when nyc began instituting random searches at subway entrances this morning, the usual suspects began huffing and puffing. the aclu began screaming, "unconstitutional!" (wrong) and michelle malkin types began screaming "random!? but only brown people carry bombs! what a waste of time!" (the nypd isn't a group of hacks; they've been trained on counterterrorism tactics, okay? there is probably a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that the public doesn't even know about, so button up and quit spraying your racist tripe. listen, people, if you don't like the way we handle things in the united states, move to cuba. there is barely any crime there. as long as you don't piss off the government, people walk around safely there. really, go!)
Friday, July 22, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
and since i'm in a grouchy mood, i'd like to ask fred phelps and anyone like him to move to iran. they might like it there. see post above.
blargh. it smells in my room. when will this heat wave end?!
i personally find the idea of having to consent to a random search of my person or belongings simply to ride the subway repugnant.
there really isn't anything else we have available. we consent to x-ray machines and intrusive prodding when we go to airports, but frankly, i feel safer. and since i ride the subway IN NEW YORK CITY (whose subway system is notoriously insecure) every day, this puts me a little more at ease. if i were in any other city except washington, d.c. perhaps, i'd be more "annoyed" than "put at ease," however.
we always have to do a balancing test when we institute security measures. the left would like to check no one (silly). the right would like to check certain minorities only (this is what i find repugnant, and against our values). for once, i agree with bloomberg, and i think this is a decent compromise.
now, if they arrested you because you refused to consent to a search, THAT would be repugnant. and unconstitutional.
and i think the policy is more of a deterrent than anything. they are checking very few people. but anyone intending to set off explosives will be on notice that police are doing checks.
an x-ray machine or metal detector or bomb detector are acceptable. it is not acceptable to me to have to consent to random searches of my bags and person.
there is a tradeoff between security and freedom. i have a much higher risk of dying in a car accident than i do of dying in a terrorist attack. therefore, i don't find it acceptable to lose so much personal privacy over a miniscule risk of death when i don't lose nearly as much freedom under anti-DUI measures.
"the left would like to check no one (silly). the right would like to check certain minorities only (this is what i find repugnant, and against our values)."
you are over-simplifying the spectrum of positions as well as the consequences and benefits thereof. i didn't say 'check no-one'. i question how much 'checking' is going to be done and for what reasons? just as an anti-terrorism measure, or will it suddenly become convenient to use these searches to catch other criminals? i really hate slippery slope arguments, but i find them compelling where potential abuses of power are concerned.
i've avoided air travel because of the intrusive procedures i have to endure in order to board a plane. i don't want to start avoiding public transport for the same reason.
when i say "left" i really meant to say "far left," since malkin is um, pretty far right. balances things out.
anyway, how is an x-ray machine any different from the naked eye? actually, i can answer that question. x-ray machines see what the naked eye cannot see. we had a problem on whether law enforcement flying over someone's property with heat sensing night goggles - whether that was constitutional. it most likely is *not* (according to pmbr at least). however, law enforcement flying overhead but looking down with the naked eye IS constitutional.
there is a different application when there is consent... but anyway... i mean, i'd think twice before packing a sex toy and have it show up on x-ray vision for everyone else to look at, but if someone just looks inside, it can stay a secret.
sorry, i can't be less simplistic without writing a dissertation, and i'm sort of studying for the bar. sucks. :(
oh and one obvious thing i forgot to mention. most people in new york city rely on public transportation. i realize that risk of death or dismemberment is very slim from a terrorist attack, but if even one subway car were to be targeted underground, it would cripple the system if carried out near a hub and possibly leave hundreds of thousands stranded. i understand your concerns about privacy, but i live in a different city with a different infrastructure.
and the MTA is close to bankrupt. they hiked up prices again this year, and the deficit is still growing. they cannot afford to put in x-ray systems even if they wanted to. sometimes, we just have to work with what we have.
london has some of the best anti-terrorism infrastructure around. they have cameras in almost every public space. did it save those people from being killed in a terrorist attack? i don't think random searches are going to provide any additional security benefits. in return for a false peace of mind, we've opened the door to arbitrary searches of our belongings and our persons for all kinds of other reasons.
do you realize how conservative the supreme court is about to get? how little respect the kind of people bush will nominate have for personal privacy rights? you're willing to throw open that can of worms for practically NO security benefit. if you can still die in a terrorist attack in London when you can't visit popular public space without being photographed and videotaped by the cameras posted all over that city, random searches on the NYC subway ain't going to do shit all about protecting you from an attack.
heya... remember this is all just my personal opinion. nothing i say affects what the supreme court does (unfortunately). i'd like to wave my arms and send scalia into orbit, overturn the kelo decision by sending brain waves to washington, but that is but a fantasy.
i simply feel better with the police and bomb sniffing dogs hovering around subway entrances in new york - rather than nothing, that's all. at least they are doing *something*, and not being racist about it. and one person is searched every five minutes during rush hour. how much of a hassle can that be? thousands go through the gates every five minutes during rush hour. plus, the doggies are cute. wait, maybe that's a better solution! po-lice puppies that can smell explosives! non-intrusive and adorable. A+! :)
i live in nyc and i rely on public transportation as most people do.
i find random searches on the subway invasive and pointless. the searches will not make us safer, they will only make us later. it's a ridiculous diversion.
i'm surprised and a little disgusted that so many new yorkers are willing to give up personal freedom out of fear.
listen, people, if you don't like the way we handle things in the united states, move to cuba.
Are you really saying this, or is this a joke? Is it possible someone at WFD has joined the "love it or leave it" crowd?
Ugh. How disgusting. I will hold out hope that you are joking and I'm just dense.
the nypd isn't a group of hacks; they've been trained on counterterrorism tactics
You believe this, too????
How long have you lived in NYC? Or are you one day old?
Sorry about all these little comments, I'll disappear now. This is some weird shit.
WOW! you misunderstood me, totally. the "move to cuba" bit was aimed at malkin. see where i put the sentence; it's located in the parenthesis where i dis malkin. my point was that, in cuba, it is safe, but it comes at an expense. malkin wants the police to target every minority from muslims to mexicans. she wants utter and total unfettered control of the police. so i suggested that she move to cuba. the "love it or leave it" mentality is something i see with the extreme right wing. so i'm using right wing rhetoric against right wingers, see?
however, i stand by what i said earlier about the police bag searches. i still feel better that they are checking bags; i think it's simply a deterrence measure. and i don't think it is permanent. furthermore, what i posted is my personal opinion. i might have different opinions than other people on w4d on certain subjects, and that's because we don't share the same brain. i see you have strong opinions about this. let's just agree to disagree; i don't wish to engage in mudslinging.
i should probably come out and make it clear that i am not a lefty. not by any means. in every political test, i come out very much in the center. i am registered as an independent. a lot of my posts point out the hypocrisy of the right wing as well as the left wing, although i dislike the current incarnation of the republican party a hell of a lot more, so they get it worse.
really, i don't see what the fuss is all about.
sorry i misinterpreted the cuba comment. it still looks that way to me, so thank you for explaining.
i feel bad that you don't see what all the fuss is about. your freedom is being compromised for no reason, and you are willing and complicit.
i don't think this is a lefty issue. true conservatives and libertarians should oppose this, too.
anyway, i do apologize for over-reacting and getting snarky. i guess you unintentionally pushed a few of my buttons and i had time on my hands! take care.
it's a balancing test. these are different times. in times of war, there is a natural contraction of civil liberties. and yes, we are at war, so the "without reason" bit i would disagree with. it doesn't make me happy, but it's a fact of life. however, i guess we draw the line in different places when it comes to intolerable policies. but let me ask you a question. why does my opinion matter at all in the big picture? i didn't make the policy. i only said that, at this time, i think it is a good idea, because it appears that they city took a balanced approach. whether it is the *best* or even an *effective* policy is to be debated. we'll just have to wait and see.
however, if you find the policy to be draconian, i would suggest writing your councilman and the mayor.
Post a Comment