Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Views On Random Subway Search  
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1350 times:

with NYC and SFO now conducting random subway searches..what are your views?

Personally, I don't mind, as long as they are truly random...as opposed to targeting Middle-Eastern/Asian (Pakistani/Indian,etc) looking men/women (which I would obviously pass as since I am a Pakistani of middle-eastern decscent).

I see many people seeing this as an intrusion into our privacy in the name of "security".

I don't see this to be to effective either.....and it only brings a false sense of security..

the sad thing is that I see the Lynne Cheney's and Sean Hannity's of the world saying that they wouldn't mind being randomly being searched..yah..right..as if that's going to happen.. sarcastic 


"Up the Irons!"
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1344 times:

Here's my views on it and the losers who are crying like babies about it...

It's smart. Plain and simple. You get searched boarding a plane, there should be random (read: for the love of God, please profile) searches boarding mass transit. As for the losers in NYC crying about being randomly searched, you know that if those assclowns were even injured in a suicide bombing, they'd be the ones crying with blood all over their $300 jeans, "How could this happen? How could they do this to me? Why!?! Why weren't searches in place?!"



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineBaylorAirBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 49
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1330 times:

I do agree that it is an invasion. I'm not a lawyer, but don't cops have to have probable cause to search someone? By definition then, if someone is truly picked at random they have no probable cause with that individual.

I don't consider it effective either. A person can easily conduct himself in a manner which would allow him to avoid a search. I do it all the time. On the other hand, you can argue that a random search prevents those types from getting through. But is it random? See point above.

BaylorAirBear



I'm just skipping stones...
User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1321 times:

Yea, hell with the Fourth Amendment and the rest of the Constitution, we weren’t using it anyway.

The ACLU has been busy denouncing the practice this morning.

  

[Edited 2005-07-22 19:53:44]

User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1319 times:

If you are critical of the idea, please post YOUR solution.

(Sorry if that shortens the thread.)



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1315 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):
Personally, I don't mind, as long as they are truly random...as opposed to targeting Middle-Eastern/Asian (Pakistani/Indian,etc) looking men/women (which I would obviously pass as since I am a Pakistani of middle-eastern decscent).

Well, what is interesting about the first crop of bombs, and especially the new attempts is that the perpetrators aren't all of Pakistani descent, but also include those of Afro-Jamaican descent. While most British Muslims are of Pakistani descent, London is pretty much the melting pot for the world, and VERY popular with tourists from all over the Middle East. Also a lot of people of mixed Pakistani/anglo and mixed MidEastern/Anglo parentage pass as Anglo (I for one have cousins who are part Indian and Scottish and are as blond and blue eyed as they come), so there is a limit to which racial or ethnic profiling can be effective.


User currently offlineJamie757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1308 times:

If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Rgds.


User currently offlineBaylorAirBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 49
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1308 times:

Jaysit, are my assumptions correct regarding the basic legal side of this argument?

Thanks,
BaylorAirBear



I'm just skipping stones...
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1298 times:

Quoting Jamie757 (Reply 7):
If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Oh God, not this one again.  Yeah sure

OK, we'll go through the process again:

Let's DNA the entire population. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Let's put transponders in every car linked to a satellite. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Let's make every citizen tell the police when they check into a hotel. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Let's make ID cards available on demand to the police. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Let's make all Muslim's wear a white crescent. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Let's put CCTV in every home. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Let's put implants into every person to indicate their location. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Let's make the police free to phone-tap every person whenever they want. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Let's remove the rights of the suspect. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Let's do away with trials completely. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Let's throw suspects in gaol without trial indefinitely. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Let's execute people suspected of being terrorists. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Your argument justifies every single one of these. It's one of the most fatuous arguments there is.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineAir2gxs From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1296 times:

First of all, what the hell is wrong with profiling? It is young Mid-Eastern men that are blowing themselves up. It is not little Hispanic grandmothers, teenagers going to school, black men going to work or people just riding the subway for the heck of it. Are these latter groups capable of such atrocities? Of course they are, but face it, the bulk of terrorists come from the Middle East.

As to the invasion of privacy issue. We search people getting on aircraft and screen those getting on ships. What's the difference here? You are paying a fare and when drop your token in the turnstile, you agree to abide by the rules. In return for your money, and your following the rules, the system agrees to do their best to get you where you are going safely and in a timely manner. That contract may not be written down, but it is implied.

Part of getting you there safely now consists of random bag searches, so what? If that's what it takes to prevent (or at least make it more difficult) for these animals to get explosives into population areas, I'm all for it.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1290 times:

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 6):

Well, what is interesting about the first crop of bombs, and especially the new attempts is that the perpetrators aren't all of Pakistani descent, but also include those of Afro-Jamaican descent. While most British Muslims are of Pakistani descent, London is pretty much the melting pot for the world, and VERY popular with tourists from all over the Middle East. Also a lot of people of mixed Pakistani/anglo and mixed MidEastern/Anglo parentage pass as Anglo (I for one have cousins who are part Indian and Scottish and are as blond and blue eyed as they come), so there is a limit to which racial or ethnic profiling can be effective.

Jaysit, you are correct, and the Brits have been dealing with this for a long time (aka IRA, etc.)

I don't see the Brits as doing this kind of profiling, as the Brits don't believe in blatantly violating people's rights like the paranoid govt. here does...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineJamie757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1283 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 9):
Your argument justifies every single one of these. It's one of the most fatuous arguments there is.

'Fatuous' it may be, but it certainly doesn't justify all of the arguments you suggest.

In my original post, I was merely trying to express the fact that I wouldn't have any problem with being stopped by the Police or any authority for that matter. The reason for this of course, is because I have nothing to hide.

 cheerful 

Rgds.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40069 posts, RR: 74
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1275 times:

I live here in San Francisco and I ride the subways mentioned.

Do you really think I feel safe with a 50something year old, pot-bellied guy with a loaded flashlight to stop the terrorist?


All of this paranoia can come to an end if our government make a few simple changes with it's Middle East policies.
Our government and it's lapdog (Blair) in the U.K. rather it's people live in fear and risk of terrorist threats instead of turning down money from a few powerful special interest.
I'll just leave it at that.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1275 times:

Quoting Air2gxs (Reply 10):
first of all, what the hell is wrong with profiling? It is young Mid-Eastern men that are blowing themselves up. It is not little Hispanic grandmothers, teenagers going to school, black men going to work or people just riding the subway for the heck of it. Are these latter groups capable of such atrocities? Of course they are, but face it, the bulk of terrorists come from the Middle East.

right...and who are one of the fastest growing race of people going to United States jails??

LATINOS...lets profile all latinos now since "hey, they are one of the largest sources of violence, gangs, drugs in the United States"..certainly young Mid-eastern men aren't pushing drugs and committing gang violence...

what race has the largest amounts of people in jail? African Americans...hey..there is a large % of blacks who have been through the United States jail system for violent crimes..so by extention, if there are a group of black individuals, there is a CERTAIN statistical probability that one of them will commit a violent crime...so lets arrest them all..... yes 

lock 'em up and throw away the keys is what I say  sarcastic 

by the way, every year..more people die by the hands of violence perpetrated by latinos and blacks than the people who died on 9/11....so why don't we target them too???

see the absurdity in your comments??



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1272 times:

Quoting Jamie757 (Reply 12):
'Fatuous' it may be, but it certainly doesn't justify all of the arguments you suggest.

In my original post, I was merely trying to express the fact that I wouldn't have any problem with being stopped by the Police or any authority for that matter. The reason for this of course, is because I have nothing to hide.

Oh yes it does. The point is not whether stopping people is justified or not, it is that the "nothing to fear" argument is never a justification for giving up a civil right, which is what this is. Now, there are perfectly valid arguments as to why this might be a good idea, but the point is, "Nothing to hide" isn't one of them. In any society you have to balance civil rights and the needs of crime prevention and security, and that is perfectly right and proper. But your justification can be used for almost anything. That's why I was attacking it, not the question of stop and search itself.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1270 times:

Quoting BaylorAirBear (Reply 8):
Jaysit, are my assumptions correct regarding the basic legal side of this argument?

Courts have ruled that random searches in the United States as part of a security exercise are perfectly legal and trump the "search and seizure" requirements of the 4th Amendment.

The Supreme Court has stated that you have given "implied consent" to being searched" while being in an airport and trying to board a plane. This is potentially applicable to mass transit too.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 63
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1260 times:

A few years ago the Israelis arrested a young man acting suspiciously. It was discovered that this man was a member of a Muslim terrorist group and checking out an area where he wanted to blow himself up.
This man was a German converted to Islam (I don't know why fresh converts always have to join the most radical branches of a religion, my ex did the same when she converted from moderate Islam to biblethumping southern Baptist Christianity), and he was tall, blond and blue eyed. He spent time in Taliban Afghanistan.

Jan


User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1248 times:

We should also have random searches of fat people in the DC Metro system where eating food is not allowed.

Random searches? Shouldn't they just be arrested on spot?  Smile


User currently offlineJamie757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1243 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 15):
Oh yes it does.

You can step down off your high-horse if you like.

Quoting Banco (Reply 15):
The point is not whether stopping people is justified or not, it is that the "nothing to fear" argument is never a justification for giving up a civil right, which is what this is. Now, there are perfectly valid arguments as to why this might be a good idea, but the point is, "Nothing to hide" isn't one of them. In any society you have to balance civil rights and the needs of crime prevention and security, and that is perfectly right and proper. But your justification can be used for almost anything. That's why I was attacking it, not the question of stop and search itself.

What's your suggestion then?

Rgds.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40069 posts, RR: 74
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1236 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 17):
my ex did the same when she converted from moderate Islam to biblethumping southern Baptist Christianity),

Think it's a scary trend. The Evangilical born again Christians, Mormons and Muslims are growing at the expense of the Catholic Church as well as other tame and less restrictive religions.
I can't stand religious extremist!



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAir2gxs From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1216 times:

Jacobin777,

I see your concern, but I will take my comment one step further and really incur the wrath of the liberals and true conservatives.

I understand the difference between criminal acts (where police action is required) and national security concerns (where the military should lead). The random search of bags on subways, I believe, should be carried out by the military. The police are neither trained nor equipped to deal with these maniacs.

You talk about blacks and Latinos. If the statistics you express are correct, it is a police/civil matter and the 4th amendment should and does apply. A terrorist carrying a bomb into a subway (or onto an airplane, train, into a population center, etc.) should be considered military matter and dealt with accordingly.

Now, is this going to happen? No. So, we have to find a middle ground. I think that profiling with the intent to find explosives is fine. We'll need to let the courts sort out what happens if we find some other illegal substance.


User currently offlineFlyingNanook From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 830 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1202 times:

What I don't understand is what random searches for homicide bombers (I agree with ANCFlyer on that term) accomplishes. I was thinking about this earlier. A homicide bomber is going to kill himself anyway, so if the police stop one, couldn't and wouldn't he just detonate the bomb when he sees that the police are going to stop him? His mission will still be accomplished. He'll still kill himself, some police men, and innocent bystanders.

Maybe I'm way off on this, but it seems to make sense to me.



Semper ubi sub ubi.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8766 posts, RR: 42
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1195 times:

Oh goodness, I agree with something Banco said... wow.

Quoting Jamie757 (Reply 12):
it certainly doesn't justify all of the arguments you suggest.

It does, if you stick to the principle. That is the scary part.

Quoting Jamie757 (Reply 12):
The reason for this of course, is because I have nothing to hide.

What do you know... we all have our little somethings we want to keep private, if else we'd all be happy sharing our lives with the public. Why don't you go ahead and invite the police to inspect your house if you've got nothing to hide?

The point is: It's not about people hiding or not hiding anything, it's about our right to privacy. At least in Germany, that's constitutional. Measures like random searches must be considered exceptions, not rules, if we want to remain free.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineAir2gxs From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1172 times:

Quoting FlyingNanook (Reply 22):
What I don't understand is what random searches for homicide bombers (I agree with ANCFlyer on that term) accomplishes. I was thinking about this earlier. A homicide bomber is going to kill himself anyway, so if the police stop one, couldn't and wouldn't he just detonate the bomb when he sees that the police are going to stop him? His mission will still be accomplished. He'll still kill himself, some police men, and innocent bystanders.

So your answer is to just let him do it? Yes, he has to ability to kill a few people, but his mission is to kill as many as possible. Ever been in a subway in NY say around 7am in the Times Square area? If some are going to be killed, I'd rather see a few people, than a few dozen people. Kind of utilitarian, but that is what war is.

On the term homicide bomber. What other kind of bomber is there? If the intent is to kill, then the bomber is a homicide bomber. If the intent is to kill himself while killing others then the animal is a suicide bomber.


User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12281 posts, RR: 35
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1164 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Superfly (Reply 13):

Do you really think I feel safe with a 50something year old, pot-bellied guy with a loaded flashlight to stop the terrorist?

The BART police I've seen are all certified peace officers fully equipped with guns. Now would I wanna work as one? Hell no...give me a Vic anyday



“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
25 BA : I support it as long as people are not singled out because of their race and given extra searches...
26 FlyingNanook : I don't know what my answer is. I was just thinking about this and it seems futile to me to try to stop the bombers this way. I don't know of any bet
27 Post contains images LY7E7 : Well, Israelis will definitely feel more at home in NYC subway now
28 PROSA : "Homicide bomber" is too imprecise a term because substantially ALL bombers are homicide bombers. "Suicide bomber" is much more descriptive, because
29 Photopilot : Well you've really only got two choices. Allow them to search your bag at random when you get on a Subway. or Have them search your bag for ID in orde
30 Halls120 : Jacobin 777: "I don't see the Brits as doing this kind of profiling, as the Brits don't believe in blatantly violating people's rights like the parano
31 Halls120 : Superfly: "All of this paranoia can come to an end if our government make a few simple changes with it's Middle East policies." Halls: that is exactly
32 Halls120 : Air2gxs: "I understand the difference between criminal acts (where police action is required) and national security concerns (where the military shoul
33 Air2gxs : Your absolutely correct, so if you read 2 paragraphs down, I propose an answer. Is it perfect? No. But what in life is perfect?
34 Halls120 : Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33): Halls: Fortunately, the Posse Comitatus Act prevents your proposed solution. Air2gxs: "Your absolutely correct, so if you
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A Legal Immigrants Views On Illegal Immigration... posted Fri Apr 7 2006 14:49:35 by Alberchico
Views On Disneyland At Hong Kong. posted Tue Oct 18 2005 17:16:50 by HAWK21M
Terror Threat On NYC Subway System posted Fri Oct 7 2005 01:07:19 by NWA742
Views On Alcohol posted Sun Sep 11 2005 11:51:29 by Pe@rson
This Is Also A Way To Get Many Views On Your A.net posted Tue Sep 7 2004 15:16:07 by Zweed
What Are Your Views On Auto Insurance? posted Tue May 11 2004 08:09:01 by StarAC17
Shifting Personal Views On Abortion posted Tue Oct 21 2003 23:24:04 by Csavel
Views On France posted Thu Mar 13 2003 13:23:40 by Go Canada!
Westerner's Views On Asian Women posted Fri Feb 8 2002 11:32:09 by Ryu2
New Country Menu On The Frontpage Search Engine posted Thu Jan 31 2002 02:35:45 by Administrator