ACLU slapped by Senate

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:05 pm

That's kind of my feeling as well. Kind of a tough one though.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:01 pm

Personally, I'm not opposed to the current searches on subways. Part of this may be my own fear thinking for me; I take the subway to work every day, and frankly, the London bombings scared the sht out of me.

To your other question though, Pony...the difference I do see between the subway searches and airport searches is that the airport searches apply to everybody, whereas the subway searches do not. The stated policy of the NYPD is that they're searching every fifth person who enters the subway during rush hour (as a practical matter, it's probably impossible to keep accurate track of the percentage of people that they're stopping; anyone who has seen how chaotic the NYC subways are during rush hour will understand what I mean).

Anyway, my point is that the fact that not everybody is searched in the subways does open the door for the possibility of profiling, whereas at the airport, that is less possible since everybody, regardless of race, is searched.

Having said all of that -- as I said earlier, I don't have a problem with the searches; anything that lessens the probability of my subway car getting torched on my way to work is a good thing.

One other point, in response to BAC's concern about the police being able to arrest people for things like possession of bongs, etc. that are discovered in the context of a search. Part of the policy behind the NY subway searches is that anybody can refuse to allow themselves to be searched; the consequence is only that they will not be allowed to enter the subway. As long as a person cannot be detained for failing to allow themselves to be searched, I would think the concern would be alleviated, yes?

--GL

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:12 pm

Grizlaw wrote:Personally, I'm not opposed to the current searches on subways. Part of this may be my own fear thinking for me; I take the subway to work every day, and frankly, the London bombings scared the sht out of me.

To your other question though, Pony...the difference I do see between the subway searches and airport searches is that the airport searches apply to everybody, whereas the subway searches do not. The stated policy of the NYPD is that they're searching every fifth person who enters the subway during rush hour (as a practical matter, it's probably impossible to keep accurate track of the percentage of people that they're stopping; anyone who has seen how chaotic the NYC subways are during rush hour will understand what I mean).

Anyway, my point is that the fact that not everybody is searched in the subways does open the door for the possibility of profiling, whereas at the airport, that is less possible since everybody, regardless of race, is searched.

Having said all of that -- as I said earlier, I don't have a problem with the searches; anything that lessens the probability of my subway car getting torched on my way to work is a good thing.

One other point, in response to BAC's concern about the police being able to arrest people for things like possession of bongs, etc. that are discovered in the context of a search. Part of the policy behind the NY subway searches is that anybody can refuse to allow themselves to be searched; the consequence is only that they will not be allowed to enter the subway. As long as a person cannot be detained for failing to allow themselves to be searched, I would think the concern would be alleviated, yes?

--GL

sounds like a good plan gl. I just hope that no granparents are being searched because that would be rather pointless and a waste of time

personally tho if anyone brings a bong onto a NY subway knowing that there is a possibility of being searched that qualifies them as stupid or uninformed right?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:31 pm

Just for the sake or argument, OBL is a grandparent....

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 4:17 pm

...if you cant recognise o.b.l. you deserve to be an airport security screaner

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:19 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:...if you cant recognise o.b.l. you deserve to be an airport security screaner

Well, that's a good point. Can't argue with that one.

But there are other lesser-known grandparent types that also just might be terrorists as well. Like I mentioned, I'm not completely against profiling, but in addition to searching specific people based on high risk factors, I still think some degree of randomness should be included as well just so people don't circumvent the system by using a disguise that is known to be excluded from searches.

Example: The legendary/(mythic?) story of the AGRs once sneaking a keg into a football game by dressing up one of the guys as a little old lady in a wheelchair and putting a pony keg in "her" blankets.