Court rules NY police can search bags at subways....

[TC4]

Another small victory in the war on terror

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060811/2006-08-11T203422Z_01_N11455727_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-NEWYORK-DC.html

Court rules NY police can search bags at subways

Aug 11, 4:34 PM (ET)

By Christine Kearney

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Random bag searches by New York police at subway stations are constitutional and an effective means of combating terrorism, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

"In light of the thwarted plots to bomb New York City's subway system, its continued desirability as a target, and the recent bombings of transportation systems in Madrid, Moscow, and London, the risk to public safety is substantial and real," the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling.

***Click link at top for full article***

[airborneskins]

I didnt realize that it was even a problem. Why would you object to having your bag searched?

[Taylor 36]

It is only about 5 years too late for people to realize this. When are people going to realize that if they have nothing to hide, they should be happy to be inconvienenced so that they can reach their destinations alive???

[dreamingwolf]

cue the far left wing that your taking away the freedom fighters advantage

[Destino]

I'm fine with this particular measure during this particular war. I don't think it's in line with the constitution but rules have to be bent in a time of war. I also don't think people should be "happy" about it - f that. They should be pissed that we have take measures that are decidedly unamerican so some sack of crap religious nut doesn't blow up a train.

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

[Ignatius J.]

Here's my only point. Any evidence they find should be used in a conviction related to terrorism only. No using this to search a guy for another crime just to get around a warrant.

[Destino]

Here's my only point. Any evidence they find should be used in a conviction related to terrorism only. No using this to search a guy for another crime just to get around a warrant.

It's a great point but we know it won't happen like that. This "random" search allows cops to search anyone they want for any reason at all... they just have to make sure to switch up the skin colors every now and then and it's cool.

[Larry]

I didnt realize that it was even a problem. Why would you object to having your bag searched?

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.

Oh, I don't know.

[Larry]

Here's my only point. Any evidence they find should be used in a conviction related to terrorism only. No using this to search a guy for another crime just to get around a warrant.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I've been proposing a similar "national security" rule for years.

My rule would be that some agencies, like CIA, NSA, etc, are "national security agencies". They are permitted to search/eavesdrop/spy on anybody, anywhere, using any methods they can think up, no warrants required. The only limitations on their powers are those imposed by Congress.

However, they aren't allowed to act on the information, unless they find evidence of an imminent attack, of military or paramilitary scale, against american citizens.

If some guy in Minnesota is exchanging encrypted e-mails with somebody in China, the NSA is allowed to intercept them, analyse them, and decrypt them. If it's one of Saddam's WMD scientists offering to sell Al Qeda the location where the uranium is burried, then Mr Clark has authority to make them disapear. But if it's two guys swapping kiddie porn, then they can't do a thing to him (not even an anonymous phone call to the county sherrif that he might want to check the guy out), because the information was gathered by unconstitutional means.

I'd support a Constitutional Ammendment spelling that authority out.

[twa]

Quote

""I'd support a Constitutional Ammendment spelling that authority out.""

Although there are some that assert there already IS that constitutional authority invested in the executive branch relating to "national security".

Spelling it out would clarify things...I,m sure congress will get right on it

[nelms]

Oh, I don't know.

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.

[jwpanic]

the majority of people aren't getting annoyed b/c they think their privacy is being invaded, it's more a matter of missing your train. i was on my way to school a few weeks ago and i got searched b/c i was wearing a backpack. no big deal, except it held me up enough so that i missed my train, thus missing my transfer, and I ended up being 10 min. late for class and being counted absent(it was summer school and you can only miss two days :mad: ). they just need to find a way to speed up the process.

[Section106]

Those that would give up freedom for security deserve neither.

I can't see how it isn't a victory for the terrorists that we have to alter our way of life to account for their existence. If I have to give up ANY freedom because some pissed off muslim might at some unkown time maybe consider thinking about attacking a subway then those extremists have already won.

The greatness of this country is derived from the right to privacy. IOW, the government is subject to the people, not the people subject to the government and its agents.

This so called War on Terror is just a power grab for the authoritarian neo con wing of the Repblican party. There are millions of ways to protect this country and our freedoms without attacking other countries or destroying our Constitution bit by bit. When they take away your right to privacy then what will be next? My uncle didn't fight the Nazis just so we could let 'em take over America from within.

Here's another quote:

When facsism comes to America it will be wrapped in the Flag while carrying a cross.

Does that describe any prominent politicians y'all know?

[Larry]

Let me guess:

Your point is "The Constitution doesn't mention "911", therefore it ceased to exist on that day"?

(Or is this simply your traditional erection of a straw man)?

(It's so hard to tell, when "debating" people who're scared of actually stating their position.)

[webnarc]

Those that would give up freedom for security deserve neither.

That has a nice sound to it that make it feel accurate.

This so called War on Terror is just a power grab for the authoritarian neo con wing of the Repblican party. There are millions of ways to protect this country and our freedoms without attacking other countries or destroying our Constitution bit by bit. When they take away your right to privacy then what will be next? My uncle didn't fight the Nazis just so we could let 'em take over America from within.

Funny how both extremes make the same claim about the enemy within destroying America.

The only poster from NY has said that it slows things down a little so your uncles fight has not been forgotten.

[nelms]

Let me guess:

Your point is "The Constitution doesn't mention "911", therefore it ceased to exist on that day"?

(Or is this simply your traditional erection of a straw man)?

(It's so hard to tell, when "debating" people who're scared of actually stating their position.)

It isn't your constitutional right to ride the subway or fly on an airplane. If you have a problem with getting searched before riding the subway or boarding an airplane, find alternative ways of transportation (car, bike, walk, bus, taxi, etc.).

This is being done for security reasons where massive amounts of people are crowded in a small area. Here's a hint to you and other liberals: YOU ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT. The government doesn't really care what you have in your backpack or little man purse, unless it's a bomb, gun, chemicals, etc. Get over yourselves.

[BlueTalon]

Those that would give up freedom for security deserve neither.

I can't see how it isn't a victory for the terrorists that we have to alter our way of life to account for their existence. If I have to give up ANY freedom because some pissed off muslim might at some unkown time maybe consider thinking about attacking a subway then those extremists have already won.

The greatness of this country is derived from the right to privacy. IOW, the government is subject to the people, not the people subject to the government and its agents.

This so called War on Terror is just a power grab for the authoritarian neo con wing of the Repblican party. There are millions of ways to protect this country and our freedoms without attacking other countries or destroying our Constitution bit by bit. When they take away your right to privacy then what will be next? My uncle didn't fight the Nazis just so we could let 'em take over America from within.

Here's another quote:

When facsism comes to America it will be wrapped in the Flag while carrying a cross.

Does that describe any prominent politicians y'all know?

My, aren't you a walking talking cliché! Let me explain this "victory" thing to you. When we were engaged in fighting in WWII, it impacted the lifestyle of everyone in the country, while we were fighting the war. Then we won. And when I way we won, I mean that most of the enemy was killed and the rest surrendered unconditionally. After that, there was a return to normalcy.

Whether you realize it or not, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, we are in a war. There is a group of people out there that wants to kill you, and as many other Americans as they possibly can. Now, if what you say is happening had the least bit of validity to it, we would be having a far easier time of dealing with this war. But it's specifically because we are the good guys, and we bend over backwards to grant potential terrorists their constitutional rights (whether they are legitimately entitled to them or not), that progress in this war to protect you is so slow.

Precisely what rights do you think the "neocon wing of the Repblican party" is trying to take from you? Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, FDR interred a bunch of American citizens of Japanese descent. What is it that Bush is doing that's as bad or worse than either of those things?

Your gratuitous slap at Christians and non-liberal patriots and calling them Nazis is contemptible. If that's the best you've got, then you've got nothing.

Oh, and by the way, the greatness of this country is not "derived from the right to privacy." If anything, it's derived from our right to keep and bear arms.

[Destino]

It isn't your constitutional right to ride the subway or fly on an airplane. If you have a problem with getting searched before riding the subway or boarding an airplane, find alternative ways of transportation (car, bike, walk, bus, taxi, etc.).

This is being done for security reasons where massive amounts of people are crowded in a small area. Here's a hint to you and other liberals: YOU ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT. The government doesn't really care what you have in your backpack or little man purse, unless it's a bomb, gun, chemicals, etc. Get over yourselves.

No it's not your right to ride the subway - but it is your right to not be searched without proper cause or warrant and the subway last I checked was PUBLIC transportation. Like I said before Nelms, I'm cool with this for now - but your thinking is way too common these days. On the left and the right people treat the constitution of this country like it gets in the way of their better plan.

[Section106]

My, aren't you a walking talking cliché! Let me explain this "victory" thing to you. When we were engaged in fighting in WWII, it impacted the lifestyle of everyone in the country, while we were fighting the war. Then we won. And when I way we won, I mean that most of the enemy was killed and the rest surrendered unconditionally. After that, there was a return to normalcy.

Whether you realize it or not, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, we are in a war. There is a group of people out there that wants to kill you, and as many other Americans as they possibly can. Now, if what you say is happening had the least bit of validity to it, we would be having a far easier time of dealing with this war. But it's specifically because we are the good guys, and we bend over backwards to grant potential terrorists their constitutional rights (whether they are legitimately entitled to them or not), that progress in this war to protect you is so slow.

Are you seriuosly comparing Bush's WOT with WWII? If you are then answer me why Bush invaded a country with no connection to AQ or the attacks of 9/11? And why has Bush allowed Iraq to divert him from the hunt for OBL? Why haven't we brought this man to justice to answer for what he did? And how can a nation fight a war on a tactic? The very name of this so-called war is absurd.

The only way to fight terrorism is through law enforcement.

Precisely what rights do you think the "neocon wing of the Repblican party" is trying to take from you? Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, FDR interred a bunch of American citizens of Japanese descent. What is it that Bush is doing that's as bad or worse than either of those things?

Specifically, the right to privacy. The Constitution says that I am to be secure from search and seizure without probable cause or a warrant. That is an unequivocal statement. Why would you allow the Constitution to be abridged in the name of preserving the Constitution?

You referenced Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. That was an un-Constitutional act as determined by the Supreme Court. The President has to go to Congress to change the law. This current Pres cares not one wit for the rule of law. Have you read about his signing statements? He has perpetrated this shame over 700 times. The Pres doesn't make law. The Pres enforces law. The Constitution is clear on these matters and Bush is breaking the clear edicts outlined by our Constitution.

Your gratuitous slap at Christians and non-liberal patriots and calling them Nazis is contemptible. If that's the best you've got, then you've got nothing.

Oh, and by the way, the greatness of this country is not "derived from the right to privacy." If anything, it's derived from our right to keep and bear arms.

I quoted Sinclair Lewis, a Nobel Prize winner. Actually I paraphrased. The direct quote is, "When fascism reaches America, it will be wrapped in a flag and holding a cross."

Can you explain how I made a "gratuitous slap" at Christians and non-liberal patriots? Are you trying to say that I slapped at Christians and Conservatives because these groups are by nature gullible?

If you could try a little reading comprehension you'll see that I am calling Bushco fascist and Nazis. This group of pretenders are the most corrupt, evil, and anti-American SOBs on the planet.

And the right to privacy is the basis for our country's greatness because that is the basis for owning property and a business. Might I suggest putting down that NRA newsletter and reading a real book or a newspaper?

[PokerPacker]

Oh, and by the way, the greatness of this country is not "derived from the right to privacy." If anything, it's derived from our right to keep and bear arms.

what do you think will happen if one of these random searches produces a firearm? they'll say "well, the constitution says you can have it, so move along", right? just like they aren't searching you in the first place because the constitution prohibits it. oh wait, they ARE breaking your 4th amendment, and chances are they'll detain you for exercising you 2nd amendment.

[JimboDaMan]

Here's a hint to you and other liberals: YOU ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT. The government doesn't really care what you have in your backpack or little man purse, unless it's a bomb, gun, chemicals, etc. Get over yourselves.

That's an incredibly naive statement. I can't believe you are that much of a lamb. Heck, if I was in law enforcement and legally I could pursue any 'incidental' non-terrorism-related items I found, you bet I'd be using this as a loophole. Like many others have said, if we can build iron-clad guarantees against fishing expeditions I don't personally know of anybody who'd object to the principle. But to think that the government won't abuse this if there are no restrictions is just plain childlike.

[Taylor 36]

Are you seriuosly comparing Bush's WOT with WWII? If you are then answer me why Bush invaded a country with no connection to AQ or the attacks of 9/11? And why has Bush allowed Iraq to divert him from the hunt for OBL? Why haven't we brought this man to justice to answer for what he did? And how can a nation fight a war on a tactic? The very name of this so-called war is absurd.

The only way to fight terrorism is through law enforcement.

Specifically, the right to privacy. The Constitution says that I am to be secure from search and seizure without probable cause or a warrant. That is an unequivocal statement. Why would you allow the Constitution to be abridged in the name of preserving the Constitution?

You referenced Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. That was an un-Constitutional act as determined by the Supreme Court. The President has to go to Congress to change the law. This current Pres cares not one wit for the rule of law. Have you read about his signing statements? He has perpetrated this shame over 700 times. The Pres doesn't make law. The Pres enforces law. The Constitution is clear on these matters and Bush is breaking the clear edicts outlined by our Constitution.

I quoted Sinclair Lewis, a Nobel Prize winner. Actually I paraphrased. The direct quote is, "When fascism reaches America, it will be wrapped in a flag and holding a cross."

Can you explain how I made a "gratuitous slap" at Christians and non-liberal patriots? Are you trying to say that I slapped at Christians and Conservatives because these groups are by nature gullible?

If you could try a little reading comprehension you'll see that I am calling Bushco fascist and Nazis. This group of pretenders are the most corrupt, evil, and anti-American SOBs on the planet.

And the right to privacy is the basis for our country's greatness because that is the basis for owning property and a business. Might I suggest putting down that NRA newsletter and reading a real book or a newspaper?

Maybe it's time you actually read something with factual information and realize that there are times when current sacrifices are needed to prepare the future for not having to have sacrifices.

If you actually paid attention to real news reports instead of your anti-Bush, he is responsible for everything incling the weather in New Orleans b.s., you would know that several HUNDREDS of documents have been found, translate, and prove that Saddam did infact have many connections to AQ and OBL. Though there is no direct evidence saying that he, saddam, himself ever met with OBL, there is evidence that his son met with top AQ members atleast 4 times before 9/11, and phone records show that Iraqi officials spoke with high ranking members of AQ atleast on 2 seperate occasions afterward.

Get the idea through your head that we may have to sacrifice some of our Constitutional rights today so that we can survive, and then tomorrow we will still have a Constitution. Otherwise, I guess you can fight for having these rights though a temporary sacrifice would prevent more attacks and hundreds of thousands dying and ultimately losing the entire Constitution because the US no longer exsists.

[Taylor 36]

what do you think will happen if one of these random searches produces a firearm? they'll say "well, the constitution says you can have it, so move along", right? just like they aren't searching you in the first place because the constitution prohibits it. oh wait, they ARE breaking your 4th amendment, and chances are they'll detain you for exercising you 2nd amendment.

You don't have the right to have a concealed weapon. You must obtain that priveledge and get a license. If you don't have a licence, I guess that would not bode well for you if you tried to sneak a concealed firearm on the subway.

Plus, it would be such a horrible thing for them to prevent muggings and murder.:doh:

[PokerPacker]

You don't have the right to have a concealed weapon. You must obtain that priveledge and get a license. If you don't have a licence, I guess that would not bode well for you if you tried to sneak a concealed firearm on the subway.

Plus, it would be such a horrible thing for them to prevent muggings and murder.:doh:

why is it, may i ask, that concealed weapons should NOT be a right? why is it that with stronger gun-control laws, comes more violent crimes? i guess it can't have anything to do with defensless victims.

[twa]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...

Let us not forget that little part. :laugh: