Slate’s wonderful “Explainer” series had an informative article detailing your rights while riding the trains (or buses) in New York and D.C. “Are Subway Searches Legal?” This is a particularly relevant topic given the current state of paranoia:
Depends on how it’s done. The Fourth Amendment protects people from “unreasonable searches or seizures.” As a general rule, the government can’t search your baggage without a reason to believe you’re a criminal. But according to legal precedent, a random search is acceptable if it fulfills special needs like public safety. If New York’s subway screenings are challenged in court, the city’s lawyers could argue that the program’s primary purpose is to protect the city from terrorism.
Unless a judge agrees that they fulfill a special need, the screenings will be on shaky legal ground. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that a roadblock used to screen drivers for drug crimes was unconstitutional, since its primary purpose was to apprehend drug traffickers. On the other hand, roadblocks that screen for drunk drivers have been deemed OK, since they promote highway safety. (The court did say in the 2000 ruling that “a roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack” would almost certainly be constitutional.)
The key legal point here seems to be that such an extreme curb on privacy rights has to come with both a sunset clause and a geographical constraint:
Let’s assume the courts believe the subways searches are an effective deterrent for terrorism and that the recent subway bombings in London make them reasonable. Then a judge would have to consider whether the scope and duration of the searches is appropriate. The first random subway screenings occurred last summer in Boston during the Democratic Convention. A district court ruled that searches on trains that ran beneath the convention center were acceptable since they took place in a restricted area for a limited amount of time. The New York City searches, though, are taking place all over the system and seem to be of open-ended duration.
The judge must also consider how individuals are selected for screening. If police officers have too much discretion, they might single out certain kinds of people for “random” searches. To prevent profiling, cops are sometimes given a strict formula—in Boston, for example, every 11th passenger was pulled aside at some commuter rail stations. The NYPD says “numerical criteria” are being used, but spokesmen also say that large or suspicious-looking bags can be red flags.
i’m NEVER taking a large bag on the metro, again. shudder
I’ve heard grumblings from my NYC crew about how this will add time to their already bad commute, but I think this is a long overdue step. I cannot count the times I’ve been driving through the Lincoln Tunnel alongside one of those white moving vans thinking how easily it could just park itself midtunnel and blow up. Same thing with the busses and everything else. If it was at all economically possible I’d support everyone being searched before they get on a train, bus, or subway. But I’ll be pissed if they don’t let the train performers through anymore. Nothing makes the A train bump like those guys that break dance, with the girl who does that improvised poll dance thing. Good times, good times.
God I wish I lived in NYC
“a random search is acceptable if it fulfills special needs like public safety”
a random search (as opposed to searching every single passenger before he or she enters the station) is not going to do anything for public safety. the terrorists are willing to commit suicide and some random searches are going to deter them?
i think the random searches are a stupid idea – a reaction which creates more drama and more fear. and whatever “random” methods are used, they’re always going to end up making brown people feel like shit. so yeah, i don’t consent to being searched.
well, very few know that you can even refuse to be searched after a purchase in stores like Frys and Costco – so my guess is that this search thing is probably illegal until they come up with rules like they did with Airlines.
Kafka – why do you think that this will be ineffective? Terrorists want to get on the train before they set off the bomb. If they can get discovered before they enter the subways, that’s a victory for public safety. Terrorists aren’t afraid of dying, but they also don’t want to get stopped before they can fulfill their mission. As such, yes, random searches might well deter them.
If the searches are truly random, or based on characteristics like bag size, I don’t have a knee-jerk problem with them. I’ll wait until I can see how they are implemented.
Well, it will be moot if the make the changes in the patriot act permanent.
I guess they might fear that they will be discovered before being able to set off the bomb. Unlike flights however, where everyone is checked, because of logistics realistically only a few people with bags will be checked on the subway so they’ll probably take that minimal risk. Plus there’s nothing stopping them blowing themselves up right then and there. Take a few policemen with them.
I haven’t gone during a rush hour, but after riding the trains yesterday, I agree that this is probably going to be ineffective in and of itself. All you need to do is time out when and where you’re going to go and you can avoid police searches entirely. The police presence makes sense as a stopgap (and perhaps longterm), but not without a whole host of other things.
Maybe it’s more effective during rush hour but i haven’t heard many positive things from other folks I’ve talked to.
I wonder about “geographical constraint”
Mass transit is obviously not the only vulnerable and crowded part of a city. Food courts, public squares, sidewalks at 8:45am… all of these places would serve the purpose.
Doesn’t all this focus on the subways mean the bombers will just choose another target, like one of the above? Then we’ll all scamper around talking about how to protect that too… will random searches soon extend to people on the street?
I do think the random searches will at least deter attacks on the subway, but I doubt it eliminates the probability of attacks in any way. Our way of life makes cities impossible to protect.
But then again, no matter how truthful, statements like the following aren’t very reassuring:
I hate to be this fatalistic, but I’m afraid I agree. On one hand it might be possible to make targets less vulnerable, and attacks more difficult to implement…on the other, we’d be clinging to a thin pretense of democracy by the time we get to that point.
Of course, letting the ban on assault weapons lapse last September sure IS one hell of a step forward in this “War On Terror”. Now ordinary Joes can buy their very own UZIs, AK-47s, and Kalashnikovs. If I were a terrorist in the US, I’d feel like Christmas came early last year.
Penn station in NY was evacuated yesterday due to a fake bomb threat.
I don’t know why I find this part amusing, but I do:
I heart NY so much!
Bomb blasts in enclosed spaces like subway cars are far more dangerous than those in open spaces where the blast can dissipate quickly.
I started googling for a link to explain this, and then realized that was running searches for “bomb enclosed space” and stopped. [some stuff deleted here in the interests of prudence; looking over his shoulder for the FBI]
The sad thing is, I actually learned this in high school chem, when our teacher was talking about accidental explosions, and then threw in a side note … those were far more innocent times. All we were worried about were nukes.
that’s fine by me if they want to run searches. People, it is a public transit system, as such, any measure to at least try to deter terrorists is better than none. And if it means a bunch of desis like myself get pointed out and searched, oh well, this is what happens when the crazy Pakis get out of control. It’s one thing to randomly search people’s houses, cars etc, i can see why many are fearful of extending the search laws, but in any public place, the way I see it, it’s the govt’s duty to make sure that mass casualties are avoided or at least minimized. Yes, there are some ppl who profile off of race and what not, but let’s be honest, how many of us look at white guys and go ‘he could be a terrorist?’ Let’s help out the country and be safe instead of fighting amongst ourselves for bruised egos and allowing the terrorists to pick away at our vulnerabilities.
And you believe that terrorists actually go to a gun store to buy their weapons ? I suppose all that military grade explosive they are using was bought at the local Walmart because of “lax” laws too. The 20,000+ gun laws in the US are only directed at the people who actually want to follow the law (pretty much like all laws). I doubt a terrorist gives a flying flip as to what is legal for the “ordinary Joe or Jane” to purchase.
This logic is flawed–why stop at subway stations? Why not movie theaters, sporting events, symphonies, six flags theme parks, zoos, mandirs, mosques, gurudwaras, synagogues, churches, amtrak, museums, and other institutions?
There are two questions here–one is political (racial profiling, police powers, harassment, and all that) and the other is pragmatic (is this really hte most effective use of resources, particularly given the other problems this might open up).
On the latter, I honestly don’t know whether this is worth it or not in the end, but I think it has an element of duct tape and gas masks to it. As someone who has used public transportation systems almost exclusively throughout my adult life (I’ve never owned a car), I’m very scared of getting blown up. On the other hand, I think it’s incumbent on me to take a few moments and think about whether my fear is clouding my judgement. Again, I’m not sure.
On the former, for many people, the political angle isn’t just about getting “bruised egos”–have you heard about Amadou Diallou? What if you’re a street vendor that uses the subway to get to your unlicensed work? What if you’re a police officer that’s striving to maintain a positive presence in a community so they’ll report things like muggings and fires? What if you’re a counterterrorism official that actually believes in community policing (remember all those people that kept saying “Why don’t Muslims do more?”–alienating them is a good way to ensure that they don’t)? What if you have some weed on you?
Got searched this morning, coming in for work. It took all of 15 seconds for the cop to rifle through my bag of dance clothes and vitamin water and declare me ok to commute… I wouldn’t say they were thorough, by any stretch of the imagination.
What if you have some weed on you?
So the real motive comes out 😉 Just making a tokin’ joke, bruv.
I try to watch Half Baked every morning–but the sick thing about that is that I don’t smoke. I get my meds like the doctor ordered–part of the legal, overpriced, Big Pharma drug trade.
Saurav writes:
Indeed, why not? I say go for it. Went to six-flags a few weeks ago. They had random searches. Apparently it’s true in Disney as well nowadays. Many broadway shows do have random searches – and if you resist you are denied admission with no money-back for your ticket. Good. I like it.
I, for one, am not “offended” when I am singled out from a crowd for a search because most Pakistanis’ skin-color matches mine. These are difficult times, and it will get progressively worse for at least the next couple of centuries. Think separate queues for brown-skinned people in airports. Totally happening.
If you have nothing to hide, why bother?
M. Nam
Think separate queues for brown-skinned people in airports. Totally happening.
This will probably increase the outmarriage rate in the Brown community.
This logic is flawed–why stop at subway stations? Why not movie theaters, sporting events, symphonies, six flags theme parks, zoos, mandirs, mosques, gurudwaras, synagogues, churches, amtrak, museums, and other institutions?
here’s my take on this: if there is sufficient cause to search (aka terrorist events), and if they’re not strip searching you and prodding you like a piece of meat, fine. I can deal w/ someone asking me to open up my bag, bcuz i know I have nothing to hide. Now if they show up at my house and sift thru my porno mag collection, i might get mad ;D
One thing I think many of us forget is that while things are not perfect here, outside of Canada, we live in the best place in the world where civil rights/liberties are what run our world. As w/ any knee-jerk reaction, bad things can happen, but to assume that the feds are outside my house in a van and the end-times are coming are a bit overly fanatic as well.
What if you have some weed on you?
you know it’s illegal, so if you have it on you and you’re caught, face the consequences.
This will probably increase the outmarriage rate in the Brown community.
HAHAHA LOL…this was hilarious.
Think separate queues for brown-skinned people in airports.
brown people actually stand in line at the airport!?
Oh, Vikram, you silly billy – I believe that terrorists can use a middle man to purchase whatever the fuck they want in the US.
In this CBS piece, a “gunrunner’ says,
An ATF official says:
So you might want to stop drinking the NRA kool-aid and wonder if those “20,000+ gun laws” are of any use as long as “Private gun ownership is generally not subject to either licensing or registration.”
Mental image of ObL singing:
“I take you to the candy shop I’ll let you buy Kalashnikovs Go ‘head girl, don’t you stop Keep going ’til you blow ’em up (woah)”
ayayayayy..It won’t go away!!! Saurav, can I borrow some of dem meds?
If they’re British, they do. We’re born to queue.
I agree with MoorNam, I don’t mind being singled out. I put a post up on Anna’s blog about this – if I were a copper I’d target me. I look dodgy. And indeed I have been singled out mercilessly.
One thing bothers me and one thing doesn’t.
1 – Due to the fact 3 of these bombers were brown, the spotlight is on brown people. Fair enough. But it’s a goofy mentality to think only brown people pose a threat; Richard Reid was white, Jermaine Lindsey was black – as appear to be the four new suspects. Chechens have their share of nutters and they look like they’re from Scotland.
2 – The thing that doesn’t bother me is more something that I’m annoyed about, but realise I have no grounds to complain. I’ll be quite frank, I break the law quite frequently. Petty things, like speeding a tiny bit, carrying a spliff or dodging my fare in the middle of the night. It’s frustrating now that I know I can’t do that anymore as there’s a higher chance I’ll be stopped. But at the end of the day, I know I shouldn’t be a naughty boy.
Hmmm.. actually, it looks like terrorists can just got to a gun store and buy weapons.
But that’s the point, right? This is not just about preventing terrorism, but about an expansion of police powers that increases enforcement (or changes your behavior) on all kinds of things. I know we all have to make some adjustments, but if I’m going to make adjustments, I want to know exactly what those adjustments are, what consequences they’re going to have for me and my friends, what benefits for people as a whole, and where the money/resources are coming from.
Also, as you rightly pointed out, racial profiling done blindly is moronic in this instance even from a policing standpoint. There are alleged global salafist terrorists who are from Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Jamaica, Algeria, the United States (remember John Walker Lindh?), Puerto Rico (Jose Padilla?), etc. And there are other terrorists who are looking to take advantage of this opportunity–like the anthrax mailer–who are not associated with that. Racial or religious profiling also alienates the very communities in which you suspect there are fringe groups out to get you and makes them more afraid of the police and less cooperative.
If you’re going to accept the ethical problems with something like profiling, there are probably more effective ways to do it on a practical level (a good way to start might be to generate profiles of all of the traits of all the people that have been involved so far–hair length, attire, what they’re carrying, ethnicity, gender, behaviors shortly before entering, etc.} and then from there boil down which ones you think are important and train the police to focus on those factors. But even there–as they say, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. If there’s one thing we know about Al Qaedaish people, it’s that they’re clever.
Maybe not for you and me, but this is a reality for some people–particularly undocumented immigrants and political dissidents. If the idea is that as long as you cooperate, you’ll be fine, well, that’s great–until you actually object to something and find that the practices you tolerated are now being used against you. Civil liberties calamities don’t come all of a sudden; they happen in a context and as the result of a longstanding trends.
Saurav writes:
These are all legitimate concerns. The money for this will come from your tax payer dollars. The consequence we will have to face is that the moment you step outside your house, you will be watched until you walk back into your house. Assume that, and you will make the adjustments yourself. And police powers will grow more and more. Which means that if you are stopped for a speeding violation and the cop runs your name through the computer, he/she will know the frequency at which you purchase condoms(assuming of course, that you used your credit card).
Privacy, as we know it, will end. It will happen gradually over the next few decades.
Agreed. Eventually, Islamic terrorists from a wide selection of ethnicities, languages, countries, color-of-skin will be active all over the world. Then the authorities will have to switch to a mild-version of the truth-serum at airports – where a nasal spray will make you blurt out the true intentions of your flight.(“I’m seeing my childhood sweetheart behind my spouse’s back and we’re having a tryst in Hawaii.”)
You mean, illegal immigrants? I hope they get them and throw them out.
Folks like Michael Moore will not be affected by this. There is a free press and the right to dissent has not been challenged by any neo-con.
Agreed. But I don’t see a way out unless terrorism stops. All you need is a few more attacks in the west and civil liberties will become a priviledge, not a right. I suggest we get used to it.
M. Nam
Well in an ideal world, police will prefix feeling me up with “I’m only looking for bombish-type stuff matey, I shall assume any skunk I find on your person is for medicinal use. As is that prescription wizard bong you have in your pants”
The suspected failed-bombers have been named.
There is one thing about the news story that is annoying me a bit. They keep mentioning the containers that the bombs were in on TV. They were 6.25 litre white food containers. Apparently they were made in India. But they were sold in over 100 shops in the UK. So why is it necessary to keep mentioning the fact they were made in India? I don’t like India’s name coming up in this news story!
I’m half-kidding, I know people are stupid. Pakistan, India, same thing, terrorists. Not everywhere in this country is as cosmopolitan as Londinium.
Right. It’s only nuns.
I agree that it’s likely inevitable that there will be a rebalancing of privacy and other civil liberties with needs for protection–the same way there is a constant one between property rights and equality. The point, though, is that complacency on our parts now will result in a skewed balance that will be bad not just for civil liberties and civil rights, but for policing practices as well. When you have (for lack of a bette word) morons like John Ashcroft putting into place law enforcement practices and policies, you end up damaging just about everything–the way to avoid that and circumscribed their power is to constantly question the necessity, efficacy, and ethics of the intrusions into privacy–which, while done based upon a real threat, may not always be the best solution.
It’s not that much to ask–in fact, pretty much the bare minimum–for the police and other policymakers and implementers to justify the inroads they’re making on privacy and other rights. Otherwise, you might as well just cede the whole democracy, because you’re throwing out the right to question authority and the obligation of the authorities to answer to it.
Okay, as long as you’re prepared to pay substantially more for a whole variety of products for which they currently provide cheap labor, willing to endanger the basis of the American economy, and submit to a two tiered system of justice. To illustrate the extent to which this goes: you realize that someone with a green card (or any other immigration status besides citizenship) who hasn’t reported a change of address to the authorities within ten days can be deported, right?
Raise your hands if you, your parents, or someone else you care about have violated this law at some point.
bongbreaker writes: >>So why is it necessary to keep mentioning the fact they were made in India? I don’t like India’s name coming up in this news story!
South Asians strike again! I’m sure there is one at the root of this “fact” in the news story.
Pakistan is being projected in a bad light. They have to bring “balance” to the news. So, they will look for incriminating evidence against India. Heck – even if the terrorists were wearing sneakers made in India, it would be on the news.
M. Nam
If they’re British, they do. We’re born to queue.
i don’t know, i’ve been to heathrow a few times and have been on the receiving end of some vicious pointy Dadi Ji elbows as I fight for the right to board the plane as my row is called. Not to mention the achaar-fueled bombs some of the uncles drop while in line in the plane 😀
It’s not that much to ask–in fact, pretty much the bare minimum–for the police and other policymakers and implementers to justify the inroads they’re making on privacy and other rights. Otherwise, you might as well just cede the whole democracy, because you’re throwing out the right to question authority and the obligation of the authorities to answer to it.
i agree w/ this statement, we should always question things. However, I still believe that given the recent attacks in london it is not unreasonable to random search areas where large amounts of ppl frequently use such premises.
What peeves me is the people that take personal offense to being searched, crying about racism, prejudice and basically acting as if their father is the CM and they are owed some sort of apology. Get a grip, 15 seconds of your time isn’t giong to kill you…it might save you.
Saurav writes:>>It’s only nuns…..Five months later, the 20 members of Peace Action Wisconsin still haven’t been told why they were detained. Even local sheriff’s deputies and airline officials admitted confusion about why the group was stopped, when only one member’s name resembled one on the no-fly list.
Word of advice: Watch your company. Do you have a friend? Does your friend have a friend named Akram? Does Akram has a nephew named Mohammed who went to Pakistan last year for “religious training”? Did you go to your friend’s party where Akram and Mohammed were invited? Did you pass the ketchup to Mohammed? Did Mohammed’s car break down and you offered him a lift? You will be in big trouble.
Totally agree. You’re preaching to the converted. I hate all this as much as you do. However, my contention is that there is no way out of this until terrorism stops.
“They” are not just illegal immigrants – but also employers who employ them. I say, target the employers and throw the book at them. The problem will solve itself.
And yes, I’m prepared to pay more for services. Cost is negotiable – going against the law is not.
M. Nam
Well, the counterpoint to that would be: who are you to tell them that their feelings of being discriminated against are not valid (particularly in the overall context of their lives, which you don’t know anything about)?
who are you to tell them that their feelings of being discriminated against are not valid (particularly in the overall context of their lives, which you don’t know anything about)?
I am a normal (relatively speaking) human being who understands that at the airport there is heavy security, that everyone has a right and responsibility to fly safely. So if you do get selected, take it easy, if you have nothing to hide 99.9% of the time, you check out w/in 2 mins. If you are crossing the border into another country, if they check you out, relax. Again, if you have nothing to hide, no big deal. Remember, these agents are doing their jobs and if they didn’t, it would be a lot more dangerous. Plus, no one’s life is that big or important that they warrant special consideration in dangerous times. People have way too much ego these days, fragile ones at that.
Lovin,
Finally a sane voice. Keep posting!
The path to anarchy is paved with sentiments like that in my opinion.
I agree with you that in some circles, there’s a tendency to hyperventilate at perceived abuses despite lack of evidence that race or something else was the predisposing factor and with a total lack of perspective on all the other things that a lot of other people have to go through constantly. my point is to emphasize the latter–my experience picking up cabs is likely qualitatively different from a Black man’s; my experience hanging out in Delhi at night is different from a female-bodied person; and so forth. Sometimes, people are coming from different places and we need to understand that before dismissing their concerns (valid or invalid)–because what you see as unnecessary freaking out may just be the product of something more. Obscuring that obscures broader trends too.
Lovin, like I said above, I have no problem with getting stopped. I’m an old hand with the police and I don’t get nervous anymore, I don’t mind. But the police are human and humans are idiots.
I was travelling with my best mate, who happens to be Pakistani, in the rather racist south of France at the time of 9/11. We were about to board a train for Paris when 5 big policemen with guns the size of my arm pulled us to one side. We were used to police asking for our passports and rifling through our stuff. But as soon as they saw his name, we were carted off to a side room and yup, all our clothes came off. Well ok, they let me keep me boxers on.
In the UK I keep getting stopped, the police either fancy me or think I’m a bomber. If it’s just cos of me fitting a profile, then fine. But when they talk to me, to put it bluntly, they’re racist cocks (that’s official). When I came back from working in Sri Lanka a few weeks back, I could see the customs officials point at me a mile off. They spent about 20 minutes going through all my stuff, not believing a word I told them until they finally saw the stethoscope and instantaneously decided I was no threat.
My convoluted point is – extending police powers is fine. Stopping and searching is fine, as long as it’s done right. But in the real world, the police are b*stards. It’ll be a means for them to do what they like in a few weeks, when terrorism isn’t so fresh in everyone’s minds.
Abhi,
Assume that you are working on airport security. Assume that one of your loved ones(spouse/child/parent/sibling) is travelling on the plane. Assume there are 200 passengers and normally you have time to check only 10% of them. There’s a bunch of whites, hordes of japanese tourists, a few desis shoving and pushing, and a bunch of mid-easterners.
Whom will you pick, given today’s situation and the present technology and information?
And how will your choice help in reducing anarchy?
M. Nam
So, basically, you don’t believe in freedom of association or have no problem with targeting people who are engaged in perfectly legal (and, more importantly, perfectly harmless) activities. And further, have no problem contradicting your earlier argument that political dissidents won’t be affected by these measures at all. I don’t see where the conversation goes from here.
Because, clearly, increased immigration enforcement has done worlds of good already for everyone. Read this about how criminal syndicates were created in Latin America through U.S. deportation policies and are now spreading northward (and, ironically, engage in trafficking of people as one of their activities).
Saurav,
I don’t believe in freedom of association with terrorists or potential terrorists. Now, the next question would be: define “potential terrorist.”. And here’s where the grey area begins. Someone who has been to Pakistan for “religious training” is a potential terrorist. Maybe you disagree, but then it is you who faces the consequences. You’re free to lose your freedom.
Last I heard, Michael Moore was speaking of making more documentaries against Bush. Moore power to him!
Saurav – I think you and Abhi need to develop a thick skin. Taking the moral high ground with a pro-civil liberties stand or a pro illegal immigration stand will not necessarily convince people who take subways and planes day in and day out. There is no need to try and paint us as fascists out to destroy freedom – it will backfire on you. Most people know what’s going on and they’re ok with the additional measures taken. Today morning there was a bomb scare and Penn Station was closed. Among the thousands, nobody protested or complained – they waited patiently like decent citizens and when the thread was cleared, went on about their business quietly. They know that times are different and will continue to be different for a while. It is only the fringe minority that is screaming fascism and “police state”.
M. Nam
Finally a sane voice.
this is a scary thought that someone finds me sane….j/k, thank you for the compliment.
The path to anarchy is paved with sentiments like that in my opinion.
again, if you have nothing to hide, realistically speaking, what is the worst that could happen? Is it a hassle to get searched. Yes. Is it necessary in today’s crazy world? Unfortunately yes. I’m not saying let’s live under Big Brother, but I am saying that in this country we get a little too carried away at perceived lack of freedoms when we have literally more freedom than most ppl will ever know when compared to other places. Like I said, if i step onto a subway, it almosts feels odd knowing that anyone in that train could blow us all up and no one did anything about it (in the chicago trains, no one is searching at all). A little non threatening bag searching shouldn’t be too high a price to pay to enjoy my freedom and right to safely move about the city.
people are coming from different places and we need to understand that before dismissing their concerns
this is true, however if you’re the security guy, it’s very hard to know this. The least ppl can do if they’re pissed about being searched is not create a scene right then and there and make it worse for hte rest of us innocent desis.
humans are idiots.
I couldn’t have said this better myself. Therefore, yes, while abuse of power does occur, particularly w/ cocky ass cops who just want to bust your balls, the sad reality is until these asshole bombers find another hobby they will always cause the idiots among us to be xenophobic and hence, necessitate the need for random searches and what not.
But when they talk to me, to put it bluntly, they’re racist cocks
hell yes they are. I’ve had my share of unfair hassles by cops for things I didn’t do, however, when the general population is xenophobic like they are nowadays, sadly, i have to consider this the price of living in a country where relatively speaking, i’m free to do as i choose…it’s not right, I hate it, but the alternatives coudl be worse. I’m all for finding a more humane and respectful way to conduct these searches and random stops, and i urge those concerned to voice their concerns logically, but not emotionally. Until then, this is a small price we have to pay for our lifestyles here in the US, Canada, UK, etc. I just don’t like when people personalize these actions as an affront to all that they stand for. It’s a bag search folks, if it’s that minimal, let’s just focus on more important things like BongBreaker getting stripped to his bday suit for no reason. That’s inhumane and wrong.
Don’t be callin mah birthday suit wrong yo!
My tanning booth hasn’t come in yet; I’m not sure about Abhi’s. In the meantime, I’ll try to stop being such a flaming radical who says things like this: “I agree that it’s likely inevitable that there will be a rebalancing of privacy and other civil liberties with needs for protection.”
The news accounts of the double-decker bus incident don’t jibe with your account of it. Here’s an excerpt:
Taking the moral high ground with a pro-civil liberties stand or a pro illegal immigration stand will not necessarily convince people who take subways and planes day in and day out.
See I don’t agree w/ this though, the cry agaisnt illegal immigration is a knee jerk reaction to many of these incidents and doesn’t pinpoint the cause of the problem. Many, if not most immigrants, come here to better themselves. They should come thru legal channels, but when you’re desperate or looking to do honest work, it’s not that big a deal. What is a big deal is our govt, led by Georgie Boy continually allows illegal immigration while acting like he doesn’t like it. Bull$hit, he knows that illegals play a HUGE role in keeping his business buddies fat, happy and rich.
Furthermore, the real problem lies in the fact that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia continually piss in the face of Bush’s “anti-terror” stance and he’s more than happy to let them do as they please w/o any consequences…therefore, I blame BUSH for all this terrorist nonsense after 9/11. He was justified in Afghanistan, and since then, he’s done nothing but fuck the world up w/ his stupid policies and double talk. Blame him, not immigrants.
Don’t be callin mah birthday suit wrong yo!
honestly, assuming you’re a guy, i REALLY don’t want to have an opinion on your bday suit 🙁
The news accounts of the double-decker bus incident don’t jibe with your account of it. Here’s an excerpt:
yeah this really stuck a broomstick up my a$$…I already posted a comment there and at the risk of being punished and censored by the fascist, oppressive SM overlords (after all, they do punish bloggers who don’t conform), I will not double post it here
PS…i’m just kidding about the SM overlords. Please don’t send the Secret Service.