Random Searches

[Nuc]

first off you are doing nothing wrong and don't have a gun or drugs or a BOMB what do you care...

you are the same person that when you get blown up you will bitch that we didn't do enough....

I think we should "do enough". I just don't think "random" is the way to accomplish the task. I think "specific" is the way.

OK, what is better about random searches than just targeting potential terrorists and searching them?

 

[Annie]

I think we should "do enough". I just don't think "random" is the way to accomplish the task. I think "specific" is the way.

OK, what is better about random searches than just targeting potential terrorists and searching them?

Actually I do agree, there should be profiling, as well as 'suspicious behavior or appearance.' IE: What do most of the suicide bombers, terrorists look like? What do they need in order to accomplish their 'missions'?

Too bad other 'civil liberties' get in the way of these normal police procedures.

 

[dmp]

This statement implies that you are smarter than me and in a position to teach. I seriously doubt it.

I'll put it to you like this, Smarty McEinstein...

I worked for Staff Sergeant Pennington a few years ago. SSG P was a blue-collar guy; salt of the earth. He had little education, formally, but was among the smartest men I've known. He said something to me which I'll never forget. He said "Ya know? Anybody can teach me something. A Private First Class taught me how to fire my M16. Yup. He'd been in the army about Two hours (tongue-in-cheek), and i had been in 5 years. Pemberton - never be afraid to learn from somebody...from anybody"

This thread...within this thread...are people trying to get a concept across to you - a concept which should be VERY basic. You refuse to learn that concept based out of deep seeded hatred about your personal experiences. I'm trying...others are trying too...to get you to drop your bigotry of security measures, take a step back and realize something. Something?

Another story...

My daughter is fond of telling on her little brother. The most minute things my 3 year old son does to my 6 year old daughter get flagged for my attention. I've started a routine of questioning with her. Last night I used it.

My kids were coming out to say good nite to me.

"Daddy..." my daughter started, "When we were coming out to say goodnite, Ethan pushed me."

"Honey. Did him pushing you hurt you in any way?"

She shook her head no.

"Did him pushing you make you less smart?"

Again 'no'.

"Did him pushing you make you shorter, or ugly, or sick?"

"No Daddy..."

"So in the big picture, honey, does it 'really' matter?"

She smiled and said 'No Daddy...it doesnt'

I'd say Honest, good people having to take 30 seconds out of their day to show the content of their bags/items in no way harms them. It's a very small price to pay, in the big picture.

 

[Nuc]

Actually I do agree, there should be profiling, as well as 'suspicious behavior or appearance.' IE: What do most of the suicide bombers, terrorists look like? What do they need in order to accomplish their 'missions'?

Too bad other 'civil liberties' get in the way of these normal police procedures.

Thank you.

 

[GotZoom]

Listen, I don't know what your lifestyle is, but mine is perpetual travel. I don't like getting searched because I have never broken the law. I have had my luggage and the contents of my luggage broken by the TSA morons as well as having had completely innocuous stuff confiscated by them because they are idiots and don't know what things are. This search hysteria has affected my life and my property and I consider that to be a violation of my right against unreasonable search and seizure. I am not going to go to the ACLU to try to get my luggage repaired, but until the government comes up with a more specific methodology I will voice my objections whenever I feel like it. It's a quality of life issue. For those of you who live on a farm, or in a church or just hide out in your mothers basement typing this crap maybe it doesn't affect you. Those of us in the real world are being harassed by the government and that's not what I pay my taxes for. If they want to search people I expect them to do better than "random".

I'm sure all the passengers on the 9/11 airplanes and all the passengers on the buses and subways in London felt the same way you do about being searched.

Simple way to solve this problem. You...(not generic you but YOU) need to come up with a fail-safe, full proof, 100% accurate description of who we need to worry about and therefore, search.

Don't forget to include:

Height
weight
hair color
eye color
sex
facial hair
clothing
accessories
briefcase, bag, grocery sack
visible scars
hair style
nationality
age
disibility
language spoken
accent
walking speed
unusual actions; i.e., looking over shoulder, etc
if they are reading something and what that something is
how they act upon approact to entrance to ___________
who they have talked to in the past week, 2 weeks, month
what county the money in their pocket is from
what religion they study

and even this, isn't complete.

When you can show the authorities who the people are that we need to search, then we will all agree with you.

 

[manu1959]

I think we should "do enough". I just don't think "random" is the way to accomplish the task. I think "specific" is the way.

OK, what is better about random searches than just targeting potential terrorists and searching them?

ok you claim to be smart ... if they say that they are going to profile their searches and only go after rag heads they will not be allowed to do it .... so they say they are going to do random searches .... but you knew all that ... which seems odd that you would get mad about the unreasonable search issue .... and throw that out as a strw man when all you really want is all rag heads tossed out of the country and the doors locked so you can travel and not be hasseled ....

 

[KarlMarx]

Now they are starting random searches on the NYC and DC subways. This is prompted by something that happened in London. Last I heard London was not even part of this country.

I guess the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure does not extend to "idiotic search".

We know who the terrorists are. Why search randomly? Search people who might be terrorists. Searching a teenyboppers guitar case or some old ladies gym bag will not make anybody safer. The US government are the terrorists now, because they are terrorizing innocent citizens with their foul searches.

This is an issue all Americans should be able to agree upon. It cuts across left/right boundaries. Everyone is being violated.

How is this unreasonable or in your words "idiotic"? London subways were attacked twice in the same number of weeks. The "unreasonable" part is coming from you...

the President has the duty to uphold and protect the public welfare and safety (look in the Constitution)

Your attitude is part of the problem....

first people like yourselves say that "Bush should have done something to prevent 9/11"

OK.... so if he authorized searches of people, cracking down on terrorists, instituted the Patriot Act and invaded Afghanistan before 9/11, you and your left wing buddies would be jumping down his throat because your rights were being "violated".....

second.... it's a post 9/11 world, people in London have been killed, the Patriot Act is working and now you claim that Bush is being unreasonable....

There just isn't any use trying to work with you screwball lefties....

To my conservative brethren, let this be a lesson to all of us.....The best indication of a good policy for this country will now be

"Does it annoy, infuriate or "scare" liberals?" If so, then in all likelihood it might be a good policy, if it doesn't, then the leaders of this country should reconsider.

 

[Abbey Normal]

ok you claim to be smart ... if they say that they are going to profile their searches and only go after rag heads they will not be allowed to do it .... so they say they are going to do random searches...

Exactly. Unless the authorities can prove statistically that they are searching all tyes of people, the ACLU will get a Middle Eastern man who has been searched to bring suit, claiming his rights have been violated through profiling. In fact, they probably have some guys on standby who will go into the subways trying to be searched.

So Nuke, if we are wasting your time with random searches, you should protest the ACLU, liberal judges, and their ilk. Not the airlines who are forced to waste untold dollars searching my 78 year old mother in law (true), while the ME guy in front of her reading the Koran is not questioned (also true) or be heavily fined. You are just the inconvenienced victim of liberal PC policies gone amuck.

 

[GotZoom]

So Nuke, if we are wasting your time with random searches, you should protest the ACLU, liberal judges, and their ilk. Not the airlines who are wasting untold dollars searching my 78 year old mother in law (true), while the ME guy in front of her reading the Koran is not questioned (also true). You are just the inconvenienced victim of liberal PC policies gone amuck.

 

[USViking]

Actually I do agree, there should be profiling, as well as 'suspicious behavior or appearance.' IE: What do most of the suicide bombers, terrorists look like? What do they need in order to accomplish their 'missions'?

Too bad other 'civil liberties' get in the way of these normal police procedures.

I'm with you and the threadstarter on this.

The threadstarter has come down with both feet
against the reactionary liberal ACLU PC BS which
opposes racial/ethnic profiling, even if clearly justified,
as it is in the case of terrorist bombing.

No one with blond hair, red hair, blue eyes, or a
clearly Caucasian appearance need ever be searched,
and although there are Africans in the ranks of the
terrorists, they are not many, and could be targeted
at a lower rate than people of Mideastern appearance.
Also, although there have been a few female suicide
bombers in the Middle East, close to 100% have been
male, so females need not be targeted nearly as
often as males.

I have had one or two rows with the threadstarter
myself elsewhere on this board, but this time he is exactly right.

 

[archangel]

Random searches in name only...this allows a experienced law enforcement officer to profile without being attacked by the ACLU...a experienced law enforcement officer can pick a random person prior to hitting the profiled suspect...from my personal experience this type of random searches works out quite well...a 75% return on investment sorta speak...so no harm no foul!

 

[dmp]

ok you claim to be smart ... .

To be fair, he never claimed to be smart...he just believes he's smarter than I am; which is entirely possible.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I'm with you and the threadstarter on this.

The threadstarter has come down with both feet
against the reactionary liberal ACLU PC BS which
opposes racial/ethnic profiling, even if clearly justified,
as it is in the case of terrorist bombing...

I think everyone in this thread agrees that targeted searches are the most efficient and most likely to yield good results. But I haven't seen where the thread-starter understands that ACLU PC BS is to blame for the need for random searches. If he does understand that, let's hear him say so.

 

[Nuc]

I think everyone in this thread agrees that targeted searches are the most efficient and most likely to yield good results. But I haven't seen where the thread-starter understands that ACLU PC BS is to blame for the need for random searches. If he does understand that, let's hear him say so.

I agree that PC BS is to blame for a lot of this wastefulness. Then Dept. of Homeland Security is disorganized and that's why they do things in a blanket fashion rather than surgically. I place the blame on both left and right. OK?

 

[Annie]

I agree that PC BS is to blame for a lot of this wastefulness. Then Dept. of Homeland Security is disorganized and that's why they do things in a blanket fashion rather than surgically. I place the blame on both left and right. OK?

While I agree with your main point, on this we disagree. Homeland Security is stuck, as are the police departments all over the country with the PC/ACLU parameters. Ever heard of 'Driving while Black?' While there certainly are some just complaints with what has happened to some blacks, there also is the basic criminal justice 'rules' that if something, someone is somewhere that is unexpected, watch it, stop it, check it out.

 

[Abbey Normal]

One example of PC BS at work. If American settled for 1.5 million, you can be sure the fine was much higher. If you were in charge of subway safety in NYC, you'd do random searches too.


American Airlines fined for passenger profiling

American Airlines has agreed to a $US1.5 million settlement in order to avoid further disciplinary action over post-September 11 incidents in which Arab, Muslim and South Asian passengers were illegally removed from American flights.

The US Department of Transportation found the airline violated federal discrimination laws and has ordered it to "cease and desist."

American Airlines also agreed to spend at least $US1.5 million over the next three years on civil rights training for its employees, particularly flight attendants and passenger service staff, who deal directly with the public, as part of the deal.

In exchange, the Government has agreed to drop enforcement proceedings stemming from an investigation that found American Airlines guilty of violating anti-discrimination laws.

The Texan-based carrier did not admit any violations.

"Concerns about aviation security in the days following the September 11, 2001 attacks do not justify illegal discrimination against passengers," said US Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta in a statement.

The Government reached a similar agreement with United Airlines in November 2003.

American Arabs and Arab-American groups complained of widespread profiling of US Arabs following the hijacking of four planes by Arab men on September 11.

 

[hylandrdet]

AWESOME! Search MORE. In fact, if a cop sees a brother and even THINKS the brother may be doing something wrong? Shake him down.
NOBODY is being violated - that's rhetoric and drama and liberal whining.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-21-patriot-act-extended_x.htm

Of course they won't violate you... Unless they found out that you may had read Mein Kempf or the Turner Diaries or the Anarchist Cookbook, just for the purpose of gathering research for an essay. In that case, you just might get some questioning time from the authorities! I also choose to suggest that you refrain from leaving any race jokes in your text messaging.

Then there is one other factor, the "rabbit".

The "rabbit" is a trained or manipulated distractor; his job is to draw the attention away from the real action.

For example, drug dealers for years have paid drivers thousands of dollars to delibrately draw police officers away from an area with a car chase, while a truckload of drugs slowly drives its way pass the area where the police WERE!

The problem with you conservatives is that you're so arrogant with your "knowledge" of everything, that you really don't think you can be out smarted, even after altering the rules to your favor.

So tell me, how are you going to be able to tell the difference between the "rabbit" and the real thing?

Here's one other scary thought for you; most of these "rabbits" that exist don't even realize that they are rabbits, thanks in part to paraniod behaviour.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/22/london.tube/index.html

If you ask me, all of these so-called "new measures" has myself thinking one thing...Elmer Fudd runs the Department of Homeland Security.

Kill da Wabbit!!! Kill da Wabbit!!!

My solution- Show some patience and stop bumrushing everything that moves! Stop chasing the rabbits and start investigating legitimate suspects.

"A person who can deceive well possesses one huge advantage; he can hide the truth by simply leaving it in plain view"

-My quote was based on a quote by Rod Sterling

 

[Annie]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mac_donald200507221413.asp

July 22, 2005, 2:13 p.m.
Looking the Wrong Way
New York City’s new search policy is a waste.

By Heather Mac Donald

Time to get real: Only Muslims commit Islamic terrorism. By definition. Ask Osama bin Laden, who called on Muslims, and Muslims only, to kill Americans wherever they can find us.


Yet the New York Police Department has promised that its new policy of subway bag checks will be scrupulously random. This senseless sacrifice to political correctness will waste precious police resources with little improvement in public safety.

The British police have just released photos of the suspects in the Thursday subway bomb attempts. Did the police look for freckled-face Irish lassies on the subway videotapes? Unlikely. The suspects all appear to be South Asian or North African. The British are indifferent to the civil-libertarian hysterics because they were just attacked and fear they will soon be again. It will apparently take another strike on U. S. soil to wake up NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly and the rest of the American law-enforcement establishment that public safety comes before political correctness.

To be sure, random checks have a certain logic. There is always a chance that al Qaeda will be able to persuade a Minnesotan grandmother, say, to carry a bomb onto a New York subway. If law enforcement pays extra attention to people of apparent Muslim origin, it risks ignoring the non-conventional Islamic terrorist.

But that risk is far smaller than the risk that while a police officer is inspecting the golf-club bag of a Manhattan banker on his way to Westchester, a Pakistani carrying a bomb will slip onto the Number 4 line. It is unlikely that al Qaeda and other Muslim terror groups have recruited large numbers of Anglo-Europeans to their cause; the vast majority of would-be killers remain al Qaeda’s core constituency: disaffected Middle Easterners, South Asians, and North Africans.

The disconnect between what we know and what we do remains stunning to behold. Public discourse after the 7/7 bombings focused exclusively on Muslim extremism — has it been exacerbated by the Iraq invasion, say, or is it provoked by an abstract ideological hostility to the West? Yet when it comes to taking action, government officials pretend that all groups are equally likely to commit Islamic terrorism and that Muslim identity should play no role in targeting preemptive law-enforcement action.

There’s always a hope that the NYPD is lying through its teeth, and will in fact allow its officers to notice national origin and back them up against the inevitable lawsuits. If Commissioner Kelly means what he says, however, it will be most interesting to observe whether following another New York attack, the NYPD searches for leads among worshippers in St. Patrick’s Cathedral with the same alacrity as it canvasses Brooklyn’s radical mosques.

— Heather Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

 

[dilloduck]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mac_donald200507221413.asp

We will not have an effective search policy until there is a law that allows profiling AND SCOTUS upholds it. Until that happens, the so-called "random" search policy is the best that law enforcment can do without massive lawsuits filed by the likes of the ACLU. In the mean time, the common citizen will have to vigilant and closely watch and report those who are more likely to commit an act of terrorism.

 

[Annie]

We will not have an effective search policy until there is a law that allows profiling AND SCOTUS upholds it. Until that happens, the so-called "random" search policy is the best that law enforcment can do without massive lawsuits filed by the likes of the ACLU. In the mean time, the common citizen will have to vigilant and closely watch and report those who are more likely to commit an act of terrorism.

You finally got it! Congrats to you.

BTW, while SCOTUS IMO has attempted to make law, it hasn't been in this area, with the possible exception of the Miranda Warning laws.