OT: What good are the random searches in NY?

[David]

If I was a terrorist, I'd hardly break stride on my way to a NYC subway if I knew that IF (same chance as winning the lotto) I was stopped by New York's finest, I could walk away from a potential search merely by declining to be searched! The police have admitted publicly that anyone who refuses a search is refused entry to the subway, BUT NOT DETAINED!!

Does anyone else see the lunacy of this vast expenditure of time and money with basically a ZERO payoff in public safety? I'm sure the NYPD would mention all sorts of legal issues with detaining someone who refuses the search. Screw the ALCU--let's get tough with the scumbags who want to destroy our country. Logic is in short supply; "political correctness" hampers all meaningful (and more cost effective) ways to combat terrorism. Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at airport screening stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an airplane?? Aaargh!

Rant off

Dave

[Dhakala]

No, merely followed to his next terrorist club meeting. :-)

No matter how futile the effort is, the public wants to see its government doing something.

Yes, there are such issues. Much of the press coverage of this plan focuses on how random and racially neutral the process is going to be. I don't believe any of that. For every white grandma searched, there will be dozens of young Arabic males.

You arghed before finishing your presentation. What "meaningful and more cost effective ways" do you advocate?

[David]

They won't follow everyone home who refuses to be searched. No manpower and totally impractical.

Actually, I think the public wants EFFECTIVE measures implemented, rather than token photo ops.

BULLSHIT.

For starters, don't waste dollars hiring screeners to check people who don't come within a million miles of fitting the profile of a potential terrorist. That change will never fly, due to the whining civil rights bozos, so I didn't mention it before. And don't forget our porous borders. I know the limitations of our government, hence, my earlier "aaargh!".

We'll get to pay higher airfares as soon as all the airliners are equipped with anti-missle measures. And some of us will die during future terror operations. Yet we still have morons who are bitching about the detainees at Gitmo. go figure...

And how come long fingernails haven't been termed potential weapons like finger-nail clippers??

I wanna go back to the good ole days of the Cold War.

Dave

[Dhakala]

You really think a lot of innocent people will refuse to be searched, preferring to miss their bus or train to work? This is America, where money comes before liberty.

Well, we'd all love to see effective measures... as long as they don't slow down our commutes. Have you any examples of such measures?

I figure those bitching about detainee abuse are the ones who most highly value the things for which our troops are fighting.

Another of life's imponderables.

OK, go duck under your desk and cover your head.

[David]

Nah, I'm gonna stay in my bomb shelter instead. I remodeled it recently to include cable TV and internet access. :)

Dave

[Dhakala]

While you're down there, send us a note detailing how to catch terrorists cheaply.

[David]

Dhakala wrote:

CHEAPER, not "cheaply". Right now the counter-terrorism measures are so ineffective, that the cost/benefit ratio is out of the ballpark. Negative profiling would be a start. I'll let you figure out what I mean by "negative" profiling...

On another note, not related to your cost question:

I was happy to see the patriot act extension was passed by the House. This current epidemic of terrorism is not a game; we are at war with these bastards and should avail ourselves of EVERY method to apprehend their sorry asses. Civil rights activists can't seem to get their priorities straight--what law abiding citizen needs to be concerned about the broadened powers of the government in protecting them if they aren't into committing atrocities themselves?? GB has the right idea--over a million cameras are looking at public areas. If I'm not a mugger or a thief, why the heck should I care if cameras are watching over the streets and subways? I'd rather know the chances of being a victim of crime are reduced because the cameras are there, rather than whine about how intrusive the cameras are. It's not like there is a live body watching all the feeds 24/7. The images are archived and reviewed when an incident occurs. I'd be happy to see the same thing here in the U.S. Of course I'm not talking about surveillance cameras peering into one's back yard. What's the worse thing you think that the cameras would catch the average guy doing? Picking his nose. Scratching an itch. Whoopee. We already have far more cameras watching our daily lives than you'd probably imagine. Most chain stores have cameras inside and outside. Banks. Workplace parking lots. Airports. Why not extend the coverage to most urban public areas (assuming the cost doesn't put us all in the poor house)? I predict we will follow GB's lead, even if it takes years.

Dave

[Doug Kanter]

Think quietly for a moment. Try thinking like a high ranking person in the NYPD. You know that this subway search thing is going to generate flak about racial profiling, right?

Stop. Take your hands off the keyboard right now. Think quietly.

What purpose is served by searching a few people who are absolutely, positively NOT terrorists? Hint: There *is* a purpose.

[Doug Kanter]

You'd better hope some terrorist doesn't use a fancy wooden box to contain explosives. You might get a visit from the FBI if you subsequently visit your library and take out a book like "Taunton's Complete Illustrated Guide to Box Making". Even though you're not a terrorist, how would you feel, knowing that your library activities were probably being monitored for an unknown period of time, and perhaps your e-mail and phonecalls, too?

[David]

Not when the public is free to reject the search and leave the area. DOH!

Dave

[David]

Maybe you shouldn't check out a book on bomb making if you don't want to be subject to scrutiny. It's a no-brainer.

Dave

[Doug Kanter]

Don't change the subject. If you think the FBI's field of vision for surveillance will be limited to books on bomb making, you're being naive.

[Doug Kanter]

That doesn't answer the question. Try again. I'm talking about people who

*do* get searched, but are clearly not a threat by any stretch of the imagination? Why would they search little old white ladies?

[David]

I don't see the connection between a Taunton book for woodworkers and a bomb, but I can see that you are trying to make that connection in the minds of the authorities. Rather far-fetched.

Dave

[David]

e

and you are being paranoid. :)

Dave

[David]

Why would they search "old white ladies"? My point exactly. It's a waste of time and resources. I can't imagine why you'd pick that argument with me, of all people, as I've already stated that I think it's a useless tactic. and expensive.

Dave

[Doug Kanter]

How old are you? I'm not trying to offend you, but it's germane to the discussion.

[Doug Kanter]

OK, I'll tell you, rather than clutter this thread with 300 messages before we get to the point. You said certain people will whine about racial profiling. Solution: Even if they're being sarcastic, and privately shaking their heads later, the NYPD can honestly say "No...we're searching little old white ladies, too". It's a polite way of saying "Shut the f**k up" to their critics.

Simple, yes?

[David]

It's a polite way of saying "Shut the f**k up" to

ever thought of standing up to the critics??? Look at the protest over the Patriot Act. It was enacted anyway.

And can we skip the personal comments?

Dave

[Doug Kanter]

What personal comments???