You aren’t willing? Fine. You won’t be hired. I doubt there would be any problem hiring enough people to do it. And, it could be made entirely safe. Take a page out of the S&M handbook and have a safety word. Changed weekly. Upon uttering “banana” when the device is found, the cops know that it was a test.
These are mere details, and frankly, no, it would never be 100% safe, and those being hired would be well aware of that. But, are the arguments that testing the effectiveness of the system is impossible done now?
The first four pages of this thread posited that the system wouldn’t work, and that was why it was idiotic. This was presented as fact. I’m merely pointing out that it is in no way a fact. You can make the statement “I believe that it wouldn’t be effective,” and I would have no beef. But, I think that arguments about it’s effectiveness are premature.
Now, if you want to argue that it’s a bad idea even if it were proven effective, we can move the discussion to that as it is a whole different (and less obvious) discussion.
I’ll do it on my way to work tomorrow. I went college shopping with my daughter yesterday and we bought one of those alarm clocks with the two bells on top. I’ll strap 4 cigars to it with some bungy cord and attach some wires to it. It’ll look real Inspector Clouseau-ish. I’ll carry it in my purse until I get caught.
I use the Atlantic Ave station (the third busiest station in the system), I also ride the bus twice, every weekday. How many days do I have to carry this in my bag before getting “caught” will be enough ‘data’ for you?
Fiveyearlurker, your continued unwillingness to address the issue of a potential terrorist’s ability simply to switch stations suggests that you have no argument that might counter this rather glaring hole in the screening procedure.
Surely it’s clear, even to you, that the following is the most likely outcome of the experiment you propose:
You want to give up privacy for the sake of liberty. I’m simply asking you how much privacy you’re willing to give up. You’re thus far not willing to answer that. You can try and deflect it all day long with cries of intellectual dishonesty, but it still won’t change the fact that you’re not willing to tell us where you stand exactly.
No, I didn’t answer the question. The question was directed at you and those like you. For me the answer is easy. Without probable cause, no search of anything. Not my bag, not my clothing, not my house, not anything. See, not so hard? Now, you try it.
Where in there do you draw it? That’s s a pretty damned wide line.
Nope, but an unwillingness to draw a line might be a sign of weakness of the argument.
People make laws. I’m asking you what laws you’d make and what laws you’d fight against, in this debate that attempts to balance privacy and security. You’re thus far unwilling to do so.
In the best possible case scenario, how could your experiment possibly work?
It’s already been established that:
a) not all stations are covered at any one time
b) even of the stations that are covered, not all exits are always covered simultaneously
c) of the people actually using the subway, only a tiny percentage will ever be searched even at stations where police are present
d) anyone who does not want to be searched can turn around and leave the station
e) people choosing to leave the station will be allowed to go on their way with no further questioning by authorities
You say, in response to my point about not wanting to confront police with fake bombs:
But, given the conditions that i have described above, this won’t even be necessary. The actors will never even have to show the police the bombs, because they will be able to turn around and leave the subway station without the police ever looking inside their bags.
The only way you can ensure that the police get to see the fake bombs is to instruct the actors not to walk away, but to submit to the inspection. And if you do this, you render the experiment pointless because there is no way that an actual terrolrist would take that course of action.
I admire your zeal for experimentation, for a test to confirm or deny the viability of this policy. But while it is true that some things can’t be conclusively proved without experimentation, people who carry out experiments usually make at least an attempt to formulate a set of experimental conditions that has a bare chance of success.
I’ve been following this thread with interest, to see where it goes. It sure got lively.
I decided to do a mental exercise of my own. IANAT (I am not a terrirst). But, it would be ridiculously easy to sidestep the police, SWAT, and anyone else. Let’s say I’m rigged with dynamite under my coat. I see a group of police at the train station. I just go 2 or 3 blocks to a different station. Or, I stand under an “el” trestle and wait for a train to go overhead. Or, I go to a shopping mall, movie theater, any place I please and BANG. Posting police and conducting searches will not stop me from killing someone. It will only make me switch targets. Or, I may decide I really really want to “specialize” in cop killing and go right up to the biggest group I see.
The sheer number or people in New York at any given time puts the odds in my favor. There will never be enough cops to check everyone.
If there were enough police, try this one. Police are stopping everyone, during rush hour. People are backed up into the street, all waiting to be searched. You’ve just handed me more victims than I could have rounded up on my own.
I see other people have already gotten into the constitutional side of search and seizure. To search someone you need a warrant, or probable cause. You can’t just stop people and arbitrarily search them for no reason. You can not arbitrarily seize anything, especially if it is not the intended target of the search. To do that is to shit on the Bill of Rights.
How far do we want to go? Constant searches and pat downs every time you want a MacBurger or a pizza? Or when you are just walking down the sidewalk or sitting in your own front yard? What if the policeman decides you are carrying “too much” cash? Good luck getting it back. If he doesn’t take it, who else saw all that money?
If it’s a choice between living in a “lockdown” or police state and living in the country the way it used to be, I would rather take my chances. It’s all just window dressing anyway. It does not improve your safety one iota.
Seems to me that this policy is roughly as effective as putting an alarm system into a house that has a 1 in 10 chance of going off if a burglar enters via the kitchen window, but doesn’t cover any other points of entry. Better than nothing? Well…marginally. Perhaps. Except for the fact that there’s a sticker on the kitchen window that explains that it’s the only window with any alarm sensor at all. Doh!
As to the general commentary that these searches are violative of the Fourth Amendment…
As I see it, if the Port Authority establishes a policy that entry into the subway system constitutes consent to search, and that policy is posted so that it’s clear to people before they enter, then I do not see a Fourth Amendment problem.
Of course, there may be some case law specific to New York’s subway that I’m unaware of. I welcome edification on this point. But as a general matter of constitutional law… what I said above is accurate.
I have no doubt things like that get around the legal issues, but IMHO allowing those type of things makes the 4th Amendment useless. What’s to prevent, say, the dep’t of transportation from establishing a policy that to use the roads constitutes consent to search? Or the dep’t of interior to establish a policy that to step onto publicly-owned land consitutes consent to search?
I’m not really sure if there’s any situation where the 4th amendment can’t be simply render moot.
If memory serves, some subway stations were also train stations, and if so, how do you think addressing this via the commerce clause would be handled? If I were to argue that it impeded my ability to conduct interstate commerce, would I have a shot?
I also understand that even with the voluntary nature of the searches (which in my opinion makes them useless), the fact that they are not of fixed duration could be an issue. Also, while they claim that they are going to be truly random (and to be fair, have given directives, that if followed, would make them truly random), it’s happened many times in the past that “random searches” ended up meaning “random searches of a specific race or ethnicity”. If that were to end up being the case here, wouldn’t that also cause some fourth amendment rumbling?
I have always found it interesting when people are willing to trade their liberty for security (or in this case percieved security - IMHO). I would like to clearly delinate where this line is drawn for you. Of course this is the pit so you can always tell me to fuck off.
Random searches of NY subway passengers at the stations. OK by Lurker.
How about random searches of NY subway passengers on the trains?
Is searching passengers of any public conveyance OK? Say police pull over the grayhound bus entering OK City at 3 pm on friday and do a random search; would this be an OK method to deter terrorists? Could police stop the LA to San Franisico Amtrack and search everybody and check their papers? Would this be OK?
What about pedestrians; should we do random searches of pedestrians? (I am of aware of no “right to walk the streets” enumerated in the Constitution so you people who would argue against this just STFU. )
So far subway bombings have only been a problem overseas. A much bigger problem overseas are car bombs; they are used much more widely and effectivly than subway bombings. In fact we have had several car bombs in this country I can think of (OK City and the World Trade Center Bombing). Should we then institute random checkpoints where cars are searched?
How about checking the papers of everyone leaving or exiting a city or state? Should we make sure that people have a valid reason to be in the city before we let them in? (I think this is one of the security procedures being used in Israel/West Bank/Jersulem).
I could go on, but lets start with the 5 points above. All of these are between random seaches in subway stations and government searches of homes. Where does the line fall with respect to these?
People can not simply choose not to use mass transit. Many of them either do not own a car, or can not get parking once they reach Manhattan and so they don’t drive. They use the buses and trains because they have to (I was once one of them). So, there is no consent. If there were other alternate ways available, your argument might be OK, as it would imply consent. It’s a captive audience. Use the train, or lose your job. Not much consent there. What’s next? Consent signs on very sidewalk, every bar, restaurant, diner?
Or you need consent. Which is probably how they can legally do this - it’s all based on consent. You’re free to walk away, thus no 4th amendment issue. Interesting.
The question is, as has been mentioned, is what right do you have to ride public transportation without having to decide whether to consent to a search. The challenges to this policy should be interesting.
Ok, this is now a moving target. Can we now agree that the “effectiveness” argument which was presented as fact originally is opinion before we move on?
)