That’d be the one where the strung out meth addict figures out his girlfriend stole his stash, so he packs a gun in his bag and takes the subway uptown to kill her. He’s pefectly discrete, only some nosy cop demands to see his bag before he gets there, so he whips out his piece, shoots the cop, and 7 innocent bystanders?
You might be happy to do it, but yes, you’re trading in liberty.
If the government were able to search houses without a warrant, there would be more criminals caught than there are today. Are you happy to cooperate with that, too?
Not to hijack this, but I was thinking that a bomb going off on a fast moving subway would cause more than just the fatalities of the initial blast. If it went off in the front car, I think there would be quite a few fatalities in the back car, far from the blast.
This was one of the worst NYC subway accidents in decades, and the driver was drunk and going 40 mph when he was supposed to be going 10 when it derailed. There were quite a few injuries, but only 5 deaths.
For the record, I’m not saying that a subway isn’t a valid target, as it is. It’s just that we’re not going to stop terrorism by instituting random searches in areas related to the last attack, but we will stomp all over the what our country stands for. Hell, our president tells us that the terrorists hate our freedom, so do we really want to respond by taking little bits of freedom away every time they strike?
Have you even been in a crowded rush hour subway car? Just so you know, you can’t even turn around in one of those things without elbowing 3 people. You can’t raise your hand to scratch your nose without goosing someone. The only other place I can think of where it’s similarly crowded is a stuffed elevator. A line in an amusement park is positively sparse in comparison. And outside, half your blast goes straight up, this is underground in a tunnel, in a sealed car.
Forgot Madrid already have we?
In both of these places, generally you have a reason to be there. You are known, hired by the company or the bar. You’re not just some completely random guy off the street carrying boxes. Your guard at the front desk, I assume, will ask people without ID who they are coming to visit. Of course, our fictional “pro” terrorist will just whip up a phony ID lickety split, right? These fuckers can’t even get their bombs to go BOOM sometimes, they are working with limited resources, don’t act like they are super spies.
In NYC, you get searched at the friggin’ Met, you don’t go to a public event around here without a search of some sort. It’s just part of the life, like travelling on a plane.
Oh sure, nobody is going to question you taking a giant (and oddly heavy seeming) stuffed animal out of the trunk of your car, right? Or are out terrorists being transported to the midway by magic? Bringing a stuffed animal TO an amusement park is rather unusual, I should think. Not to say it wouldn’t work, but it could attract attention.
True, but do you give up on security because there are certain aspects you can’t really help?
I have no problem with bag searching-- if it is effective. That’s why it makes sense in an airport. This is a controlled environment with points of entrances that can be monitored. The subway and buses cannot be monitored in anyway that will make random bag searches effective. I’ll gladly give up some of my liberty for safety, but random bag searches in the NYC subway does not make me or you or anybody any safer.
What will be more effective than randomly peeking into people’s bags? How about explosive dectecting machines or dogs? At least then there’d be more than a one in 5 million chance of actually, you know, finding a bomb.
Gah! I cannot believe how easy it is to appease people with utterly useless bullshit.
Even with the Russell Square / Kings Cross bomb on July 7th, only 27 people were killed. This was in a crowded train (over a hundred people in each car), in a far more restricted tunnel than on the NY subway, while moving at speed.
They already have dogs. I’ve seen them in Penn Station, though nowhere else really. And, I think the machines would be a tad expensive. Not to mention that if you turned the subway into airport-like security, transportation in NYC would grind to a halt.
Would it be hijacking this thread to ponder why nothing HAS happened in the NYC subway to date?
I think it reflects a part of the larger problem, and the direction this country is headed. They tried to ban taking photos in the subway because those crafty terrorists can stake out locations. They’re making it illegal to switch between subway cars because 12 dumbasses fall to the tracks every year. Now they can search people for no reason at all, I don’t like shit like that. People seem to forget that living life is a risk, and that death is just a part of life.
I’ll be the first to say that it’s a slippery slope, but I think searching bags is more bad then good.
Low? Try virtually non-existant!
FYI, my company lost many clients in 9/11, people I spoke with every day for years.
Yeah you got it right.
I’ll second that. Basically, what we need are clear legal standards that recognize that the definition of “reasonable search” depends on the crime the authorities are looking for – and if they use the relatively wide latitude that is “reasonable” to stop something serious, they simply don’t get to use the evidence if they find something less (e.g. they have to give back your joint if it turns up when they’re doing spot checks for backpack bombs; they have to let you keep evading taxes if they find that the “mosque-based social service” they’re investigating is merely generating bogus charitable deductions).
The pragmatic reason law-abiding citizens are concerned about intrusive search is the realization that, if the police look hard enough, there really are no law-abiding citizens – it’s simply not possible to keep up with, much less obey, all the rules. Thus, letting the police look at everything becomes a blanket license for selective arrest and prosecution based on the whim of the cop in front of you, or his bosses.
I disagree. In the context of a search, what will the most zealous searcher find to arrest me for? Tell me.
Why not? If one of the guys gets caught, he blows himself up and the rest abort the mission and try again later.
In any case, given the ratio of police available to do searches to the number of passengers, this like saying that you do not plan a bombing that hinges on being fortunate enough to not get stuck in traffic on the way to the target.
Well Bricker, some of us mere mortals can and do screw up…you may be willing to trust your liberty to anyone with a badge or a uniform; secure in the knowlegde that you are protected by the purity of your laws; we lesser beings aren’t so sure of our standing.
Whoa, whoa whoa! You mean you don’t mind subjecting yourself to a completely useless invasion of your privacy but balk at putting dogs and/or bomb sniffing devices at subway entrances, devices that will actually find bombs, because of the cost?
Why would machines grind subways to a halt? Wouldn’t it be quicker to walk through a device than to have a policeman stop progress through a turnstile to search random people? Dogs at entrances would be too expensive too? Dogs that can detect bombs without looking through innocent people’s bags? Dogs that can actually detect bombs?
I’m speechless.
Strike the first: Don’t make me go get a bunch of cites describing incidents where the cops found someone with a large amount of cash and stole – excuse me, “confiscated” – it on the assumption that it was “drug money”. You know perfectly well that this happens all too frequently.
Strike the Second: Ditto re local puritan laws and enforcement thereof.
Strike the Third: Er, what exactly are such “watch lists”, if the items listed thereon are not considered evidence of criminality?
Frankly, I expect better from you.
First of all, you can’t believe how easy it is to appease people with useless bullshit? How long have you been on the SDMB anyhow?
Second, I would hazard a guess that you’re not really all that familiar with how the whole idea of physical location security works.
I’ll give you a primer. Basic procedure dictates two types of patrols; fixed and random. This is self explanatory.
This theory is applied to places, such as department stores, (and now train stations, airports and the like) where adaptive security procedures are necessary. (This is why you never see the security guard in macy’s until he tackles your ass out on the sidewalk for stealing that handbag)
We’ll call this application, layering. So we have static and dynamic layering of forces (some call it DD, or diverse deployment, it’s all the same) targeting a particular area, such as the NY subway system. The idea is to send the rats scurrying in another direction, so the layer that’s not as visible to the public is able to grab them up. For every uniform officer you see, there’s usually one to three that you don’t, and THAT, to me, is what’s comforting.
It’s a tried and true practice (the Secret Service uses it VERY successfully worldwide) that is effective in almost every situation, and against all but the most skillful operator.
Dogs already are, and machines will soon be in mass transit, technology is moving quickly in this regard, but not quickly enough, so you’ve got to do it the old fashioned way for a while. And if it deters one copycat malcontent, then it’s worth the one life that was saved, even if you have to put up with petty inconveniences.
Remember those “choose your own adventure” books?
Cop finds personal quantities of pot…
…on a guy who looks like Ward Cleaver. Go to Page 86.
…on a guy who looks like Cheech Marin. Go to page 101.
Ah, your life adventure is on the “Page 86” path…
3.5 million people a day might have something to do with it. That’s the equivalent of over thirty JFKs.