NYCLU sues city over subway searches

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I don't know if it's been brought up already, as I don't have time to read the whole thread, but:

IV - Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Seems to me the searches are unconstitutional.

 

[wowbagger]

I was living in LA during the riots. The looting, arson and mayhem lasted about 5 days. There were plumes of smoke rising everywhere. News helicopters were showing live footage of all kinds lootings, fires, and a guy named Reginald Denny getting dragged out of his truck, and almost beat to death. Much of these helicopter shots were of places where police were nowhere around. There were some places where the LAPD was so outnumbered, they were ordered to withdraw. Other areas, they were ordered to stay out. The fires and looting continued, spreading to a wider and wider area of the city. Rioters were going to gas stations and filling up gas cans, driving to their targets, and setting more buildings on fire. The National Guard was called in and deployed to some of the hot-spots, with their M16's. It was quickly learned that they had no ammo! The rioting and fires were getting closer and closer to our home. By the 4th day, with the chaos continuing (virtually unchecked), the city set up vehicle check-points, issued an after dark curfew, banned the filling up of containers with gas, and did a few more things to get the situation under control.

I am greatful for the restrictions temporraily put on the city. The fires were within a mile from our home when things finally started to subside.

So, you can take those lofty, starry-eyed and theoretic slogans, and.......... Well, I'll just leave it at that.

I live in the real world, not the theoretic world. How about you?

Hi Bear,

I was living in LA during the riots as well. I watched most of the smoke from my rooftop and some of my senior year finals were postponed because of curfew (only for my night classes, and I had to take them after I graduated).

It was correct for the NG forces to come in to restore order at that time where the day-to-day police could not handle the burden. Please tell me what that has to do with NYC in a non-riot peace-time mode doing voluntary bag searches on a subway? Should every city take more extreme measures "just in case"?

Wouldn't we all be safer with a cop on every corner? Would you vote for that? as well and pay for it with your taxes? Wouldn't domestic abuse decline if we had cctv in every home? Are you in favor of that too? We could definitely prevent many many crimes!!-- but at what cost?

Think about it.
What you are essentially advocating is a police state not unlike parts of China, "old" Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc... Is that really what you think America should be?

wowbagger

 

[TheBear]

Hi Bear,

I was living in LA during the riots as well. I watched most of the smoke from my rooftop and some of my senior year finals were postponed because of curfew (only for my night classes, and I had to take them after I graduated).

It was correct for the NG forces to come in to restore order at that time where the day-to-day police could not handle the burden. Please tell me what that has to do with NYC in a non-riot peace-time mode doing voluntary bag searches on a subway? Should every city take more extreme measures "just in case"?

Wouldn't we all be safer with a cop on every corner? Would you vote for that? as well and pay for it with your taxes? Wouldn't domestic abuse decline if we had cctv in every home? Are you in favor of that too? We could definitely prevent many many crimes!!-- but at what cost?

Think about it.
What you are essentially advocating is a police state not unlike parts of China, "old" Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc... Is that really what you think America should be?

wowbagger

First of all, your remarks indicate that you did not understand a word I said. Please don't put words in my mouth and then tailor your remarks to things I did not say nor intend.



But more importantly, why don't you tell us about the "peace-time mode" we're in right now.

 

[wowbagger]

First of all, your remarks indicate that you did not understand a word I said. Please don't put words in my mouth and then tailor your remarks to things I did not say nor intend.

Please specify and clarify precisely what you mean by this. It isn't obvious to me (obviously).

But more importantly, why don't you tell us about the "peace-time mode" we're in right now.

Congress declares WAR. The only country we WERE at war with was Iraq. No terrorists from Iraq have been threatening the US stateside. What country do you think we are at war with? Even Rummy has now changed his verbage to state it is a "struggle" and not a war.

Do you really think that the continent you live on is in a war mode? Are you maybe just a bit overstating things?

 

[TheBear]

Do you really think that the continent you live on is in a war mode?

We're at war, with un-uniformed militants who target defenseless civilians, who have international targets. And, surprising as this may be to you, the US is on these terrorists hit list. 9-11 was the latest, and most devistating attack, but that is not some isolated event. Bin Laden's number 2 guy, Ayman al-Zawahri, recently reiterated to the world, that al_Qaeda plans to cause more destruction and death around the world unless their demands are met.



1993 - The WTC was bombed.

1999 - Ahmed Ressam, the 'Millenium Bomber' was caught transporting explosives and bombmaking materials. The target - LAX. His cooperation with authorities led invesigators to over 100 other al-Qaeda members in the US.

2001 - 4 airplanes were hijacked - 2 hit the towers of the WTC, 1 hit the Pentagon, and the other was overtaken by passangers and forced to crash in a Pennsylvania field.

2002 - The 'Beltway Snipers', John Muhammed and Lee Malvo, killed 10 people and critically injured 3 others before they were caught.

I could cite many more attempted attacks which have been thwarted, (like the al-Qaeda terrorist who was planning to blow up the Brookland Bridge), but this is getting tiring at the moment. My eyes need a rest.

Terrorist cells have been discovered all over the country. Take a look....

Spain thought it was safe since the war was not being fought in thier country. England though it was safe since the war was not being fought in their country.

Are you maybe just a bit overstating things?

Yeah, that's it.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

We're at war, with un-uniformed militants who target defenseless civilians, who have international targets. And, surprising as this may be to you, the US is on these terrorists hit list. 9-11 was the latest, and most devistating attack, but that is not some isolated event. Bin Laden's number 2 guy, Ayman al-Zawahri, recently reiterated to the world, that al_Qaeda plans to cause more destruction and death around the world unless their demands are met.



1993 - The WTC was bombed.

1999 - Ahmed Ressam, the 'Millenium Bomber' was caught transporting explosives and bombmaking materials. The target - LAX. His cooperation with authorities led invesigators to over 100 other al-Qaeda members in the US.

2001 - 4 airplanes were hijacked - 2 hit the towers of the WTC, 1 hit the Pentagon, and the other was overtaken by passangers and forced to crash in a Pennsylvania field.

2002 - The 'Beltway Snipers', John Muhammed and Lee Malvo, killed 10 people and critically injured 3 others before they were caught.

I could cite many more attempted attacks which have been thwarted, (like the al-Qaeda terrorist who was planning to blow up the Brookland Bridge), but this is getting tiring at the moment. My eyes need a rest.

The FBI has discovered terrorist cells all over the country. Take a look....

Spain thought it was safe since the war was not being fought in thier country. England though it was safe since the war was not being fought in their country.




Yeah, that's it.

I'm not justifying any terrorism, nor the need to react to it, but I have a serious question for you--when and under what circumstances will the war on terror be won?

 

[wowbagger]

We're at war, with un-uniformed militants who target defenseless civilians, who have international targets. And, surprising as this may be to you, the US is on these terrorists hit list. 9-11 was the latest, and most devistating attack, but that is not some isolated event. Bin Laden's number 2 guy, Ayman al-Zawahri, recently reiterated to the world, that al_Qaeda plans to cause more destruction and death around the world unless their demands are met.



Spain thought it was safe since the war was not being fought in thier country. England though it was safe since the war was not being fought in their country.




Yeah, that's it.

I actually agree that terrorists which have infiltrated our country with intent to do harm are a very real threat. But I wouldnt say that the US is in a war mode stateside. Guess I just have a different idea of what a land in "war" means.

If the US was at war here I would expect that the US to look more like Iraq does now, or like Vietnam, Beirut, Germany, or Bosnia when they were at war. The US is still far from that.

Don't think that I dont believe that terrorists want to make a harmful impact in the US. I think they definitely do- and probably will. Where I differ with you is in the tactics we use to prevent such an attack and assure the safety of American citizens.

I still believe that random voluntary bag searches on one city's subway (one of many modes of transport) will do diddly to prevent anything.

Specifically, why do you think that searches on the NY subway will deter a terrorist when they can refuse it and walk away - and there is a high probability that they won't even be asked? Do you understand that no search is forced and no racial profiling is allowed?

I'm not against ALL searches. Just those wihout any probable cause. Leave Grandma and little Opie alone.

wowbagger

PS I wonder what happens when someone is carrying a large wrapped gift?

 

[SisterGeoff]

What was the first on the list of rights? Oh yeah. Life!

Did you just skip over that whole part about the Declaration of Indepedance not being liegally binding and our rights being listed in the bill or rights and the other amendments?

 

[TheBear]

Did you just skip over that whole part about the Declaration of Indepedance not being liegally binding and our rights being listed in the bill or rights and the other amendments?

All that means squat if you're dead.

We first have a right to live without being attacked and killed. Without that right, the rest is meaningless. The other rights are important, but apply to the living.

 

[SisterGeoff]

All that means squat if you're dead

We first have a right to live without being attacked and killed. Without that right, the rest is meaningless. The other rights are important, but apply to the living.

Oh enough with the dramatics, it's not legally binding end or story.

 

[TheBear]

Oh enough with the dramatics, it's not legally binding end or story.

"dramatics"?

Have a nice day, SisterGeoff.

 

[ACougar]

I happen to believe that how I live is more important than how I die. Let us live free and let the Fates determine when and how we die.

All that means squat if you're dead.

We first have a right to live without being attacked and killed. Without that right, the rest is meaningless. The other rights are important, but apply to the living.

 

[TheBear]

I happen to believe that how I live is more important than how I die. Let us live free and let the Fates determine when and how we die.

Does how you live, preclude any and all safety precautions in life? For example, do you look both ways before crossing the street, or do you just look straight ahead and go, letting "Fate" determine if you get across the street without being hit by a car?

 

[ACougar]

It is wise as individuals to practice certain safety precautions, if we are the ones choosing to practice safety then there is no restriction of freedom. As a free man I choose to look both ways before crossing the street, I choose to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, I choose to wear a seatbelt when I'm driving. I do not like being told that I must wear a seatbelt, that I must wear a helmet, that I must accept whatever safety measures the government deems necessary.

While I value both Safety and Liberty, I don't believe in sacrificing Liberty at the alter of Safety.

Does how you live, preclude any and all safety precautions in life? For example, do you look both ways before crossing the street, or do you just look straight ahead and go, letting "Fate" determine if you get across the street without being hit by a car?

 

[Caprice]

Oh enough with the dramatics, it's not legally binding end or story.

I'm a little curious... why not?

If the Constitution is a contract between the government and the people, why would any portion of it, the preamble even, not be legaly binding so to speak?

 

[TheBear]

It is wise as individuals to practice certain safety precautions, if we are the ones choosing to practice safety then there is no restriction of freedom. As a free man I choose to look both ways before crossing the street, I choose to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, I choose to wear a seatbelt when I'm driving. I do not like being told that I must wear a seatbelt, that I must wear a helmet, that I must accept whatever safety measures the government deems necessary.

While I value both Safety and Liberty, I don't believe in sacrificing Liberty at the alter of Safety.

I'm sorry, ACougar. But you can't have it both ways. You either take precautionary measures in life, or you throw caution to the wind and let "Fate" determine your safety.

Which is it?

 

[wowbagger]

I'm a little curious... why not?
If the Constitution is a contract between the government and the people, why would any portion of it, the preamble even, not be legaly binding so to speak?

The Declaration of Independence (containing the phrase with life, liberty, happiness) is not a part of the Constitution.

 

[Caprice]

The Declaration of Independence (containing the phrase with life, liberty, happiness) is not a part of the Constitution.

Good point.

I would have known that had I bothered to read it before posting... was too busy concerning myself with the 4th amendment. *bangs head on desk*

 

[Kelly]

Question: How is this illegal but checking of bags at airports isn't?

 

[Caprice]

Question: How is this illegal but checking of bags at airports isn't?

I have been pondering this as well, any insight on the subject would be nice.

My research on the subject indicates that it is illegal on Constitutional grounds... but no cares enough to do anything.