said and done it was clear to me the cop just didn’t like the look of me. I’m not alone in my skepticism; the existence of the fourth is proof.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#51)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    I recently missed the wedding of a friend/ex co-worker of mine. His wife is hispanic, he's New York Jewish. Their reception was at a nice golf resort in Baha. As I am told, another friend, who is an Iranian male about 45, and a physician, also attended, but forgot his passport. When he got to the border to return to the US, they questioned him for three hours. The real kicker was, another physician (caucasian male about 65) was in the car behind, and when he pulled up he told the INS/Fatherland security that he could vouch for his friend in the car ahead, they kept HIM for two hours.

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#52)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    For those who support the searching: What does the 4th Amendment actually mean, if not "no random searches on public property"?

    Re: ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    There is a balance between protecting the public and the privacy rule. They have already ruled for traffic stops, and, I believe even the ACLU, does not expect to win this one. The searches are absurd, it is only good for Bloomberg the Mayor and the war on Drugs. If theswe 'Wars' were won can you imagin how many poeple would be out of work. Huge dent in the ecomony. All those guys would be competing for jobs with the guys they would have been arresting.thank god for war.

    ACLU to Challenge Random Subway Searches | 52 comments (52 topical)