Was Mr. Jones money confiscated or you are saying because it was eventually returned, that means his money wasn’t really confiscated?
And why does someone with legitimate business travel with that much cash on a plane to buy nursery stock that he can’t transport on the plane anyway? I have only been to NYC once, but I really doubt that the average New Yorker is wandering around with thousands of dollars in their pockets and backpacks.
No, I’ll grant that it was confiscated.
However, Mr. Jones’ case is not relevant. It happened in 1991.
In 2000, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act went into effect. It prevents the government from confiscating money in circumstances similar to Mr. Jones.
So I’ll allow that if we were having this discussion before 2000, the concerns would be well-founded. In response to valid concerns, the government changed the law. Problem solved.
Ya know, despite the vitriol displayed by some here, this is a pretty good discussion, and ought to be in GD.
Er, actually all we have is your word that everything you are carrying is legal. The point is, the Official We have no reason accept your word until we search you and confirm that this is so. So, turn 'em out.
Hey, I don’t think that there will be all that many cases where someone will be arrested on bogus charges based on a ‘random’ search, but this is a country where a 12-year old girl was once arrested and handcuffed for the crime of eating a french fry on the Washington metro, and but I firmly believe, as has been the case so far with air travel, that large numbers of people will be subjected to official harassment, delay, and humiliation as a result of these policies. I already said I wouldn’t resist it, but I don’t have to like it.
BTW, all this (random bag checks, armed soldiers in stations, “Your papers, please”) in went on in France in the mid-90s during a wave of transport bombings by an Algerian militant group,and it was just as much theatre as in NYC; the group was finally rounded up not because of random bag checks, but through actual investigative police work. So far as I know, same for the Madrid bombings. I anxiously await news as to whether the guy they shot on the London Tube this morning actually had anything to do with the recent bombings, was just freaked out by the armed cops or was maybe involed in some other, unrelated criminal activity.
Hopefully not one of those illegal sex toys. It would be really embarrassing if it got confiscated.
Blah blah blah, yet nothing happened now did it?
And remember, the people doing the searching are part of the same police force that arrested 1806 people during last year’s Republican National Convention, only to have over 90% of the cases dismissed or the accused found not guilty. In over 400 instances, these cases were dropped when video evidence directly contradicted police statements, and some cops were found to be outright lying.
This is the same police force where an officer described arresting a protestor, who then had to be carried, kicking and screaming, to the waiting police van. And where video evidence later proved that the protestor in question had walked calmly under his own steam, and that the police officer in question was not even present at this man’s arrest. And where further evidence showed that this police officer had not even been present at the arrests of four other protestors against whom he signed complaints.
And this is the same city where the prosecutor’s office edited videotape to excise exculpatory material demonstrating that a protestor accused of resisting arrest and pushing his bicycle into a line of police officers was actually acting peacefully. This tampering only came to light after a third party obtained a cpopy of the original tape and gave it to the defendant. Charges were then dismissed.
no word on whether the tamperers or the lying cops ever faced any disciplinary action.
The story is here. (For those worried about the source, i’ll point out that exactly the same information appeared in the New York Times on April 12 of this year, but the story has been archived and is only available for purchase.)
So, Bricker, in answer to your question, it seems that at least some members of the NYPD are happy to find whatever excuse they feel like to arrest someone they want to arrest. It appears that, for some of these people, the fact that you haven’t actually broken any law is merely incidental.
And put me on record agreeing with the OP. I think this measure is little more than window dressing.
Of course, it’s also one of those measures where the people who support it really can’t lose. If there are no terrorist attacks, they will stand there smugly and say, “See, we told you it would work,” And if there *are * terrorist attacks, they will stand there self-righteously and say, “This only shows that we need to take even stronger measures.”
I live in London. I ride the tube twice every single weekday, and usually weekends too. The tube bombs a fortnight ago were a short walk from my flat, my office and my girlfriend’s university, respectively. I have a fair idea of some of the issues here.
This is a dumb idea. Why?
1 Because, as has been pointed out, a determined bomber can easily get round this.
2 Even if they can’t, they will just move on to the next most attractive target. In which case, you start guarding the next target on the list, searching people etc.
Repeat 1 and 2 endlessly, until you get to the situation you currently have in Israel, where guards stop and pat you down before you can go into a pizza parlour or a nightclub and people STILL get killed by suicide bombers.
This is a discussion about Terrorism. Terrorism is not about killing everyone, it is about scaring people. Making them ‘terrified’ to go about their daily lives. Killing lots of people is a handy way of doing that, but what do you think al-Quaeda would rather have?
3000 dead people and the rest of the country going about their business
50 dead people and the entire population cowering in front of their TVs at home, too afraid to go out to work, dinner, church, baseball, etc. because they might get blown up? Begging their leaders to do anything which will make the bombs stop?
Currently we have cops standing around every single tube station in full uniform, high-vis vests, the lot. I suppose if there was a blast, and they survived, they might help with first aid or crowd control, but from a security perspective they add about as much value as a chocolate teapot. Searches fall into the same category - a pallative for the gullible.
That may be your point.
That wasn’t the point I was responding to.
The point I was responding to was the claim that if the police search closely enough, they will find something, because there are so many laws that everyone is a lawbreaker of some kind.
I disagreed with that point.
I agree that such intrusive searches would be bad, but not for the reason that they would inevitably uncover something illegal.
Give me an example. How can you “screw up”? Are you really claiming you’re so unsure about the law that you are afraid of accidentally violating it by something you might innocently carry on your person?
I don’t believe it, but I’m willing to learn. Educate me.
Well, actually the back’s good & with the exception of a bruised clavicle, all’s fine.
News reports about the random searches on trains & buses is all everyone’s talking about. It’s all you hear in cubicles, the street & the water cooler. Within a day or two, I imagine most everyone in the entire NYC metropolitan region will have knowledge of the new policy. I’ll concede the point random searches may not prevent a tragedy from occuring - but the policy, as I see it, should have a deterrent effect. Had that bucket not been filled with acrylic stucco - and instead was some type of explosive device - I can’t fathom finding many volunteers who would willingly attempt to get it past such a hardened target.
On a completely different note, though I can’t find a cite, according to NPR, there’s a small but growing movement within London to restrict passengers from carrying most bags and packages aboard the Met. I actually heard a London Bureau chief on the radio this morning say ‘Thank God for Closed-Circuit TV’.
[quote=1. 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.[/quote]
Easy, Waco.
One of the reasons the feds were attempting to serve a warrant on Koresh was for operating an alleged meth lab in the compound. (I won’t go into the how this totally bogus claim got on the warrant in the first place as I don’t think it is germane, but the allegations were made by a Australian blind guy Koresh had kicked out of the cult for his own drug use). In any case, after the fire of 4/19/03, the feds hauled away from Mt. Carmel a safe which had survived the fire containing $50,000 in cash and an undetermined quantity of gold and platinum claiming it was “drug money,” even though there was ample evidence that there was no drug activity at Mt. Carmel at the time. Not only was none of this returned to its rightful owners, but the feds shortly after confiscating it, “lost” it.
Better watch out how many dildos you’re carrying if you’re in Texas:
Except, in Israel, you also read frequently about suicide bombers who were stopped by alert security guards outside busses, restaurants, checkpoints, etc. Bus drivers have also refused to let suspicious people on, who’ve turned out to be “rigged.” They’re either arrested, or they set off their bombs prematurely, killing a lot fewer people than they’d planned (sometimes only themselves).
I think MHendo and Slaphead have made the most sane posts in this thread.
Until we take steps to address the root of the problem, any band-aids we slap on will be in vain.
AQ won’t hit spain again, discuss.
A problem fixed by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.
[Took about ten seconds.
[/QUOTE]
[URL=]Took thirty seconds, but only because I had to demonstrate the error of your assumption that this quibble would save your argument. Alas, you forgot about the magic of mathematics, whereby the right number can transmogrify “possession” into “intent to distribute”](Civil Asset Forfeiture - Reason.com)
Huh? Unless my monitor is playing tricks on me, there is an explicit mention of “watch lists” in your Post#50.
So what?
Your story indicates that there are cops that will act in violation of the law and established NYPD policy.
Why is it relevant what policy we put it place, then? According to that story, these cops are willing to ignore whatever rules exist. So a discussion about what rules should exist is utterly irrelevant to the problem presented by the cops in the story you offer.
By this reasoning, we might as well just have anarchy, since some people will ignore whatever laws exist.
In reality, yes. But what does peace of mind and the feeling of safe travel cost? I like to think of it as trading liberties, not giving any up. I trade the right not to be searched (where are we granted that right anyway?) for the right to travel safely, or at least think I’m traveling safely.
It’s a wash.