Some useful advice to New Yorkers or NYC visitors on refusing the new subway searches,at flexyourrights.org, via bitchphd. As Mayor Bloomberg says:
“You can walk away if you don’t want your bag searched; you just can’t get on the subway. So we do it outside the turnstile. And there’s no profiling.”
Not sure I really believe that, but anyways, there’s lots of interesting tidbits about (but virtually no criticism of) this new practice in this NYT article. If the search voluntary, as it must be, what the hell is it for?? Obviously, a terrorist can just leave and go to another entrance, like you can do if you have something illegal besides a bomb your bag.
It seems, then that the primary purpose is to make people feel better, even if there’s no way that this can actually reduce terrorism. Hence these kind of comments:
Eve Holbrook, 35, who works at a law firm, submitted to a search at the station without being asked. “It gives me a sense of comfort,” she said. “I went up there of my own free will.”
James Murphy, 24, who traveled from Stamford, Conn., to Pelham, said that he was not optimistic about the searches being able to prevent a bombing, but that the policy made him feel safer. “What can it hurt?” he asked.
Well, I’d claim it can hurt plenty. Ms. Holbrook’s reaction is apparently not an isolated one.
Luz Pabon.. offered up her bag yesterday at the 96th Street 6 train station without being asked.
“True, it’s obvious I’m not a terrorist, but if they want, they can look . . . so they’ll know I’m not a suspect.”Another volunteer, Margaret Debrah, said she offered her bag so cops “will know I’m not guilty.”
Are these people really so concerned with proving their own innocence that they have missed the obvious fact that by submitting themselves voluntarily they are distracting the officers from finding real terrrorists (if such a thing was even possible using this method)? Amazingly enough, at least some cops seem themselves to wish to decrease their signal to noise: this NYPost article also describes how “cops at several stations yesterday allowed people who’d been searched to enter the system without paying.” One can only imagine that this practice will encourage non-terrorists to volunteer or more readily acquiese to the practice, although I don’t expect the saved two dollars is going to woo those suicide bombers who are expecting 72 virgins in heaven.
“Reassuring the public is a legitimate objective,” said RAND’s terrorism expert. “You might say, dismissively, it’s just to make people feel better. But we shouldn’t dismiss it.”
Wow. Okay. Two big problems with this. Jacob Sullum nicely sums up the first one:
I think we should, and here’s why: If any measure that is ostensibly aimed at preventing terrorism is justified, whether or not it actually prevents terrorism, simply because some people believe it will prevent terrorism, we might might as well forget about our constitutional rights and start lining up behind Eve Holbrook.
While we’re at it, Commissioner Kelly has another suggestion for how we can make things easier for the police. “Ideally,” he told the Times, “people wouldn’t carry any backpacks or bulky packages on the transit system.” But even a bag-free subway would be vulnerable to explosives strapped to terrorists’ bodies. So ideally, people wouldn’t wear any clothing on the transit system.
Compared to those ideas, it may seem a small thing to open your backpack, briefcase, or purse for what will probably be a cursory examination by a bored police officer. And that is precisely the problem: We are getting used to the idea that suspicionless searches of our personal belongings are no big deal.
Already, this has gone beyond just bag searching:
At Sutphin Boulevard-Archer Avenue in Jamaica, Queens, officers were seen asking riders to show a driver’s license or other identification and writing down the personal information.
But in addition to the very serious fourth amendment concerns, if the transit cops are mostly busy searching innocent people’s bags (many of whom have volunteered!), aren’t they going to be less available to notice something actually suspicious happening? And if this makes people feel safer, mightn’t they also be less vigilant, and also less concerned about real vulnerabities that we can do something about? It seems to me that we should try to prevent terrorism by doing
things that might actually prevent terrorism, and not just by making people like Holbrook, Pabon, and Debrah feel better by giving up our rights one at a time.
BTW, flexyourrights.org also has useful advice for resisting warrentless searches of your home or car, and CafePress has lots of nice 4th amendment gear.
July 31st, 2005 at 5:18 pm
I’ve been disappointed by the NYT coverage of the subway searches (which are now also on the New Jersey Transit from Princeton to Penn Station), and even with the usual response from civil libertarians. Most people are focusing on the possibility of racial profiling (yes, bad) — to the exclusion of the fact that having your bag searched without cause is pretty much the definition of “unreasonable search.”
July 31st, 2005 at 6:02 pm
I doubt that these searches are really unconstitutional, so long as they only do them to people getting on the subway. It’s not that much different from having your bags searched at the airport, which nobody complains about.
Of course, random voluntary searches are a complete waste of time, obviously a symbolic action to make people feel as if something is being done. And the folks who take it upon themselves to show their bags to the police are crazy as jaybirds.
July 31st, 2005 at 7:31 pm
People are being blown to pieces and slowly burnt to death, and liberal twits are still babbling about the 4th? Jesus H. Christ, wake up!
July 31st, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Yes, people are being blow up. So let’s DO something about it, instead of just paying lip service and instituting useless measures that won’t help. They are doing these random, voluntary searches because they are cheap and easy, and people tend not to mind giving up their rights. That doesn’t mean they will do anything to prevent terrorism. And it is precisely people being so willing to give up their rights that I am concerned about. And in general, I tend to be opposed to any measure that is about making people feel like something is being done, without actually doing something real.
I agree with Sean, by the way, it’s not clear that these searches are actually unconstitutional. What is clear is that one has a constitutional right not to submit to these searches voluntarily (and to leave the subway station). And I would suggest that that is, in fact, the responsible thing to do.
Do conservatives really think we should “let the terrorists win” by throwing out our constitutional rights when we are under attack?
July 31st, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Sometimes you’ll find me babbling about the 1st Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 7th … hell, the entire Bill of Rights! That’s just what a crazy America-hating liberal I am.
July 31st, 2005 at 8:38 pm
The logic is crystal clear. They hate us for our freedoms; so if we get rid of the freedoms, presumably they’ll stop hating us.
Fyodor – You have to read all of what Risa wrote, not just the bit you want to quote out of context to use in your anti-liberal rant. She’s for actually doing something about terrorism. Are you against that?
August 1st, 2005 at 2:25 am
I read the whole thing, and I even went to the recommended websites. Flexyourrights says, for example:
While Flex Your Rights takes no position on the usefulness of these searches for preventing future attacks, we have serious concerns that this unprecedented territorial expansion of police search powers is doing grave damage to people’s understanding of their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Not that they specifically state that they don’t care about the effectiveness of these measures.
The police are trying to do a difficult and dangerous job. Do they really need some twerp refusing to have a bag checked because big bad cops are notorious infringers of “rights”? Anyone who refuses to have his bag checked on the subway needs to be informed of his right to multiple perforations, a right that will be accorded with alacrity if he doesn’t cooperate RIGHT NOW!!
August 1st, 2005 at 2:29 am
By the way, Mark, they don’t hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we aren’t them. I don’t want them to stop hating us. I want them to stop killing us, and I want them to die. Reasonable security and military measures to that end should be supported by the non-suicidal.
August 1st, 2005 at 3:28 am
Oh, I just love how you put rights in quotes.
August 1st, 2005 at 7:57 am
On the positive side, NPR had a story on “explosives summer camp” where high school students got a chance to work with real C4 and other high explosives. If bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.
August 1st, 2005 at 10:33 am
Well if they do hate us for our freedoms then isn’t the Bush Administration guilty of appeasement?
August 1st, 2005 at 12:32 pm
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
A quote that hasn’t been used nearly enough.
“I don’t want them to stop hating us. I want them to stop killing us, and I want them to die.”
A quote that is perhaps the most ignorant thing I have ever read. You CANNOT get them to stop killing us by killing them. You can only get them to stop killing us by getting them to stop HATING us. By killing them, you make MORE of them. By killing them, they have a valid reason for recruitment. For every one of them that dies, every relative of theirs would certainly join up. Ignorant!
August 1st, 2005 at 1:59 pm
someone said: “If bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.”
Let me to point out that bombs are not outlawed, but monopolised by the State. It is very well known that the Western democracies are based on giving to the State an exclusive monopoly over Violence.
August 1st, 2005 at 10:08 pm
“By the way, Mark, they don’t hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we aren’t them. I don’t want them to stop hating us. I want them to stop killing us, and I want them to die.”
One could also argue that they hate us because the US has persued disasterous and morally ambiguous policies throughout the Middle East for decades. They hate us because the people of this country have tacitly supported these despised policies by allowing leaders to be elected that continue such policies. Therefore, in the minds of these people, one could argue that any institution representing US power, and even the American people themselves, become legitimate targets to attack in order to force a change in these policies. If the American people were able to receive objective information as to the concerns and feelings the people of this region had in regards to the United States and its foreign policy as well as appropriate knowledge of the cultural background of these people in order to gain the necessary context in which these peoples’ actions are carried out, the people of the US, I believe, would be able to at least understand why we’re being attacked, if not be able to elect leaders to address the issue of Islamic terrorism in a constructive way. One cannot defeat Islamic terrorism by military means. If we attack with a knife, they’ll attack with a gun; if we attack with a gun, they’ll come at us with a bomb. Violent response to terrorism on a state level will only lead to an escalation in the violence, to the detriment of all involved. We have to address the core roots of terrorism, such as poverty and social persecution in these countries, and the role the US and others have in regards to these roots in order to kill the terroristic seed before it can fully germinate.
August 1st, 2005 at 11:44 pm
This post contains something important that no one with leadership is dealing with. People (especially women I’m sorry to say, but true) who live in DC or NYC are really, really, really scared. Someone close to me in NYC, who is very educated and I think alot of, is literally afraid to leave her house in Queens. One of my best friends from high school, who lives in DC, is no longer speaking to me because I was not sensitive enough to her concerns. Those of us outside DC and NYC have a hard time understanding this, but to those who live within those cities the fear is very real. What they need is real leadership, and they haven’t gotten any.
January 15th, 2006 at 7:01 am
No, they hate us because we, as a nation, are friends of the Jews. It’s religous pretentionism at it’s finest.