Search me

I say it’s a good thing that New York police will start random bag searches on the subways.

Oh, I know it will be inconvenient when I’m late for a meeting and it’s 120-degrees down there and I fear there will be a line. Nonetheless, if and when the cops search me, I’ll thank them.

This morning on Today, they rolled out the “privacy” boogeyman. “Privacy advocates” were expressing concern. Who the hell are these “privacy advocates?” Name two. But listening to reporters, they seem to be everywhere. You just don’t know it. Because they’re very private.

And what precisely is the privacy problem? If the cops catch you carrying something illegal, well, you shouldn’t be carrying anything illegal. If they catch you carrying the latest Playboy — or, more embarrassing, Radar — then don’t worry; they’ve seen worse.

Are random screenings going to catch the next terrorist ready to kill people? We’ll never know. But it is worth the effort.

  • Brian H

    The only thing better would be targetted, profiled searches. You know, those Arabic and North African lookin’ dudes, with parcels, backpacks, or thick waistlines.

    Way too sensible to work, though.

  • Brandon B

    You do realize that the line for getting your bags searched creates a nice, juicy target for a terrorist, right?

    Frankly, it seems like a dumb, reactive idea that’s grasping at strawas. It’s only happening in New York, a person can refuse to be searched by walking away (which woud be THE person to search) and it’s looks pretty without doing much. Any decent terrorist would probably scope out their target first, so they’ll know what station they can get around. if it’s too much they’ll probablly just board a bus.

    The privacy advocates are exactly right to sound an alarm. Like caranaries in a coal mine, society needs these people to point out potential privacy violations. Because this is just a beginning. Next up will be detectors, ala airport security, since they’ll help cut down on manpower usage, saving the city money and freeing up cops to be elsewhere. then we’ll need security cards to go through the detectors, so that we can figure out who the bombers are. then it’ll make sense to network that database with airport security, so we can REALLY track everyone in the effort to catch terrorists.

    Please note that I’m NOT saying this is a bad idea. I’m simply noting privacy advocates have their place in American society.

  • I have another question … where are the resources for this coming from? Are the police being used to our best advantage? How many officers will this take off of the street? Does it help us for the bad guys to know where all the cops are? If this starts to add over an hour to peoples work days will they still think it is worth it? Are we letting fear make our decisions for us? A police state would be the only way to really put a dent in the opportunities that terrorists would have in this country … are we ready for that? National ID cards … check points to drive from city to city and from state to state ..? How far do we go? Are we ready to accept the line “Your Papers Please” …

  • Dak

    I’m not willing to turn America into a police state so that Muslims who hate us can come here for a “better life”….and turn life here into life there.

    Basic first step: Stop further immigration of those belonging to a culture/religion whose STATED aim is to take us over or kill us. Let those who are GOOD FOR AMERICA have those slots..folks with a work ethic, belief system and culture that ASSIMILATE not clash.

    As for, millions of Muslims are simply looking for a better life in the West…
    “the more educated and affluent Muslims usually wear Levi jeans while shouting ‘death to America ‘. When the frenzy is over they can often be found cueing up at Western embassies, hoping for a visa to immigrate in search of a ‘better life’.(FROM:

    Do we destroying the liberty our forefathers fought for?

    – For the occasional “Good” Muslim who might not think their basic responsibility in life is to convert or kill us? … ( in Islam those kind of Muslims are considered apostates…or “bad” Muslims)

  • Dak

    ..meant to say Denmark and Holland

  • tonynoboloney

    I have to agree with Dak. The U.S. must begin to re-reveiw our immigration policies. The idea that peoples from other countries are allowed to immigrate here and then disturb our way of life is appaling. This would include ALL illegal aliens from every country. It is my belief that we should have a moritorium on ANY immigration from ANYWHERE until we can get a handle on who is already here. The burden to Americas infrastructure (health care system, educational systems, and social services etc) is astounding. The act of a moritorium on immigration from all countries accross the board for a year or two would help quell the p.c. crowds certain charges of racism and bigotry. We could use this time to allow for in depth investigations into who is currently enrolled in our universities and public schools, also to comb through all visas deporting those who are here illegally. Perhaps we would allow only for one way travel (out of the country) to selected countries with whom we do not have diplomatic agreements. It may also be nessessary to limit “tourist” visas from countries not on our “friends” list. Rather than setting up a costly and inconvient “check points” at subways and airports, with no end in site, it would be infinitely simpler to controll WHO is coming and going. Over an extended period of time we could one by one decide on a limited basis just who and from where immigration should be allowed.

    I am sick to death at those who would appease and advocate for peoples of any country coming here with the express purpose of limiting our freedoms, intent on changing our culture. I am especially sick at those who try to do this with a bomb attached to their body.

  • Dak

    Well put, Tony.

    Perhaps it is time to write to our Government reps and DEMAND immigration and visas be put on hold.

    Letters to those in government who need to be aware of what Islam’s intention REALLY is. One can hope they are more aware than the general population, but it is important to be sure they are.

    I sure wasn’t aware of Islam doctrines – until I came here, listen, learned and did the research. They say even those born Muslim and who aren’t active like in attending Mosques are often unaware what their responsibilities to Islam are to support the jihadsts and terrorists.

    So I’m sure some of our policymakers aren’t aware that the only “good Muslim” under Islam doctrine is what we call a “bad one”.

    Or, of the pressure on our “good” moderate Muslims (Islam’s “bad” Muslims) to become or support the jihadst – or be considered an apostate, whose punishment is death.

    Under that kind of pressure, if a radical group sets up a Mosque nearby, no moderate Muslim is exempt or safe.

    Amsterdam and Hollard are beginning to see the consequences. If we keep our doors wide open, we will see them next.

    Close the doors to the outside or become a police state on the inside.

    An awful choice to be sure.

  • Jeff, without taking a stance on this specific policy, are you willing to simply toss out the Fourth Amendment? Because since you don’t supply any particular specifics as to which Fourth Amendment rights you’re willing to kill and which you might not. On the same lack of substantive basis you’ve given your okay to street searches to, how about searching people’s cars randomly?; how about house searches without warrants?; random body cavity searches?; registration of all citizens with the government?

    I assume you’re not okay with at least some of those, but could you possibly put forth something of a bit more of a substantive case for what you think should and shouldn’t be okay in searching?

  • Pingback: Tighter Airport Security Is Worth Sacrificing A Little Privacy « Really, Ed Brown()