Ravenwood - 07/22/05 07:00 AM
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, is authorizing city officials to conduct random searches of passengers entering the city's subways. They won't be racially profiling, so hot chicks are more likely to be groped than people who share similar physical characteristics with your average terrorist. When asked about violating the civil rights of his subjects, Bloomberg had this to say:
"We just live in a world where, sadly, these kinds of security measures are necessary," Bloomberg said. "Are they intrusive? Yes, a little bit. But we are trying to find that right balance."Proving the futility of the security measures, Police Commish Raymond Kelly noted that "passengers will be free to 'turn around and leave' rather than consent to a search." I wonder how many people too uninformed to know they don't have to consent will be caught carrying recreational contraband like guns, drugs, or cigarettes.
Category: Get Your War On
Comments (9) top link me
Also, what will prevent a suicide bomber from blowing up the people at the turnstiles, bunched up nicely, if a cop stops to search them?
Good will?
Posted by: Brian J. at July 22, 2005 8:51 AMWhy carry a half dozen sticks of dynamite in a bag, when it can be taped to your body under a shirt?
Sounds more like a "feel-good" thing to me...
Anybody who wants to blow something up will just decline the search and leave. Then try the next entrance; if the search selection process is random then there is a low probablilty of being stopped twice and very low chance of being stopped three times.
Once again rights are violated with no possible chance of accomplishing the stated goal. As the saying goes: everybody makes mistakes, but when all of the mistakes are in the bank's (State's) favor, you have to wonder if it is truely a "mistake".
Posted by: bob reynolds at July 22, 2005 1:15 PMHere! Here!
Posted by: Matt Groom at July 22, 2005 2:04 PMRecreational contraband, like GUNS?? And why mention cigarettes? Is there something in the new measures that allow the confiscation of cigarettes? How about tossing in confiscation of bibles for grins.
They are being careful. I'm glad they are. If someone other than a budding terrorist gets caught breaking the law (with cigarettes, snort) or carrying illegal firearms, so what?
Posted by: mikem at July 22, 2005 7:32 PMMike,
That's the "if you don't have anything to hide" attitude that infects so many Americans.
Law abiding citizens all across America carry guns every day (but not in New York). And cigarettes are very quickly becoming a controlled substance. Just wait until someone gets busted for having a pack without the $6 worth or NY tax stamps.
And they aren't being careful. Not racially profiling and only targeting people with bookbags is dumb.
Posted by: Ravenwood at July 22, 2005 7:58 PMYou mean Michael Bloomberg democrat until he decided to run for Mayor of New York?
Posted by: John at July 22, 2005 8:53 PM"If you have nothing to hide..." No, just because someone like me would support these security measures doesn't mean that I buy into that thinking, (although I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who get caught breaking the law due to dumb luck rather than investigation). For instance, I would not agree to random searches anywhere, anytime for any purpose.
This is on the subway system, within days of several attacks on subway systems in London, the other major infidel center. It doesn't strike me as unreasonable given the circumstances.
I also assume that the searches will not quite be random and I don't mean a focus on bimbos.
I assume these random searches of one in a million people are being done in the theater district.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at July 23, 2005 9:29 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
