NY to search Bags

It is plainly absurd to say that this subway search is a violation of the fourth amendment. As has been routinely pointed out, you are free not to be searched. The fact that you have chosen to ride the subway means you pay the price, in terms of fare and search.

It is also plainly absurd to suggest that this is not making things safer. Random checks are an effective means of safety. If you know, going on the subway, that you will be searched, you will be likely to do things differently. Using unguarded entrances is probably not a possibility.

In any respect, the overriding need of safety takes precedence. If someone were to bomb the subway, you would probably be among the loudest voices crying that the police didn't do enough. It is time to use some common sense.

 

An opinion difference does not constitute dishonesty. You may not call it an invasion, but there are many Americans who disagree with you and I happen to be one of them. So do the Minutemen organization and many others. Especially conservatives.

Be careful when you accuse another member, even a moderator, of dishonesty on this forum, which is a personal attack and against the BB rules you acknowledged and agreed to when you joined this forum.

 

I am sorry if you took my comment as an attack. It was not intended that way. However, it is less than accurate to calll immigration, legal or not, an attack. I assure you that I agree that our boarders need to be closed. However, I do not believe that it is wise to call illegal immgrants attackers. It confuses the issue because it carries the implication of violence.

Again, I apoogize if you felt attacked. That wasn't my intention. However, I stand behind the comment as far as immigration is not properly called an attack.

 

They're a joke and a waste of resources.

You speak from ignorance. There are hundreds of stops and each one has multiple entrances. There are only so many transit cops. It was the newspapers that first pointed out this particular flaw.

The MTA defers maintenance, does nothing about doors that drag passengers to their death, has eliminated booth clerks in many of its stations, has more phone booths that do not work than do, eliminated conductors in most trains (for safely opening & closing doors), etc, etc. Your statement is to laugh!

Sigh. After all this time, you still don't know me at all.

Exactly my point.

 

You know what, Daisy, I am going to do a flip-flop like a good little politician and agree with you on this one. We should be looking for Arab males who have perfumed themselves to go to Allah and are carrying backpacks or wearing clothing that could conceal a bomb. If they do not cooperate, we should shoot them between the eyes so as to not set off a bomb. I understand that they carry ID in their shoes and raise their hands so that their fingerprints will not be blown up so we should make sure that we do not release their names to the press so that they do not become heroes in the Arab world. Other than profiling, we should back off.

However, if the police wanted to see my backpack, it contained a paycheck, sunglasses, a baseball cap with the American flag on it, a past-due library book, and a package of bagels.

Maybe if we all wore big crosses or Stars of David along with big, happy smiles, the police would know who is who because I cannot imagine al-Qaeda types wearing big crosses and big happy smiles.

cmg

 

The word used in my post about illegal aliens was "invasion" and "invaders" - I did not use the word "attack" in reference to them - "attack" is your superimposed word upon my post which does confuse the issue, doesn't it?

Illegal aliens are invaders in my opinion and the opinion of others.

However, some illegal aliens do attack - as is evidenced by the Hispanic street gangs filling up our jails. You might want to watch the TV special about street gangs which recently aired.

 

The London bombers were apparently Pakistani, not Arab. It's not unknown for women to be bombers. Your profiling is inept - that is precisely the sort of thing that gave profiling a bad rep.

I can't imagine New Yorkers wearing big crosses or Stars of David with big, happy smiles on the hot (some airless platforms are well in the 90s), crowded, stinking subway -- on the upside, most riders will give you a wide berth as they've learned to give grinning men. Be sure the big cross you're sporting isn't gold, nor the chain, or you won't have it long. And the cops will be tied up at the entrance, checking bags (shoppers carry a lot of bags) and so unable to help you.

 

So, back to bag searches. Today it is bag searches.

But ultimately, terrorists will be using bomb belts in the US and Europe.

In Israel, terrorists use bomb belts. These bomb belts are loaded intentionally with shrapnel - screws, bits of jagged metal scraps, nails, washers - anything to inflict injury deep into vital organs, eyes, spinal cords, etc., and cause severe suffering and pain and permanent disability, if the victim is not lucky enough to die on the spot from the blast.

The homicide bomber can usually be identified after the massacre because there is usually a bloody head - minus torso and limbs - left behind at the scene - the "normal" sign that the bomber wore a bomb belt. Many jihad web sites (which I've seen myself) have instructions for making these relatively easy-to-make bomb belts some in Arabic, some in English.

Now the logical question to ask in the progression of things is - in addition to bag searches, will Americans eventually be subjected to being patted down and frisked?

If anyone here thinks the terrorists are not winning this "war" on terrorism, please think back to the freedoms you had on 09/10/2001.

 

Lady Eagle -

Metal dectectors should catch "bomb belts"

 

Daisy,

Your rights end where someone else's rights begin. The rights of thousands of New Yorkers to feel safer is the tatamount right.

 

TexasSky - Metal detectors do not catch plastic explosives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5941454/

 

Where in the constitution or bill of rights does one find the right to feel safe?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

Any suggestions, then, LE, on keeping someone from bombing a subway here? I understand and agree with you on tightening immigration, BTW, but tightening security is an unavoidable fact of life in a world populated by terrorists.

 

LE,

What would detect plastic explosives?

Joseph Botwinick

 

The right to "feel safe", without actually being any safer, does NOT supercede my right to protection from unreasonable search. Sorry, your warm fuzzies, even of 7 million other people, do not supersede my constitutional rights.

Subway riding is dangerous, but not so much from bombers (although that could happen).

The airports have those electronic chemical "sniffers".

 

Thanks Daisy. I am glad they have it too, even if it might violate the 4th ammendment.

Joseph Botwinick

 

LE,

What would detect plastic explosives?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Dogs. But the metal detectors should pick up the shrapnel.

 

Perhaps, we should have dogs at the ariports and subways then.

Joseph Botwinick

 

LE,

What would detect plastic explosives?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Dogs. But the metal detectors should pick up the shrapnel. </font>[/QUOTE]Correct.

 

Unfortunately, there is nothing that will deter someone who is so evil and worthless and so selfish, he is determined to blow himself and others up. It is the ultimate in narcissism. If subway security is tightened, he will just pick other soft targets. These people have sold their very humanity to satan.

Two of the London bombers, they said today, had lived in the UK since ages 10 and 14, coming there for political assylum. They had all the freedom and opportunities that freedom has to offer. But to make matters worse, they were on the public dole - on welfare. That is the "thanks" the UK got for paying their way through this earthly life, and if I understood the news story (I was distracted at the time), I believe they said these two were on public housing. Nice, huh.

IMO, these were two very worthless human beings who contributed nothing to the world by their very existence and contributed only sorrow to the world upon their deaths. They are two examples of utter lifelong selfishness taken to the extreme.