Ah, you’ve flailed and flailed and flailed and flailed and now you are down to your last pathetic gasp of an argument. “You’re arguments don’t count unless you can come up with a better plan.”
Wrong. I don’t need to point out the stairs or the elevator to prove that jumping out of a thirty second floor window might not be the best way to get to the bottom. It may be the fastest, but it ain’t the best.
I don’t need to make a movie to tell you that Body Of Evidence is a shitty film.
I certainly don’t need to come up with a better idea to say that a useless and possibly unconstitutional search program is a bad idea.
But, if you insist…
Drink a mandatory shot of whiskey every morning before you leave the house. It should help you feel calmer, which is all these searches are doing anyways. Go ahead and give one to the kids too. It’ll keep 'em nice and docile. It may even calm the terrorists down, unless they are angry drunks. The sales will help to boost the economy too. See, it’s already a better idea than random searches and no freedoms given up. Damn I’m good. I should work for the government.
We could pay the homeless to stand at the all of the entrances to the subway and not bathe. The foul odor won’t deter the hardcore denizens but may deter both the terrorists and the tourists. The increase in liquor sales will help the economy.
In case you were wondering, the liquor store bit was a joke. Don’t go getting all upset over it.
This last one is my personal favorite.
How about we don’t fucking do it at all? No more useless fucking searches to possibly prevent attacks that may or may not happen. How about expecting results out of the department of homeland security and our elected officials and not cuddling up under whatever wasted security blankie they toss at us? How does that sound?
Yeah. It’s absolutely idiotic to believe that someone about to blow himself up on a train might be acting just a bit strangely, and draw the attention to a police officer.
You know what’s idiotic? Your plan where that police officer says, “Oh well. Might offend some people to check out what he has in that duffel bag.”
Downside of my plan is that the guy has to take 30 seconds to open his bag.
Downside of your plan is that the guy might actually have a bomb on the train (you know, like has happened a few times in the last few years in major cities).
We may disagree on the likelihood of either scenario, but in a discussion of great importance calling the people who disagree with you “idiots” tends to make you look a bit intolerant, and makes me think that you’re more interested in sounding smart and portraying this image of civil liberties, than actually being correct.
So, I guess I’ll have to be the reasonable one: let them do it for a year. Study it. Have statisticians and law enforcement and mathematicians and social scientists at the data. If they conclude that it is ineffective (as you claim it will be, though despite what you think, you certainly haven’t proven it), yank it. If it is indeed effective (as I think it would be, and have in no way stated that I KNOW it will be effective, just that it might be), it continues.
For the record, I’m a Democrat who leans toward the left. Just not so far that I lose all perspective.
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act did quite a bit more than shift burdens of proof - which is, itself, a substantial change. It established hardship relief. It forbid the use of hearsay evidence. It imposes a sixty-day time limit on the government and completely removes the bond requirement for an owner to challenge forfeiture. It provides court-appointed counsel for indigent targets. It establishes an “innocent owner” defense, where the property is used by someone else without the owner’s knowledge or consent.
Under the old law, the government was immune from suit. With the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, victims of forfeiture can recover damages where their property was seized for the purposes of forfeiture and the claimant was not convicted of a crime giving rise to that forfeiture.
problem w/ “study it”- say there are no bombings during that time - how do you know that was because of the searches? any result could be used as proof of either position
No Fiveyear, the downside of your plan is that hundreds, maybe thousands, of New Yorkers will have their rights violated on a million to one chance that, maybe, perhaps the terrorist will give up and go home just to soothe the fears of sheeple who know nothing about critical thinking or risk evaluation.
You have these same rights violated at the airport.
I think sheeple is a perfect term for those unwilling to look at data, and just reflexively throw their hands in the air and scream about civil liberties.
I’m advocating looking at data, and you’re advocating going with your gut feeling that it’s ineffective. I find it amazing that you’re trying to take the high ground in terms of critical thinking.
And, as to how to analyze data, let Roland G. Fryer Jr of Harvard at it. That guy can tease an answer out of any data set apparently.
Yes, but at least this is effective. And I don’t have to take a plane to get to work.
Those unwilling to look at data are the ones who keep throwing thier hands in the air and crying to be protected by means that the data show don’t work.
Fiveyearlurker, there would be no good way to evaluate the data because if you catch zero terrorists during the year, you can say it was an effective deterrent since no terrorists attacked. Doing a study is worthless.
And if valuing my liberties more than a stupid and ineffective feel good plan makes me sheeple, then bah bah bah.
You apparently live in fear of an attack that may or may not happen and even if it does happen may not even hurt you. What does that make you?
Great, so if we do the study, and find that no terrorists were caught, this would seem to prove that you are correct. So if the study is so certain to prove your point, why are you so opposed to the idea? They’re going to institute the plan anyway, how much extra money would it cost to study the techniques and analyze the data. Jeez, the guy I cited earlier came up with links between saltiness of one’s face and life expectancy.
Believe me, I value civil liberties. I wish like hell that this discussion didn’t even need to arise. I’m the guy who refuses to show my receipt at Target. But, I would like to find an effective way to protect mass transit. If this is an ineffective way, then of course I would oppose it. But there is not enough information to call it ineffective.
And, yes, I’m interested in protecting an attack that “may not even hurt me”. I’ll even concede that it is extremely unlikely to hurt me. So what? I’m interested in protecting others and that makes me what exactly?
Being able to reclaim the money, I believe, isn’t the point the others were trying to make. That a person should be arrested and the money confiscated for carrying large sums of cash should not happen; yet it’s a viable worry because police–even after the 2000 act–are still doing so:
The deputy stopped the man for a “failure to drive in a single lane”. And while, in the course of using a narcotic-sniffin’ K-9, the deputy found the money, the article doesn’t say that the dog was alerted to any traces of drugs. While it’s a short article without much detail at this point, the impression given is that the arrest was made because he had large sums of cash on him; yet having large sums of cash is not in itself a crime.
ETA: Sorry, that’s a registration site. I’d offer a separate link, but it’s a local-to-Topeka story and, thus far, is only in the Capitol-Journal.
I don’t care what impression the article gave you.
The driver was not arrested for carrying large sums of cash. The driver was arrested because the sheriff’s deputy had probable cause to believe that the money was possession of drug proceeds, and that is the crime he was charged with.
Because the fact that a terrorist doesn’t get caught proves nothing. There could be numerous other reasons why a terrorist doesn’t attack other than the deterrent factor. It’s just as possible that they did not even plan an attack or were planning an attack somewhere else or the terrorists really have been rounded up or the masturbation plan really is working. Even in the best case, the data would be inconclusive. That is my point. The study would prove absolutely nothing.
If I’m going to give up civil liberties (which I never will, but just for the sake of argument), I would rather not do it for a plan that only slightly decreases the odds of a possible terrorist attack.
At what point do YOU say enough furt? Is there a “right” to go to the post office? To go to the DMV? To go to the bank? At what point do YOU say enough? Or do you just not care?
I’m serious Is there a line the government can cross in YOUR mind, that would require a response besides, “if you don’t want to get searched, then don’t use that service?”
Is there a right to walk down a public sidewalk? Is there a right to go to the beach? is there a right to enter a public library? Where is the limit to these ‘rights’ which we suddenly do not have?
Is it OK for the government to unilaterally abridge our rights, or just plain break the law as long as it makes some of us feel safer?
Fiveyearlurker: As an olive-skinned male, are you content to be treated like a criminal because of the color of your skin for the rest of your life? A lot of people have worked, and a number have died, to try and steer the country away from that kind of path. Personally, I wish that after the Oklahoma City bombing we’d instituted nationwide racial profiling of white males like myself, just as an object lesson; might have put an end to that shit.
Eve: When I first read your response to Fiveyearlurker, I thought you were doing a bit of satire. Sadly, your later posts show that you were serious.
I don’t hate you folks, or want you to get blown up, but I’m baffled.
Has anybody answered, yet, the question of whether they’d be okay with police doing random house searches without warrants? (Because that just might catch some terrorists.) How about body cavity searches along with backpack searches?
All these reactions are fear-based. Liberty requires courage; I’m disgusted by former liberals like Ed Koch who supported Bush last year because they haven’t stopped shitting their pants since 9/11 and eagerly gave up all their supposed principles in exchange for an illusion of safety. If you go far enough down that road, you’ll find that your panicky fear of an unlikely death at the hands of terrorists has been replaced by a completely realistic fear of your own government.
This is a bit off topic, so humor me. Assuming the policeman decides that large amount of money (Bricker’s $1100) is not drug money and lets you move on. What if a mugger sees that wad of cash the police have just examined? He’ll likely follow you to a convenient spot and kill you for the cash.
As for searches, how do we reconcile it to the unreasonable search and seizure rule? How do we concentrate on the people most likely to be terrorists, without getting in deep shit for racial profiling? To make any sort of security work, we will need a lot more police (budget and manpower and training) and a lot more explosives sniffing dogs (budget, training time).
I see more dogs as the best option. They can sniff out nitrates etc and alert their handler, while ignoring your wad of cash and your CD’s. They are far less intrusive, in that they don’t need to have you empty your briefcase or backpack.
On the one hand, I agree that something needs doing to stop killers. On the other hand, given the constitutional issues and the sheer number of people that the police are expected to watch, I don’t honestly see how it can be done.