Well, we’ve already had two New Yorkers tell us that there were no police today at some of Manhattan’s most crowded subway stations. My guess is that any potential bomber is not going to decide not to enter the subway at all; rather, he’s simply going to enter at a station that has no police. It’s not very difficult to check whether police are on duty at a particular station and delay your attack for a later time or move to another station.
Well, as others have already pointed out, the connection you draw between security measures and the absence of attacks has not been established.
Secondly, your own argument undermines your case. There have been no attacks on the New York subway system, despite the absence of random searches over the past three years. And the vanishingly small percentage of people who might be subjected to the search measures means that those measures are very unlikely to discourage someone who might really want to carry out an attack.
And, as i said earlier, this is one of those scenarios where people who argue in favour of these increased “security” measures can’t lose. If we haven’t been attacked, it’s because the measures worked. And if we have, it just shows that even more measures are needed.
Personally, my own strategy for reducing terrorism on US soil in the period since 9/11 has been to masturbate at least once a week. The absence of terror attacks in that period shows that my strategy must be working.
of course no one said that. what was said was that these particular measures wouldn’t prevent an attack, so why infringe on our rights when it wouldn’t be likely to work??
Actually there is a very specific difference. London’s Tube is a largely a “deep bore” system – it lies beneath the bedrock of the city (like the DC Metro).
NYC’s system is a shallow bore system, it lies just below the street and runs above ground in large sections.
This means the are far, far more aboveground access points in the NYC system.
As far as I know, the Act changed the phrasing from “a preponderance of the evidence” to “by clear and convincing evidence”, and didn’t change the fact that the seizure continues to happen before guilt and innocence are ironed out. Oh, and Willie Jone’s case is relevant. Even when the victim is given more leeway to fight, it’s still not as easy as just going downtown and asking for your money. Feel free to share with the board how long it took for Willie to get his money, and what he had to do to get it. Livelihoods can be destroyed due to forfeiture, which is basically punishment, without due process.
Would you care to show exactly what you feel changed everything so drastically in the new act? Admittedly, its intent was to cut down on the abuse of forfeiture powers by law enforcement, but it appears to mostly be about giving victims of forfeiture a bit more leeway to regain their property, but truly eliminate the problem.
So you never have opinions about being a cop (f your not a cop), prisons (if you dont work in a prison), war (if you are not presently in the war), abortion (if your are not a woman or not pregnant)… need I go on? The fact is, the very people who should provide oversight to these situations are those who ARE NOT in the trenches. The opinions and concerns of people in any “trench” need to be assesed. However, history has shown when you allow individuals who have an emotional stake in the matter make the decisions, the results are typically bad. For laws in our society, we have “moral panics”, now we have “terror panic”. Principles are not something to be thrown aside when the situation gets tough. This is against the very notion of what it means to have a principle in the first place.
In addition, lighten up on this “trenches” notion, living in New York does not entitle you to some holier than thou terrorist knowledge/opinion. Maybe, just maybe, if you were in Iraq, or the West Bank, I would give you “the trenches” line. Then, I would want someone who was not in the trenches calling the shots since we can see how well those who live in the “trenches” have solved the problem of middle eastern violence and hatred.
A really good question (but perhaps somewhat of a hijack of the OP) is why there hasn’t been any sort of attack in the NYC transit system so far (someone asked it earlier but I forget who - sorry). As said, it would be very easy, increased security or not.
Could it be that there are no active al-Qaida type terrorist cells in NYC who are both willing and prepared to do such a thing?
Could it be that the local intel has sussed out and thwarted any potential cells?
Could it be that this sort of pre-emptive intel is the best bet to prevent well planned and orchestrated attacks?
Of course there is always the possibility that some loner will just go nuts and decide to create violent mayhem, but the fact is that so far we have not seen attempts of any sort of terrorism in the transit system, even though it would be so easy to accomplish.
Any thoughts on why that is so? I believe it a pertinent question, especially for those who are so worried in a generalized “free floating anxiety” way.
IMO, prevention is the “better idea”. Anything beyond that is either just “busywork”, or (as in the case of the cctv cameras) something that will possibly aid the investigation “after the fact”.
The downside is that when the bomber finally does die, instead of 72 virgins he only gets 36, and half of them have been as far as third base with some other guy and knows how poorly he compares (that’s the real reason they’re so big on virgins, you know…).
Sorry, but this isn’t correct. Less than half the Underground is actually underground, and less than a third is in deep level tunnels. There’s immense opportunities for easy surface access to the network (over the fence at the bottom of my gran’s garden, for one.)
Sorry Bricker but you have a habit of holding back information that you as a lawyer may know; that some of us layman don’t…until you decide to drop the hammer.
While I may never be on equal footing with you legally, I perfer not to walk into quicksand.
Why is it unreasonable for our poster child of “profiling” not to be concerned that the officer that inspected his bag and discovered a large amount of cash in small denominations; hasn’t signalled one of the many undercover officers in the area and are waiting to see where he goes with the money?
Well, file me under those against dinging our liberties for something that isn’t even likely to work. But I guess since I don’t live in NYC that my opinion doesn’t matter (and honey, there ain’t just enough :rolleyes: for that remark). That’s not why I’m here though.
This was my first thought when I heard about this. How are they getting around the constitution? Is there a legal justification to merit these searches? Can this be answered before we reach page 6?
A friend of mine got charged w/carrying a concealed weapon b-cuz of what he thought was a legal knife - we called the attorney generals office - lawyer there was surprised to find what constituted a legal knife. for example
Are you following the thread at all? I posted a list of what was on me at that time. Tell me what about that broke any laws, since we’re ALL apparently criminals.
you personally ain’t the issue to me -average person who has no reason to believe they are a criminal nor do they wish to give up their constitutional rights -is.
