Oh, The Places They'll Go
This would usually go in my Politick blog but it just made me upset enough to share it here. What is the ACLU thinking? They just sued the city of NY arguing that random subway bag searches violate their fourth amendment guarantee against illegal searches and seizures? I just don't get it. Would anyone rather be inconvenienced by a bomb going off in the subway than by a bag search? This is the kind of stuff that allows for stupid things to happen in this country. Besides, the cop searching your bag cares very little about what you have in there as long as it's not a bomb. I really just don't know what to say, does it make any sense to anybody? I'm confused.
posted by Juan Pablo at 10:56 PM
4 Comments:
Because the searches will never be “random.” Minorities and people of lower socio-economic status will be disprotionately searched. This leads not to a better system against the protection of bombs, but rather, a systemic violation of people’s civil liberties.
Maybe you have a point. However, the argument is that the searches will be conducted every "Nth" person with a bag (10th, 15th, etc). That would make them random, wouldn't it? But still, how is a bag search a violation of civil liberties? Dont you get searched when you go to a stadium for a ball game? If you go to the pre-sreening of a movie they will search you to make sure you are not sneaking in a video camera, when you use the airport you get searched as well. Though in those places, everyone gets searched. So my question is, is the actual search the violation of yor civil liberties? Or the fact that not everyone gets searched? Realistically it wouldn't be possible to have metal detectors at every subway entrance, but isn't something better than nothing? Just wondering.
Even if the searches are truly random, i.e. conducted on every "Nth" person, the argument that the very search is an encroachment on civil liberties can still be made. The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” Some of the instances of searches you cited could be argued to be unreasonable, particularly in the case of the New York searches which are conducted on a large scale and are not in response to specific suspicions. In effect, the NYPD will be searching millions who they have no reason to suspect; this can be argued to be unreasonable. You are arguing this is in the interest of the greater good and that the utility of these searches outweighs the erosion of rights. Perhaps. But this is the same line of argument used to pass such laws as the Patriot Act.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am as against the Patriot act as anyone can possibly ever be. And although I see your point regarding the erosion of civil liberties, I still think a bag search in a public place doesn't really qualify as such. Perhaps the very concept of allowing such things to happen might in some way "erode" civil liberties? That makes some sense. Anyhow, remember they did this when there was a specific threat and there was a serious risk of a terrorist attack. This was suspended as soon as the terror alert went down.
May I ask your name or would you rather remain Anonymous? It's always fun to engage in this kind of discussion when people are not so radical that an argument means war. Good blogging. I usually don't post political stuff here, so I invite you to check my other blog (see my profile).
Cheers,
Post a Comment
<< Home