Author Topic: NY being sued because of subway bag searches (Read 1727 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #15 on:** August 04, 2005, 06:11:01 PM »

Where does it end?

When I was in the Navy, I visited countries where people were routinely stopped and searched simply because they were passing some "checkpoint". It was a stark reminder of the freedom that we had at home.

Today, I see that freedom slipping away. Sadly, most people will quietly accept it and move on. They will freely trade some freedom for the sense of security.

It's not about safety. It's about covering some bureaucrat's bellybutton just in the off chance that something does indeed happen.

Personally, I'm quite sick and tired of having to prove that I'm neither a criminal or a threat every time I enter an airport. It's inevitable that this type of search and screen will find its way to other means of public travel and public forums, but I do not welcome it.

IMHO, security will destroy this country far more effectively than any terrorist.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #16 on:** August 04, 2005, 06:14:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Where does it end?

When I was in the Navy, I visited countries where people were routinely stopped and searched simply because they were passing some "checkpoint". It was a stark reminder of the freedom that we had at home.

Today, I see that freedom slipping away. Sadly, most people will quietly accept it and move on. They will freely trade some freedom for the sense of security.

It's not about safety. It's about covering some bureaucrat's bellybutton just in the off chance that something does indeed happen.

Personally, I'm quite sick and tired of having to prove that I'm neither a criminal or a threat every time I enter an airport. It's inevitable that this type of search and screen will find its way to other means of public travel and public forums, but I do not welcome it.

IMHO, security will destroy this country far more effectively than any terrorist.

so as far as increasing security and deterring future attacks you would have us do......nothing?

jEEZY · « **Reply #17 on:** August 04, 2005, 06:18:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Airplanes are private property.

Does this mean that, say, United Airlines, in a bid to increase passnegers, can decree that if you fly United you no longer need to be searched? IIRC, airport "screening" is a federal mandated intrusion on our "liberty." Oh, btw, unless you own the airplane, or airport, you have no standing to bring a challenge to the search--if you maintain they are private property. Most large commercial airports in fact are public places owned by municipalites or public corporations. Of course, you could always refuse the search. Note, alot of these seraches are considered consentual. Meaning that you consent to search when you decide to take an airplane somewhere. The same, it seems, now applies to subway passengers. I see very little distinction between the two.

Sandman · « **Reply #18 on:** August 04, 2005, 06:19:36 PM »

The alternative to forcing law abiding citizens to prove their innocence is "nothing"?

jEEZY · « **Reply #19 on:** August 04, 2005, 06:47:48 PM »

A quick LEXIS search shows:

Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 323, 137 L. Ed. 2d 513, 117 S. Ct. 1295 (1997) ("Where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as 'reasonable'--for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings."); see also United States v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496, 500 (2d Cir. 1974) ("When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, the danger alone meets the test of reasonableness, so long as the search is conducted in good faith for the purpose of preventing hijacking or like damage and with reasonable scope and the passenger has been given advance notice of his liability to such a search so that he can avoid it by choosing not to travel by air.") (quoting United States v. Bell, 464 F.2d 667, 675 (2d Cir. 1972) (Friendly, C.J., concurring)).

See also United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir., 2004)--Even the 9th has no prob with these types of searches.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #20 on:** August 04, 2005, 08:46:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
The alternative to forcing law abiding citizens to prove their innocence is "nothing"?

so we should get rid of metal detectors at air ports all together. Same thing with security at sporting events.....schools....politic al events.

Could we fire the secret service?

I'm really not tracking you Sandy, this is extreme even for you.

Sandman · « **Reply #21 on:** August 04, 2005, 10:38:06 PM »

You didn't answer the question.

Hangtime · « **Reply #22 on:** August 04, 2005, 11:33:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
The alternative to forcing law abiding citizens to prove their innocence is "nothing"?

wel, lessee.. this is one of the big ones.. right after the preamble stuff.

A -I can..surrender to the search, get my bong confiscated

B -run, get dogpiled and ventilated, they still get the bong

C -or I can shoot whoever tries to lay a hand on me.. take down a couple; hold the bong hostage and get us both killed

What's a self respecting freedom loving hippie from the village to do?

Toad · « **Reply #23 on:** August 04, 2005, 11:51:01 PM »

Assume the bag searches are stopped by this lawsuit.

Assume A-Q mangages to pull off multiple simultaneous bombing of the NYC subways similar to the Madrid and London operations.

What will be the governmental response?

What will the media pundits spout?

Will US rights be more or less secure after that?

Hangtime · « **Reply #24 on:** August 04, 2005, 11:57:15 PM »

the response.. Bush will stand in the rubble and we can kiss what little chance we had of retaining any sense of personal privacy or public freedom g'buy.

The media will shout its fool head off about whatever will sell more vaginal creme air time.

rights more secure after? Living in a city becomes living in a public prison. Folks are 'secure', rights will be history.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #25 on:** August 05, 2005, 12:13:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
One could argue that if it is public transportation and subsidized with public funds, you do indeed have a right to use it.

Sandman, while I agree with you that security searches are intrusions on the way we used to do it, public transportation is a government service, not a right. You have to pay to use it.

It is not a right if you must pay a fee for it, it is a service provided by a vendor. A right is (for the want of a better term) God-given.

I have the right to speak my mind, but I do not have to pay a fee for that right. I have the right to worship as I see fit, but no government fee is levied.

Sandman · « **Reply #26 on:** August 05, 2005, 12:13:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Assume the bag searches are stopped by this lawsuit.

Assume A-Q mangages to pull off multiple simultaneous bombing of the NYC subways similar to the Madrid and London operations.

What will be the governmental response?

What will the media pundits spout?

Will US rights be more or less secure after that?

1. The same as always. The government will take all measures necessary to prevent the last attack.

2. Who cares?

3. Terrorists cannot take away our rights. We have the government for that.

Vulcan · « **Reply #27 on:** August 05, 2005, 01:15:52 AM »

Fighting the bag searches is giving the terrorists a win.

When you freely cooperate with your law enforcement guys, and let them perform their job quickly and efficiently then the terrorists lose. Don't look at it as your right to privacy but your right to help combat terror.

In some ways the lawsuit works against the very ideals that those bring it are fighting for. If it wins, then laws will have to be made to make such searches legal, then the can of worms is really opened up big time.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #28 on:** August 05, 2005, 01:27:15 AM »

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about?

Hangtime · « **Reply #29 on:** August 05, 2005, 01:40:05 AM »

dude.. my bong is like, my precious. I have right's, man.. my bong has rights. You can't do this too me, dude.. I'm callin my layer.. dude... *nmummmpffhhhh!*

[cartmann] 'frikken hippies.. I HATE hippies'[/cartmann]