That’s a lousy plan, the idea is to hit 4 things at once. If #1 gets pinched, the other 3 don’t know about it and there is an immediate lockdown. Even if they do abort and get away, now there’s a massive investigation into #1, and you may have cops knocking at your door any day now.
And, if you’re content to blow yourself up on a subway platform, why bother with planning to hit the subway at all? Find 4 places where people tend to congregate and have at it.
I think the idea is to protect the places where we are most vulnerable, subways are inherently more vulnerable than platforms or other random places of congregation.
My support for random searches on the trains gelled last Friday evening – less than 2 weeks after the 1st London attack. There was this tall, caucasian male lugging what appeared to be a very heavy, five-gallon bucket on his shoulder. It definitely contained something; he appeared to be quite uncomfortable as he struggled along carrying that unmarked pail. He exited his LIRR commuter train at track 18, walked through Penn Station to the 8th Ave Subway & boarded the C Train uptown to 86th St. On his journey, in Penn Station alone, he walked by at least 30 NYPD officers, a dozen soldiers with semi automatic weapons and a handful of german shepherds. Not once did a conductor on the LIRR, any peace officer or NYC transit employee stop him and ask what was in that large heavy bucket; for all anyone knew, he could have been carrying 70 pounds of liquid explosives as he went along his business completely unmolested. In fact, for some inexplicable reason, his cell phone even worked under the East River tunnel. I don’t know much about bombs; but if those four Pakastanis in the UK were able to cause such mayhem with their little napsacks, this son-of-bitch, with that big heavy pail, coulda blown the roof right off of Madison Square Garden - or created the Columbus Circle Crater.
Yes, I have. Both in Boston and in New York. The loading queue for a popular roller coaster is also densely populated, and not constrained by the narrow width of a subway car. Typical maximum crush capacity of a 60 foot train is 220 people, and even a crowded rush hour car doesn’t reach that normally. A loading queue for a popular roller coaster at my neighborhood Six Flags lines people up 12 wide and 10 deep, with a winding cue of hundreds of people directly behind that. Here is a picture of a packed club for comparison.
Nope, didn’t forget. I was responding to your quote of:
You’re not going to kill 100 people in a subway train unless you have a truly massive bomb. In Madrid, the trains had 3-4 bombs each, spread throughout the train, and there was still not a single train in which there were 100 deaths. 3-4 bombs can kill 100 people in a lot of places.
Nope, they will assist anyone who seems to be lost, etc., but as long as someone seems to know where they are going, the security guard at the front desk is nothing more than a greeter. My particular company uses badges to get into offices on specific floors, but even that doesn’t stop anyone. If some delivery person follows them to the door, I’ve never seen anyone not let them come in without giving it a second thought. As for nightclubs, no they don’t know everyone who enters, and are often times just as packed as your subway listed above. No, that’s not an exaggeration as you can see in the picture I linked to above.
No, of course they’re all stupid idiots. Silly me for thinking that they actually had any intelligence at all.
I’m in NYC quite a bit for business, and haven’t been searched yet, nor seen anyone be searched, other than going to the airport. I visit nightclubs, restaurants, art galleries, busy hotels, etc. It’s not the Checkpoint Charlie you make it out to be.
Nope, actually they wouldn’t question it. We’re talking about fairs, not amusement parks, where security is almost non-existent. Employees bring stuffed animals to their midway booths all the time in those scenarios.
I don’t want to give up on security at all. I just want to eliminate random searches without cause. If you want to put up airport type security systems, and then search those people who have actual suspicious devices in luggage, or on their person, etc., I’m more inclined to go along with it from a liberty standpoint, but I’ll still think it’s a waste of resources.
And what if shaking down the darkies on the subway ENCOURAGES the next attack. Muslims in America already get the stink-eye, are official random pat-downs going to help?
Like Eve said they aren’t going to be patting down the usual New York freaks, just the “suspicious looking” ones.
WTF? They most certainly do if #1 blows himself up upon being caught and #2-#4 are listening to the local news on the radio (unless the former happens so close to T Minus Zero that it doesn’t matter anyway).
I ride the oft-mentioned A train from 207th St. to Chambers every working day during peak hours. For what it’s worth, there were no cops on the platform that I could see at Columbus Circle, no cops at the Port Authority, no cops at Penn, and no cops at the WTC. Everything was BAU.
It is not clear how many police are being dispatched to perform these random searches.
Whether or not the searches incrementally or infinitesimally reduce the probability of violence is conditioned entirely on your prior beliefs about the likelihood of an attack and the ratio of searches to riders. The former is an assumption and the latter is unknown. It is impossible to make a convincing utility argument either way.
All that remains is to make rights-based arguments. I would prefer it if New Yorkers were encouraged to carry knives on the subway than to be subjected to this coercive and arguably ineffective tradeoff.
First: the guy in Brentwood who was arrested with numchuks and a machete had all of those items in his van he wasn’t on a train.
Second: I live in New York, and used to live in Vancouver, and know just how easy it is for a bike to be swiped from a busy street. Getting through the padlocked doors of a subway station would be just as simple, and would not require any advanced “James Bond” training.
Third: New York has almost as many subway stations as the rest of the U.S. If a terrorist can’t find a vulnerable spot, he’s not trying hard enough-- and random searches of stations won’t do dick for the reasons I outlined in my OP.
Want a vulnerable spot? New York One had a nice story Thursday about how easy it is to walk into the fucking train yard. They had their cameraman pull up part of a chainlink fence and get right next to some nice commuter trains.
If a guy carrying a hefty Betacam can’t get noticed on a train yard in the weeks after London’s trains were bombed, nobody worthwhile will get noticed either.
Random searches on the subway are useless, feel good, “Ooh the authorities are doing something” claptrap.
If you want to be safe, the only way to do it is to move to the middle of nowhere. If you want to feel safe without doing anything except inconveniencing people, conduct random searches on the subway.
I gotta agree with this. I’ve been saying the same thing about airport searches for years: the only thing they accomplish is inconveniencing the paying customers. They don’t do a damn thing at all to make us any safer.
And yet, nothing exploded and no one was hurt, except for that poor schlub maybe having thrown out his back. That was a close one, indeed.
Anyway, there was nothing in particular holding back all those soldiers and cops from stopping and searching Bucket Dude’s bucket, random search directive or no; so why didn’t they, do you think? And how does this demonstrate that random, arbitrary searches would be more effective? I’m not seeing it.
I didn’t say that I didn’t want bomb sniffing dogs in the subway. And I didn’t say that I didn’t want mechanical devices at the entrances (provided they don’t grind the subway to a halt such that it makes having a mass transit system moot in the first place). Have you been in the subway in question? If everyone had to pass through airport-like security…well, let’s just say it wouldn’t work.
I’m just saying that cost is a factor. I would love to put anti-missile defense shields on all planes, but it isn’t realistic.
The chances of an attack in the NYC subway is pretty good.
The chances of the average American being killed in that attack is very low.
Those are the statements you agreed with. To me, this means that you acknowledge that it is likely that people will die in a forthcoming attack, but also acknowledge that it is statistically unlikely to be you.
Well, we won’t know until we search you. So take everything out of your pockets and let us go through the contents of your wallet and anything else you are carrying, and then we’ll decide. This will only take a few minutes.
By the way, what’s on these unlabeled CDs you are carrying? Really? Well, we’ll need to check these out. Let’s go downtown and sort this out. It won’t take long.
Like, for example, cites, the coin of the realm here at SDMB. You remember cites, right?
Find me an incident in which the cops confiscated money without any evidence of drug involvement – just the fact that there was a large quantity of money.
Find me a New York local puritan law that forbids POSSESSION of “sex appliances”. In fact, I’ll be generous: find me any such law; forget that we’re talking about New York.
I didn’t mention “watch lists,” and I have no idea what they are. However, if a book is not per se illegal - obscene, for instance - it does not become illegal by inclusion on any list. Cite for the contrary proposition, please.
That would be a pain in the ass, all right, and absolutely unacceptable.
BUT IT HAS FUCK-ALL TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL CLAIM AND MY ANSWER.
In the end, everything I’m carrying is legal. That refutes the claim made above: “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.”
So your response says nothing about that claim, does it? Nothing at all. Your response relates to what a huge imposition into personal privacy such a zealous search would be. And I heartily agree. But that doesn’t translate into “…it’s simply not possible to keep up with, much less obey, all the rules.”
I’m trading in the liberty of being bombed for the liberty of potentially taking 1 minute or 2 to check my bag. Regarding the warrant: I think the standards of probable cause are too high. All they do is protect the guilty.
