The thing that I’ve been primarilly offended by in this thread is the willingness to accept, without proof, that this is an ineffective technique. Had the OP come in and said, “Look at this bunch of idiots protesting against the entirely effective technique of random searches,” there would have been 20 calls for “cite?” before he even submitted the post. As well there should be. But, are cites less necessary when the opinion is popular? It is not an obvious claim one way or another such as, we breathe air that doesn’t require corroboration.
Post the opposite, and everyone is falling all over themselves to agree. Yet, the evidence is the same; there isn’t any evidence one way or another.
If you really want me to go into the nitty gritty of how to design the experiment, I’ll do it. But, I design experiments for a living. This one is not too hard. I’ve outlined most of it, and stuff like whether a “terrorist” could go into one place, not be searched and then into another entrance are all things to test and collect data on. And would provide even more information: do we catch the terrorist on the first try? Can he simply try again?
I’m not setting up an unfair experiment with a predestined conclusion. I want to know the truth: is this effective?
it may be a “great number” - however, as a percentage, I suspect you’d acknowledge that it would most likely be an insignificant percentage would require plane travel, while likely a majority would require some motorized travel to get there. and, of course in the case of NYC, the subject of the thread, public transportation is likely a foundation of the local economy. making it less of a personal choice and more of a larger concern
The Supreme Court has “affirmed that a person possesses a privacy interest in the contents of personal luggage that is protected by the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707 (1983). However, "it is generally recognized that the privacy interest of people who are in transit [i.e. on a bus, train, or airplane] on ‘public thoroughfares [is] substantially less than those that attach to a fixed dwelling.’ " United States v. Rem, 984 F.2d 806 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 300 (1993) (quoting United States v. Whitehead, 849 F.2d 849, 854 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 983 (1988)).
I the experiment you’ve already outlined is any indication of your abilities, i’m surprised you have a job.
While you’re outlining your plan, explain how it will even be possible to catch a terrorist entering the subway when that person can simply refuse the search and leave the station with absolutely no consequences.
Your question of “whether a ‘terrorist’ could go into one place, not be searched and then into another entrance” is pointless. The very rules of the game, as cited numerous times in this thread, say that he can.
I want to see if there will be any actual police searches. Then I want to see of anyone makes a valid challenge and wins in court. To FiveYearLurker - let’s say you set up a test. How do we keep the test people from getting shot by police who think they are just doing what is necessary (as happened in London), and how do we keep bystanders from getting trampled in the ensuing panic? Sounds dangerous.
If you’ve read my posts, you know I am against it. I don’t believe it will give “bang for the buck” or will be workable. I don’t believe in giving up privacy or freedom of movement based on a “what might happen” argument. It’s the same sort of argument people trot out every time they want to outlaw or ban something they just don’t like or don’t approve of. But, if it DID catch bad guys and did NOT create problems for innocents, then I have been known to change my mind. Let’s just say I’m skeptical. I see too many holes in any possible security net, and too much opportunity for abuse or simple honest screwups.
Is there anything in the system being implemented that would prevent the following scenario from occurring?
A man walks into the NYC subway system with a backpack. Police confront him and request permission to do a search. He refuses and is told he will not be able to use the subway; he must exit the premises. He complies, but is unknowingly now tagged as a “suspicious person”. He walks out of the subway, covertly tailed by plainclothes officers. The POs follow him 4 blocks up the street to another subway entrance. He tries to enter and is again confronted, refuses to permit the search, and leaves. The POs then arrest him on suspicion of being an “enemy combatant” and he is whisked away to a detention facility. His backpack is searched and police find a map of the subway system with certain entrances marked, but no explosive device. The government decides he is too dangerous to be allowed back into the public, and he is left in the detention facility to rot out the rest of his days. No charges, no trial. No notice to next of kin or to the general public.
As I understand current events this is improbable, but possible. Am I completely wrong?
And here I thought we were having a respectful great debate-like serious discussion. Well a tensed muscle is a point lost and what not…
Regardless, the aspect cited in your last paragraph is not a weakness in the experiment that I’ve outlined, it is a weakness in the system of random searches. It is a weakness that I see, and agree with as a weakness. That’s another grand point of data gathering; you’d be able to detect weakensses such as this. If you’re going to continue to say that the effectiveness of random searches is not testable, you have to come up with holes in the experiment.
And experiments are never perfect, but they should give you a reasonable system to work in. This does.
Don’t get upset at me because you torture small animals for fun.
Well hey, since we’re gonna go off on rediculous tangents…
Muslims are more likely to make bombs. It would be easier to round them up and intern them or kill them all then have them make bombs that can kill us. Do you have a problem with the government doing that?
Yes?
Amazing. Well, we shouldn’t advocate that, should we?
Oh wait, no on is. Nor is anyone offering that all houses be searched. Nor cars be searched.
Rather in order to protect the subway systems, that riders of such systems, the NYC one in particular. Voluntary riders not random people on the street, not random people in NYC, not people’s houses or cars. People about to ride the subway.
The fact that we let authorities search us before we go into federal office buildings, courthouses or airports has NOT lead to the police being able to search houses willy-nilly.
As mentioned the NYC subway has a zillion access points. I could get in the system through a surface grating in some back alley street in queens.
The terrorists haven’t attacked because they don’t need to. They’re still coasting off the glory of 9/11. Anything less then 3000 corpses would be anti climatic, so they’re content to sit back and let our imaginations get the best of us.
I bet some suicide bomber being stopped at the door of the subway would be front page news for a week, and would still grind the system to a halt.
Because they don’t have to attack us directly to hurt us. They attack London, and still our rights in the US get stripped away. See how that works?
They haven’t attacked because they don’t need to. I’m sure they have plans in place as we speak though.
I think it’s deciding the correct balance. Does stripping the rights of millions outweight the possibility of preventing the deaths of a few hundred? I say no.
There were eight years between the first attack on the WTC, and the second.
The reason we’ve not seen another attack of that scale is because they are planning it.
That is a good point too spooge and world eater… AQ doesn’t want small potatos.
They don’t want a dozen deaths or to slightly unnerve The Great Satan. They want megadeaths, they want chaos, they want our society to change. And I’d bet dollars to donuts that as we speak some terrorist asshole is busy plotting out a new way of causing carnage.
But as has already been pointed out, there is no way that even a large police presence will safeguard the NYC subways. I mean, hell, ride the A or C down to West 4th and see just how big the station is, how many places there are to get in and out, how packed it can be during rush hour. Do the same for any other major station, you’ll get much the same results.
Any police presence will solely be a bandaid to soothe shattered nerves. It’s cosmetic, not pragmatic.
And escalation always holds true. If the police start searching bags, the terrorists will go to Palestinian style suicide belts. If they start performing strip searches, the terrorists will send teams so that at least one bomber can make it through a police cordon.
This is the illusion of security.
And we’ll have to snarl the progress of people’s commute and give up our rights to go about our bussiness without being searched. A people willing to give up a few freedoms to get the illusion of security are on a very dangerous path.
No. Cites are less necessary when it’s common sense. Living in the sticks, I have never seen a subway in person, yet this is so easy for me to comprehend. A few stations have security. A few people that walk into those stations will be requested to submit to a search. And most importantly, they can refuse and leave the station and try another one. I am dumbfounded that you can say this possibly work. How could a terrorist possibly get caught? He trips and drops the box with a bomb in it, which comes open and reveals itself without exploding? I have about the same chance of leaping from a 30 story building, landing on solid concrete, and living. Come on now. I could be understanding if you asked for sites proving the circumstances as stated were true or if you said this could work if the circumstances were changed, but you argue against something that’s so obviously simple. People have explained incontrovertibly how this plan, under these circumstances, cannot possibly fail. You haven’t listed one possible scenario where it could work. I’ve only seen my scenario and the retarded guy scenario, both of which are extremely unlikely. If you (or any other supporters) could come up with one half ass scenario in which this could possibly prevent a bomber from getting on the subway, let’s hear it. Saying people should give up their American liberties for an experiment which has no possibility for success is ridiculous.