If this is an accurate statement then we should remove all aspects of random searches right. So let's get rid of the random searches at all airports and federal buildings.



If I am reading this right .. How many non-arabic can they recruit? I hear about John Walker Linde all the time. Can you name me 5 more non-arabic terrorists that are working with Al-Queda?



I want to address the Homeland Security statement, which is a complete lie on your part. Please show how Homeland Security, since being established, has failed.

What random searches do we conduct at airports? Other than further screening when a passenger has tripped the X-ray or metal detector, all passengers are screened equally and fairly non-invasively. I get offended less by walking throughout the metal detector than I do when asked if someone else packed my bags........
Random searches detract manpower based only on a mathematical formula (search every X number person no matter who it is), and has been said before, if a terrorist was caught by a random search, they would likely trip the explosive then and there, with most likely as great effect as with their original target.


I think that the problem with grading the success or failure of the Dept. of Homeland Security is that if an attack occurs, then the Dept failed. If no attack occurs nobody will really be able to gauge it's success, unless or until classified information concerning a foiled attack is released to the public.

The random bag searches and clothing searches that take place. I have flown 4 times since 9-11. And I have been searched 2 out of the 4 times. I did not trip any metal detector or x-ray. I was just randomly selected.

I ask again. Is it an accurate statement to say that homeland security has failed to this point in time?

Edit to add so posting does not wander off topic: Adressing DTOM's post under this one.

One flight was one way. It was from New Orleans to Orlando. All the others were 2 way with luggage. In both searches that took place I was asked to remove my shoes and my carry on bag was searched. And if I remember right both these times were on round trip flights.

You say that you were randomly selected, is it possible that you fit some criteria used to increase the level of screening such as; bought a one way ticket, bought a last minute ticket, flying without checked baggage, name match, etc...
If so, then this is still not random, it is profiling using a set of criteria.

If the answer to the above is no, then maybe you were just picked at random, and that shouldn't have happened without reason, as is what's happening in NYC.

Yes, there are definitely random searches at airports. And what good are they? I have seen, on numerous occasions, young children or little old grandmas being selected at random for the extra search.

Back to the subways. I think the truth is that these types of measures are more for the psychological comfort of the passengers than for any real security. The government looks like they're doing something, people see busy cops searching people, it makes them feel better. But unless there is a way to screen all passengers, what good is it? Particularly if it is random.

But back to the question, really. Why is it wrong for the ACLU to challenge laws that might be in violation of the Constitution? Is that really so bad of a mission? They have defended churches in the past when ordinances worked against their freedom to practice their religion. The idea that the ACLU is some radical leftist group with an evil agenda of secularism and communism is absurd. They are utterly devoted to protecting the Constitution. Were I a polemicist I might say, "the truth is obvious - conservatives hate freedom. They hate the Bill of Rights and anyone who wants to protect it - otherwise they would all be in the ACLU!" Of course that is absurd. But that's just as silly as these strange and uncalled for attacks on the ACLU.

Let's just talk strategy here for a quick second Sleeper... if you were the leader of a terrorist organization and you learned that the United States was using racial profiling to detect your operatives, wouldn't you naturally recruit and send people that didn't fit the profile? It really isn't that much of a logical leap.

This hasn't happened yet but as has been proven time and time again, the terrorists constantly adapt to attack us in new and different ways. If you think they are always going to send young arab males I'm sure history will prove you wrong. If you assume these people are stupid then you are going to lose by underestimating them.

Then that would be great it would set them back greatly wouldn't it. Let's do talk strategy. They would to have to find those willing to join their cause. Which under that cause is no rights at all for women, cutting off limbs for stealing, and rule by fear. Sure sign me up.

Then they would have to spend resources training and being sure people. They would also have to be watching out for possible undercover agents trying to get in their ranks as they would be recruiting outside the arabic world.

Profiling sounds like the way to go in this instance.

PS: Your Avatar pic is a red x... just thought you might want to know.

I'm going to mostly agree with what DTOM has stated so far.

1. Ethnicity, whether we like it or not, does play a part in the calculation to determine whether or not someone should be searched. It is by no means the largest, a necessary, or a sufficient factor. There are practical implications that we must be sensitive to, as CJ has mentioned. People tend to focus on ethnicity in preference to other more important factors -- a practical problem with even mentioning ethnicity as part of the criteria.

2. Random searches can work iff the chance of being searched is large enough. If there's, say, a one out of ten chance or greater that you will be searched, then the random searches will deter folks from bringing bombs, etc., onto public transit. However, such a ratio is impractical to implement when there are 5-7 million passengers per day.

3. I believe though that random searches, as has occurred on the NY subway system, are unconstitutional. If they are not, I would like to the Supreme Court to answer why not (or why, for that matter). In this instance, I am happy that the ACLU has taken the case.

4. Why can we be searched at airports and not subways? I think (and I'm no lawyer) that there's a reasonable expectation of being searched and that there's a lot of equipment and training associated with choosing who will be searched. In other words, it isn't random.

Ok, while I agree that the searches are vastly unnecessary and ineffective, I would never argue that the ACLU isn't a left-wing/liberal organization. The searches including the elderly, children, or the handicapped is absolutely absurd. If we checked middle eastern-appearing men and women over the age of 15 (give or take), then it might work. Can you imagine what the ACLU would say then???

However, to say that the ACLU is fair and balanced is beyond comprehension. The ACLU has done things like attacked the FBI for investigating radical muslim websites (9/2003), fought a school board for beginning meetings in prayer (6/2005), suspended one of it's own chapters because its president joined the Minutemen (6/2005), investigated Special Forces troops in Iraq (1/2005), and sued a city in Rhode Island to get Christmas displays off front lawn (11/04).

As I definitely don't want to debate the nature or necessity of these suits, I am going to say simply that these are far from conservative causes. Frankly, i would venture to state that these are more "liberally centered" issues.
Not that the ACLU doesn't serve a purpose... but it's largely not a conservative purpose.

Back on track... unless we allow ourselves to actually profile terrorists, we'll never have an effective airport and/or subway screening system. The airport security system is largely flawed, aggravating, and it has been proven that a well planned terrorist could circumvent the process.

I never said they were not liberal. It's a shame, though, that protecting the Constitution is seen as a liberal cause. It should be an American cause. The ACLU has defended conservatives, including Sean Hannity when he was fired from a college radio station for his conservative views. I'm sorry to hear that you think protecting the Bill of Rights is a "liberal cause."

As for racial profiling, it should be noted that the most populous Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia. There are Muslims of all races and from all continents. There are Chinese Muslims, caucasian, African...

If the ACLU protects the Bill of Rights how come they have not once taken a case regarding the second amendment.

As for Muslims... we said nothing about muslims. Arabic was the key word. Please don't try to twist the argument. The terrorists out in the world are not practicing the true Muslim religion either, you and I both know that.

I understand your logic sir. I'm not familiar with the Shawn Hannity case, but can say that they must've fallen from grace in that they even attempted to have him arrested after inadvertantly crossing the Mexican border. http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDispl...5010&catcode=13

The five examples that I imparted were in the past 12 months; with the pinnacle being suspending a Chapter whose President was a part of the Minutemen. If the ACLU was a champion of all constitutional issues, let's say such as gun control laws... maybe they'd garner more support. For instance;

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the
Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful
police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not
constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment
to the regulation of firearms."

Where in the constitution does it define the idea that police and military personnel are a "militia"? This isn't a 2nd amendment debate, but here's what it states...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sure as heck seems like the ACLU should be anti-gun control...

In reference to racial profiling and Indonesian (or Asian/African) muslims, you have to consider that we were attacked 6 times in the past 10 years by Al-Qaeda related groups, of whom all were of Middle Eastern decent. We all have a notion as to how their disdain was/is grown, and this thread isn't to discuss it. However, regardless of the notion, racial profiling of "middle eastern-appearing" men in all cases of large-scale terrorism against US targets over the last decade would've been effective. Is it constitutional? Probably not... which is inherently the problem.

I don't really see what your point is. I am not going to sit here and try and discuss the reasons that people turn to terrorism, you'd probably just ignore me anyway. I'm also not suggesting you sympathize with them either. I'm asking you to think out of the box and put yourself in their shoes. Not with your morals but their morals and beliefs. If I can come to that conclusion I'm pretty sure someone over there has too, like I said before - assuming these people are dumb is a big mistake.

Also you forget that poverty and oppression (and perceived oppression) exists in muslim countries all over the globe, and they aren't all arabic. If the proper investment is made these areas could become recruiting grounds for terrorists.

I really don't see why it is such a hard concept to grasp that terrorist tactics evolve as we tighten down security to strike unprotected areas and evade that security. Every example of terrorism for the past 4 years proves my point.

Edited to add: Aevans, the ACLU protects both "sides" if you want to call them that. I am perfectly happy to go find all of the cases where the ACLU has upheld first amendment rights for religious and/or conservative groups as well as show you instances where they have take separation of church and state cases but that would be completely off topic. If you want to keep repeating the ACLU is a bad liberal organization talking points that is fine. However, you are completely wrong, the ACLU consistently sides with the Constitution. If you really want to continue to debate that perhaps you ought to start a topic on it.

And regarding the second amendment stuff, that is also appropriate for another debate. I'd be perfectly happy to argue why you, an individual, are not a "well regulated militia."

Please don't use belittling terms like "I really don't see why it is such a hard concept to grasp" , it is unnecessary to debate.

I completely understand that they have to adept to security measures we take. Which take time and resources from them. If we start to profile 15-65 year old people of arabic decent. If this takes time and resources from them successfully attacking again isn't this a good thing?

You are missing the point sleeper. That type of profiling is not effective. There are many ways to profile people and in my opinion relying on race as a highly weighted part of your profile is just as much of a waste of time as random searching.

I don't even know how we got into this discussion in the first place so that is all I'm going to say on it. The topic has to do with random searching which is also completely pointless and a violation of civil rights.

Not really and especially not in this case. Frankly, there is nooo way that we'd be able to stop a terrorist from blowing up a PATH train if he wanted to, so this bag-checking, while nice, and certainly Constitutional [this would be an example of a reasonable search...in public, btw], it's also pointless.


No, it wouldn't be there fault. They'd look like idiots, but it wouldn't be their fault. People would think twice before trusting them, but it wouldn't be their fault...They'd be wrong...again, but it wouldn't be their fault. The fact is, poop happens, but the ACLU is blameless here, the worst thing that they're guilty of is reading the Constitution incorrectly...But given the fact that most organizations do, I won't hold it against them to much.

CP

In regards to the first portion of your response to sleeper, I feel that quarkhead's post on page 1 of this thread is a good one about the searches.



It turns out that there is some evidence that indicates that he may very well be right. Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute published a paper titled: Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Protecting Our Civil Liberties while Fighting the War on Terrorism. In it, Lynch uses two previous attacks in the United States to show that the first priority of the government, should've been to check and see if the standards in place are working, before setting up new standards. After the Oklahoma City bombing, congress passed the Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995. This bill was said to be a big step in fighting terrorism. In anticipation of The '96 olympics and armed with this bill, a plethora of government agencies were on the ground during the 1996 olympics-the FBI, BATF, DEA, U.S. Customs, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Secret Service. Did this do a bit of good? Obviously not, as a pipe bomb exploded. After 9-11, congress passed a comprehensive anti-terrorism bill. It did nothing to stop the "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid, and it did nothing to stop the anthrax mailer. The point? quarkhead and sleeper's assertion is correct in relation to past terrorist events in this nation. We can have all of the legislation and special departments in the world, unless we check and make sure they work from time to time, we are still vulnerable, irregardless of civil liberties groups like the ACLU. Rather than blame the ACLU for a future attack, looking at the things we already have in place would be a good place to start. If the ACLU and others state that we have a bad system of searching that leaves main entrances unmanned from time to time and that it's announced-is the ACLU really to blame for that? Highlighting that policy does not work isn't treasonous, it's doing our nation a favor so that those who are charged with protecting us, may very well do a better job of doing so.

May I ask what I consider the obvious question, to wit, why are we insisting that the system be foolproof? If that is the standard then why not do away with all security measures, given that we will never be able to design and implement a security system that human ingenuity will not be able to overcome? And in a related vein, would it not be better to have 1,000 dead than 5,000 dead? We could call both "failure," but one failure seems to me to be better or more preferable to the other.

I otherwise don't think that we should limit the search to M.E. males [and females]. As someone correctly noted, the most populous Muslim country is Indonesia, so if we're looking for Arabs then we'll miss our friend from Jakarta.

Lastly, I would suggest that we send some folks on over to learn how the Mossad and the Shin Beth deal with the terrorist problem in their country. True, they have not been able to secure every bus and every eating establishment and discotheque, but it is undeniable that they have in fact prevented the deaths of many [including the deaths of some of those who would self-detonate].

Sorry, one more. The ACLU is not doing what they are doing in this regard so that they might expose a faulty security system. Anyone who thinks that such is their concern is, well, I had better not say...

1. The lawsuit itself? No. But the fact that people are resisting good intentioned safety measures is rather disturbing.

I am a pretty adamant right-winger on a lot of stuff. (Adamant: i.e. I don't move on my position, and it doesn't mean I'm radical). This debate is going to be endless, just like the death penalty argument, abortion argument, and war argument. The people who are for one side will usually stay on that side unless some miracle convincing force runs along, picks them up, and drops them on the opposite side. The argument here is always going to be life vs. rights. You can't really prioritize one above another. This is a very common theme in LD debate in high school. People say "Life isn't worth it without rights," and, "Life is necessary for rights." The side that, intuitively, needs more convincing is the rights over life. This is a theme I am not that adamant about. This debate is usually situational.

Now we consider what the right being debated is here. Theoretically, privacy isn't a right. Theoretically, again, it is. In a public situation, (i.e. you are not in private) I believe you give up you right to privacy because it is reserved for a private situation. So, in a public situation, the extent of your privacy is basically your body itself. Your clothes and the things that you are carrying can be legitimately searched. This is, specifically, very, very true if (Warning!, crazy example) someone complaining that their privacy right was violated if people searched their bags, then how is their privacy right protected when a terrorist sets a bomb off when he's sitting on the same subway car as the complainer? And the only reason for that is just because he tried to keep others from submitting to a very practical security check? Absurd. I see good intentions on both sides. Protecting rights, protecting life. But I think I am going with the NYPD because they are protecting my life, and my rights that would be violated by terrorists. ACLU isn't protecting my life very well, and I'm kind of worried about that... Also, the fact that you are going to the subway means you are choosing to be searched[I], rather than forced, which is unconstitutional without some evidence to account. Another question: if this is so bad, then why doesn't the ACLU sue TSA for searching people in airports?

2. Entirely. When a generous safety check is assulted by some people who probably haven't read the Constitution slowly enough, and we get attacked, I'll blame the ACLU. If someone blew up a dam with dynamite and the water crushed me, I wouldn't blame the dam, I'd blame the fool who blew up the dam.

I really, really like my analogies...

Spending a lot of time arguing about privacy rights seems like a red herring to me. The issue is unreasonable searches. What's reasonable about randomly choosing what - one tenth of one percent of the almost eight million daily passengers of the MTA? And haven't we already learned that of the 700+ subway stations in New York City, only the major stations are sites where these searches are being conducted? Do we expect that terrorists are so somnolent that they don't notice a bag-search going on when they enter the station, prompting them to turn around and walk a few blocks to the next station?

Wouldn't this be embarrassing for all those claiming that the random searches are useful: three terrorists enter the subway system at major stations, carrying bags containing nothing dangerous (newspapers, etc.) A fourth enters at Sheridan Square, which doesn't have any searching going on that day, and brings with him a big duffel bag full of all sorts of nasty stuff. The four meet at different places where they parcel out their stuff, and then go on to detonate their explosives in different locations in the system.

As many others have said here, this is nothing but a very costly feel-good measure the City's embarked on to help calm the citizenry. The Mayor of NYC is a common-sense businessman (Michael Bloomberg), and he's probably praying that the ACLU suit succeeds so he can have those cops re-assigned to actual productive police work.

What's happening in airports, by contrast,isn't random, but uniform. Everybody seeking entrance to an aircraft is being searched. Sure, there's some question about the "random" subsequent searches, but otherwise, everyone is subject to the searches. If it were practical to search everyone entering the subway system, I'd recommend that approach, as others have suggested.

If successful and the ACLU wins this suit and there is an attack on the NY transit system should the blame fall at the hands of the ACLU?



The only way the ACLU could possibly bear any responsibility would be if the "random searches" had any chance of successfully detecting or deterring an attack.

As to "profiling." Properly done by trained professionals, which we expect our law enforcement personnel to be, criminal profiling and suspect profiling is a valuable crime-fighting tool. Unfortunately, too many people on with different agendas see only the racial or ethnic component of such profiling. (Some unprofessional law enforcement personnel fall into this category as well.) Letting politicians and politics micromanage law enforcement is getting us into a mess.

As to terrorist recruitment: although there are converts to Islam from all parts of the world and all races, I've got my doubts about the fanatics' ability to talk these people
into committing suicide. After all, self-immolation isn't the most productive proselytizing enticement (although the prospect of 72 virgins might be alluring to some . . .) No, I think the prime recruitment source for the terrorists are the madrassas - religious schools where they have control of youths from a very early age, and thus can brainwash them to the degree necessary for them to want to kill themselves. I could be wrong, but I think they're primarily in Arab countries.

When I first heard of the lawsuit, I thought "Geez, I wish they hadn't done that . . ." but the more I learned about the practice they're suing over, and then read this thread, I'm glad I didn't throw out my membership renewal. I'll be sending my check in on Monday and especially now, I'll consider it money well-spent."