The head line states it all.

New York Civil Liberties Union sues New York City/Police Department

*snip*


Questions for debate:

Are these kinds of lawsuits hindering our ability to keep our country safe from possible terrorist attacks?

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 NYCLU says that the searches are "discriminatory and arbitrary"

Yeah, that makes sense. We are randomly selecting people based on specific distinct factors. They can't even write a cogent brief about their own lawsuit. I am so glad that I no longer fund the nonsense that passes for "liberties" at the ACLU. These people are treasonous.

Are these kinds of lawsuits hindering our ability to keep our country safe from possible terrorist attacks?

Wow, what an objective question! The answer is NO. The ACLU should continue to be proud of its history of protecting the Constitutional rights of all Americans, be they conservative or liberal. The other side of the question is, of course, "are these kind of laws hindering our civil liberties as enumerated in the Constitution?" A judge will determine the answer to that question.

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?

No, because there is no guarantee that the attack would have been stopped by a random bag search. I know that some conservatives love to find someone to blame for everything. Heck, it's the M.O. Rush was built on! Of course, in a bombing, there is someone to blame - but it's not an organization dedicated to protecting the civil rights of all Americans - it's the terrorist who is to blame, really, since they commit the crime.

This is a silly question driven by an incredible bias against the ACLU. I just don't understand why the more rabid conservatives in the US hate the ACLU so much - I have to think it's because they are reading some talking points, or being hoodwinked - I am still too optimistic to think it is because they are against civil rights.



Strong words. Treasonous. Should they be tried and executed for treason? All of the members, or just the board of directors? Do we need to even bother with a trial? Why don't we just lynch them? "Well, I'm glad I don't fund the nonsense that passes for democracy at the GOP. These people are treasonous." Is this the type of response you expect and enjoy? If not, then don't be so inflammatory with the "treasonous" moniker. Treason is a serious charge. Conservatives throwing it around at every liberal they don't like the sound of not only throws politics into the toilet, it degrades the meaning of the word treason. Leave it for angry polemicists like Horowitz and Coulter. We can do better at

Despite aspiring to be an angry polemnist, I apologize for the inflammatory word. I meant it in the 'aiding and comforting' sense, in that if I were a bomber I would be aided and comforted by the fact that the police couldn't search me. Like John Travolta in Pulp Fiction when he says:



... to which I believe Samuel Jackson responds "I'm &^%& goin' - that's all there is to it."

Ok I agree with you that the terrorist is to blame.

But not too long ago you said:



This was in regarding the terrorist attacks in Iraq against the soldiers and citizens there. Link

How come blame can be placed someplace else in regard to your statements there, but no blame could be placed on the ACLU if they prevent random searches.
Unless you are now saying that the terrorists are to have the responsibility in Iraq for killing soldiers and Iraqi citizens.

That's a good point, but I don't believe I am being inconsistent. Allow me to explain. First, there are numerous levels of responsibility. As a soldier, I am responsible for squeezing the trigger on my weapon. When I shoot someone, there is a set of rules in place which help determine justification. But whether I kill an enemy soldier, an innocent civilian, or my own officer, I am responsible for that action. However, above that level, is the fact that I am in the military structure - and it is not democratic. I do not choose where I am sent. The President sends me somewhere. So the person who sends me also has responsibility for these deaths - because none of them would be occuring without their decision.

In the case of the ACLU, there is to much randomness to assign responsibility for the bombing. Let's say for a moment, that the ACLU loses. The police search random bags. So, the terrorist might not be searched, and set his bomb.

It is important to note that the ACLU is not saying that nothing should be done. Indeed, in your opening post you quote them as saying that aggressive policework is necessary. Even without random searches, police are responding to suspicious behavior. There may be passive protections - metal detectors and the like. The NYC subway is a crowded affair. I don't see how purely random searches of bags will do anything. You need to target suspicious behavior, not random bags. And such a rule is open to abuse.

Well seeing that backpacks and bags are one of the ways terrorists brought bombs into the subway system in London, why not random search bags? Something has to be done to protect people using the subway systems in large metro areas. Just because a few people's feelings get hurt the ACLU is suing the City of New York and the NYPD. I would rather hurt the feelings of a select few than rather hurt/destroy the lives of hundreds.

The ACLU is challenging the law because it may be a violation of the Bill of Rights. They may win, they may not. In any case it seems to me a good idea that such a law be examined carefully - and challenged - to be sure that it is Constitutional. If it turns out not to be, then the law must be repealed. Whether it makes us comfortable or not, we are bound to the Constitution.

Your contention that the ACLU sues because of a few peoples' hurt feelings is baseless. Meaning, it has no basis whatsoever in fact. And I think you know that.

Of course, the safest course of all would be to declare martial law. Require national ID cards everywhere we go. Have a universal curfew. Give law enforcement agents the right to arrest, search, imprison, or kill anyone they want.

It may indeed be the case that our civil liberties make us less "safe." Does that mean we should throw them out?

No. As a friend of mine who lives in New York City says, "I'm not willing to sacrifice any freedoms in the name of 'security'." His argument was bolstered by a personal example. One day while heading to work, he was fingered out for a random search. He asked if this was a requirement. The officers told him no, but if he didn't, he couldn't ride the subway. He said thanks and walked back up the stairs. After a ten minute walk, he entered the next station without a single officer guarding its entrance. What is the point in searching randomly? It's trying to find a needle in a haystack.
No, although the conservative talk show hosts will make sure they are blamed for it. The ACLU is doing its job, which is to represent citizens who want to file a lawsuit for what they perceive as a violation of their civil liberties. In the article you presented, there are five plaintiffs, including one self-identified Republican. The ACLU is a representative law body, much like any attorney. If someone sues McDonald's, do you blame the lawyer or the plaintiff?

These searches are the definition of unlawful search and seizure. The ACLU is fully within their rights to defend the freedoms the Constitution grants its citizens. These infringements only come after an attack. No terrorist is going to attack us via airplane or mass transit for a long time. If they do attack, it will be something we haven't yet protected ourselves from. It's pointless to fear something we can do little to defend against. I, for one, am not going to live in fear of being killed by a nameless, faceless enemy. I'm more afraid of walking down the street in downtown Salt Lake and getting mauled by an unobservant driver.

*edited to fix formatting errors*

Personally I blame the lawyer.

Now I do this for the same reason that a lot of people have a problem with the ACLU. Baseless lawsuits. I don't think that all of the ACLU lawsuits or all McDonald's type lawsuits are baseless. We need these types of organizations and people (term used loosely in the case of some lawyers ). They provide a vital service.

However just as with any good thing they can be abused. Too often do you hear of schools over reacting and stopping something at the threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU. Not because the school board thinks the program is in violation, but because they can't afford the lawsuit to prove that it isn't.

My big beef is the whole separation of church and state. Should the government be in the church business? No. Should religion be in the government business. No. Should there be absolutely no contact between the two. No.

An example of this is the recent request by President Gordon B. Hinckley of the LDS church that schools in Utah not schedule events on Monday nights. Why not? Because the members of that church have been directed to use that as a family night to get together and strengthen the family. Some school districts did just that. Mondays were kept free. Immediately people started screaming about separation of church and state. The ACLU was consulted. How dare these school boards kow tow to a church leader.

In reality all that was happening was that the school boards were facing reality. A majority of their students were Mormon. While some, if not many, would still try to participate if Mondays were not kept free it made no sense to force them to choose. Church and State should be separate but should not ignore each other.

However the ACLU has defended other Utahns who were Mormon against discriminatory things as well. I may not agree with many of the ACLU's law suits and I know that there are many hard line left wingers that I would really like to see gone from the ACLU but I think they perform a vital service. It just needs to be more balanced.

Or does it? We tend to hear about it a lot when the ACLU looks like the bully or the defender of the "other guy" because it stands out in our minds more. It would be interesting to see a study done or statistics shown about what types of lawsuits they file and what side of the political spectrum the suit would fall on.

In regards to the specific questions asked,



Probably. Does this make them wrong/bad/treasonous? No. Without a watchdog the government runs amok. Even if it is for the best of reasons amok is amok.



Not at all. Liberty is not safety. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave not the land of the safe and the home of the timid.

I think we are taking the situation out of context with the broader war on terror. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. During World War II, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 which allowed for the internment of any persons of Japanese, German, or Italian descent. While Lincoln's measure was later declared unconstitutional and the internment of US citiens is still deemed terrible...the fact remains that both men are still regarded as among the finest presidents we have ever had. The reason is that they got the job done. Lincoln preserved the Union and Roosevelt won the war. Because of this, these leaders were "forgiven" of such grievances.

I think the same applies to our current War on Terror. The precedent is set that once the war or conflict is over, that any extraordinary measures put in place are withdrawn. I do not see our liberties being attacked. Every time i go to an airport or enter a commercial entity...a person is search or must go through a metal detector. Nobody argues when such a search is conducted then.



Your point that random bag searches is pointless is valid...only because the NYPD is not allowed to do what it should due to the PC Crowd that will file lawsuits (with the help of the ACLU) if there are any accusations of 'profiling'. We can't search the people whom we know percentages dictate are the profile for an Al Qaeda operative. So our only option are random bag searches of everyone.

Tony Blair instituted new deportation mesaures in the UK which promises to deport anyone who preaches hate or support for terrorism. Do you think that such organizations as the ACLU would allow the same measures to take place here? This is when common sense takes a back seat to ideology. Throw them out and never let them back in. Of course the problem is that our government continues to do nothing to stop illegal immigration. Some things have to be done.

I was going to bring up this point as well, leder (though sans the "PC crowd" talking point). It is ironic that on one hand random searches are bad while on the other hand profiled searches are bad. Though, of course, profiled searches of the "right" type still seem to be okay. I believe the issue is that one could argue that random searches violate the 4th Amendment or possibly the 14th Amendment. Of course, the ACLU has traditionally been about the 1st Amendment so it seems a touch out of their bailiwick.

Practically speaking, random bag searches will not result in a net increase in safety unless there was a high probability of getting searched. First, if there's a low probability of being searched, then it's worth the risk of detection in this manner. Second, if you know that bag searches are random, then someone who might otherwise fit a profile (suspicious behavior, etc.) may be overlooked simply because the searchers are otherwise occupied. This would create a net decrease in safety because people are looking for a needle in the haystack by inspecting random pieces of hay rather than focusing on likely locales of the needle.

What they did wasn't right, nor was it very American Leder regardless of whether they got the job done or not. Our founding fathers didn't design the bill of rights with a clause allowing Presidents to suspend or infringe upon portions of the Constitution when they feel like it. If you believe that does exist then find me the passage.


Do you seriously think the "war on terror" will ever be over Leder? What ground do we have to re-claim? What capitol do we have to topple? What army do we have to fight? What do they look like? Where are the lines? Who do we sign a peace treaty with to end the war?

The war on terror could much more closely be compared to the "war on drugs" which as we all know is highly successful. /end sarcasm You cannot fight a war on an idea and expect it to ever be over because you cannot kill an idea, and you cannot destroy a tactic. The only time it ends is when popular support for fighting the idea ends.

Furthermore, when you buy in to your reasoning leder, that is the real victory for terrorists. They exist to make us change our way of life and make us constantly live in fear. If you go about stripping away the hard fought freedoms we have then guess what - they are winning.


The PC crowd? No Leder, the people against having to submit to a bag search to board the subway are in line with the principles of the constitution. Let me quote the 4th amendment in case it isn't fresh in your mind.


Every search, random or not, is a violation of the 4th amendment. The fact the searches are completely pointless and ineffective only underscores the problem. I really can't see how you don't have a problem with our government blatantly violating the 4th amendment.


So is no one allowed to say that they think what is going on in the UK is wrong? Thankfully we have something called freedom of speech in the United States and such an act would be unconstitutional on several grounds.

both Lincoln and Roosevelt went out of their way to silence all opposition to their deeds--hardly the hallmark of good leaders. As history draws away from their times and unbiased minds review their deeds they will not hold up to the light so well--especially lincoln. Lincoln also tried to silence the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for going against him.


this isn't the UK Leder, you have the wrong country,,Americas Debate remember.

Random bag searches will do little if any good since it is easy to evade and the only people probably going to be searched are the last ones who pose any danger. Seems hardly worth giving any freedom at all to assure people scared of their own shadows.
Someone wanting to bomb the subways is probably going to find a way to do so regardless of the pitiful bag searches.

Personally, I think you either search everyone or you simply don't bother. Random searches are very unlikely to produce the hoped for results and to be honest, I'm personally tired of the "take your liberties to protect your liberties" crowd. In my opinion random searches are nothing more than a "feel good" measure to give the American public the impression that they're safe/safer than they really are. If we've learned nothing from Israel's example, the best anti-terrorist security can and will be breeched on occasion by those intent on doing harm.

Good Afternoon CJ, it's been a while since I've posted in tandem on a board with you.

I have to say that I agree and disagree with your post, in that if the searches actually deterred an attack of some sort (of which I'm speculative), I'd be for the searches.

However, as I've discussed in previous posts, I have a job in which I travel to NYC on a regular basis. That being said, I've been past police check points in which I never saw a caucasian man with a brief case being stopped. As convenient as this is for me, I can be empathetic with some of my friends whom may not fit this description. "Random" surely is a word that I feel doesn't accurately describe the searches... I believe that they are largely ineffective and probably aren't stopping well trained criminals from planning a bombing.

That being said, as much as I believe in the constitutional right to freedom of speech, I'd have to say that there are reasons that the folks in the UK should pursue deportation.

Consider, CJ, that there are some aspects of speech that are not protected by our glorious constitution, such as slander. Why couldn't we extend this to speech encouraging terrorism?? Would you rather live down the street (as you know some of us in Dallas do...) from let's say a Mosque that preaches terrorist-fostering ideology?? You're safe in SF, but here in the Big D we have a large muslim constituency!

Seriously, I believe that free speech is as important as any other part of our civil rights. However, we cannot practice profanity and slander... so why not envoke this practice for pro-terrorism speech as well??

I believe that getting rid of these people is probably in our best interest, and most likely a matter of national security. I vote tooust anyone that publicly speaks in favor of terrorist ideology, especially if they hold foreign visas or resident alien cards. Why should the US constitution even apply to foreigners??

In hindsight, yes both actions are terribly un-American and would be very extreme by today's standards. But at the time they were not seen as so by the public. They were seen as nessary measures to ensure the survival of the Republic and the Constitution. Without Americans to support the Constitution, the document is meaningless. And, while Lincoln's actions were later deemed unconstitutional...the actions of Roosevelt were upheld in Korematsu v. United States.



The point is that the rights of the American people to be alive
, is greater than one's individual right to be inconvenienced by a bag search.



Well from this point of view, the extremists can't win either because they are fighting democracy...an idea. I refuse to believe that we should give up defending ourselves from terrorists because they have an "idea" and that from your view it is unwinnable.

Furthermore, your assertion that these searches violate the Constitution is not consistent with Supreme Court Opinions.

In Indianapolis v. Edmund, Justice O'Connor wrote "the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart a terrorist attack."

Cant you name a true difference between a roadblock and a stop at the entrance of a mass transit system?

Furthermore, in Griffin v. Wisconsin the Court ruled in a case dealing with probation that there are "special circumstances that allow the relaxtion of an absolute prohibition against police searches and seizures without specific warrants." It went on to say that supervision of probationers is a 'special need' of the State that may justify departures from the usual warrant and probable-cause requirements.

Is a preventing a terrorist act in the interest of the State?

Whether you like it or not, there is a constitutional basis for these searches as interpreted by the Supreme Court.



Profiling using one factor in determining a suspect is wrong. However, profling an Al Qaeda suspect based on the information we have obtained for years in attacks such as 9/11, the recent London bombings and the Al Qaeda's influence over Afghanistan forces one to use some common sense when dealing with the situation.

Furthermore, do you object to being searched before boarding an airplane or leaving a department store? These searches went on way before our recent War on Terror.



Supreme Court decisions conflict with this assertion. I have a problem with these searches because they are as you said pointless.



There is a stark difference between freedom of speech and inciting violence and hate against the United States. Saying 'Death to America' is not an expression of an idea and that has also been upehld by the Supreme Court.

Terrorists aren't fighting democracy; they're fighting the US. And, I agree, they can't win. But, they sure as well can make everyone lose. BTW, I thought the new word was "activist"? Didn't you get the memo? Apparently, "extremist" isn't polling well.


This is a "straw man" argument (and ad hominem to boot), leder. CJ is almost certainly not suggesting that we give up defending ourselves.


A "tailored road block" isn't random (if it were, it would be unconstitutional). There are typically good justifications for setting one up. Similarly, you can't randomly wiretap just any phone conversation; you need good justification for doing so.


I think there's enough ambiguity in the law here to justify the ACLU bring the case before a judge. Whatever the judge rules, then we'll know more about what is appropriate or inappropriate about such searches. Why don't you believe that to be the correct course of action?

That is a bogus argument. Roosevelt was President during a state of war and, no matter how frequently we say "War on Terror", we have not officially declared war (primarily because there is no central country to attack). His actions were unconstitutional, but activist judges (natch) sided with the President during a wartime affair. Since this is now labeled a "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" (G-SAVE for short), we can not simply do away with liberties for a false sense of security.

The Constitution gives everyone the guarantee of life, liberty, and property. When someone's life is taken, the perpetrator's liberties and property are taken (and occasionally his or her life as well). This is called justice. When someone's liberties are taken to guarantee life, this is called fascism.
I'll give you the first part--there really is no difference between a roadblock and a stop at an entrance. The second part has little to do with this argument, since it concerns probationers. That is, those who have been released having already committed a crime.
This is not really the same thing. A department store or airline is a privately owned company (Delta, United, JCPenney, Macy's, etc.), although the airline industry has strict regulations from the FAA. It's a nationwide thing and all people are searched before boarding. They are not randomly searched. NYC's transit system is a public commodity, therefore bound to the rights granted by the Constitution. Random searches merely provide the illusion of safety, which I feel does greater harm than good.

Zarqawi: Jan.23, 2005





Well ill let CJ decide if he feels i attacked him...but it was not a "straw man" argument. He implied by directing the question at me that he doesn't believe the War on Terror will end. He compared it to the War on Drugs. He went on to say that we are fighting an idea and that you cannot defeat and idea. Now to me, he makes it sounds like it is unwinnable. Perhaps he could clarify.



Correct you are sir, and the recent bombings and attempted bombings of the London subway system as well as the pledge of Al Qaeda to continue such activity is good justification. The searches occurred as a result of the tragedies in London.



Because I believe that the judges have already ruled in similar cases and that the NYCLU would rather pursue their own ideological agenda than use common sense and allow for what a majority of New Yorkers want.



FargoUT, you can call it whatever you want. You can call it a war, a conflict, or any other funny name you deem appropriate. It doesn't change anything. This slippery slope argument that random bag searches on the subway after terror attacks in London will lead to fascism or any other authoritarian government is growing tiresome. The fact is that the continued greatest check on the power of our government is that of elections. If you don't like who is in office and their policies, then you vote him/her out of office and replace the representative with someone who follows your views. We still have that and its not going away.



It has much to do with the argument because it has to do with the definition of search and seizure. The court ruled that there are certain circumstances where there is a 'special need' of the State to go outside the boundaries of normal procedure.



How are privately owned companies not bound to the rights granted by the Constitution?

I don't feel anyone attacked me, but the clarification is beyond the scope of this thread. I am in no way suggesting that we simply "give up" Leder. What I am suggesting is using smarter tactics and addressing the root cause of the problem. If you want to keep thinking that terrorism is some dragon you can slay then go right ahead, we'll continue to lose the battle.

This article from the guardian is interesting - source:



That is also precisely the wrong reaction and are nothing more than a "feel good" gesture. Terrorists will continue to stike at soft targets in this country and elsewhere. Everyone was worried about flying after 9/11 - I wasn't. I knew that planes were no longer a soft target and never would be used again. I have also commented numerous times how vulnerable the public transit system is - lo and behold. Before this London bombing happened Congressional Republicans had voted down additional spending on public transit for security and infrastructure - they've now changed their tune. You can guarantee the next time this happens it'll be in a new area.

The lesson these attacks should be teaching us is to make smart improvements in security, not do empty gestures to make people feel good which also happen to be a violation of civil rights. Why don't we start with addressing the fact that states which don't need security funds get more of them than places like NY.


The only ideological agenda the ACLU pursues is enforcing our civil rights and they do this consistently. If you believe that is some liberal agenda them I'm proud to call it that. Furthermore, I haven't seen you present any data that suggest the majority of NY'ers are in favor of anything. That may be your opinion, but until you have the data to back it up it is just that, an opinion.


We have had this discussion in other threads Leder. Private companies are not bound by the Constitution - you have no freedom of speech, you have no right to privacy (drug tests, email checking, etc). The government is bound by the Constitution.

I see, so Zarqawi represents all terrorists. Hmm... If you believe this to be true, I wonder why you wouldn't also believe that the Abu Ghraib torturers represent the US military's position on torture?


He may believe it is unwinnable (which is exactly what he said), however the "straw man" was this statement: He said no such thing and it is disingenuous rhetoric to state it.


Perhaps, you can walk me through how random searches in New York are constitutionally relevant to bombings in London? The issue is that the searches are random not that they are occurring. Police are justified in stopping and even searching people if there is good justification; they just can't do so randomly. The key word here is: random.


Yes, I think judges have ruled against your position, leder. And the old "common sense" argument rears its head yet again. Why not just write: "because I believe I'm right" rather than falling back on that chestnut?

CJ,i tell you time and again that i agree with you. We must address the root causes of terrorism. But i say again that to fully address such problems would take years to accomplish. Meanwhile we aren't changing any extremists' minds.



Hey i agree with you CJ, security measures are not what they should be and we are being put at risk because of it. But i find it reasonable to have a police presence in the transit system just in case an attack is about to or does occur. Law enforcement presence could deter a terrorist, spot one, or if an attack goes off is best situated to direct civilians out of harms way.



I believe that the ACLU goes too far with its agenda and at times put the average citizen at risk. That is from current and past lawsuits filed against the federal government.

I based my assertion on the fact that i live in new york city and thus watch the network news channels that have asked commuters about the situation. However research backs up my claim: N.Y., N.J. commuters OK with bag searches



We are all bound by the Constitution. Private companies are required to have equal protection for all its workers such as no discrimination. Free speech is protected as we debated during the 2004 Election where there were instances a worker was fired for a partisan bumper sticker and filed a lawsuit. A private entity may restrict some rights because they are paying you to work and not use your time for leisure...but many of the rights must be followed.



I am sorry lopophage,but i can't get a quote from every terrorist on the planet. I did however give you a quote from one of the leaders of the Al Qaeda terror network in Iraq. The terrorists are fighting against democracy. They see it as evil because it gives the people rights and they believe goes against Islamic Law.



Hey i agree with you like i said before. But the NYPD is forced to do random searches because the 'suspicious' searches and you and I would advocate would be seen as 'profiling.'



I presented two Supreme Court cases dealing with search and seizure that backed my argument. And it is because of that that i believe i am right.

Two problems here, Leder. First, we can and have deported some people for making threats against the US. However, these are people who are here via green cards, or who are merely naturalized citizens, with a prior "home" country. A few of the London bombers, as I understand it, were native-born citizens of the UK. Perhaps their laws are different, but in America, how would you strip a native-born of their citizenship, and where then would you deport them to?

Second, I think you have it backwards. The ACLU taking a stand against such an action wouldn't be common sense taking a back seat to ideology. That kind of action would be ideology taking a backseat to the Constitution. The ACLU would be looking to restore the meaning and intent of the constitution.

And because they were popular with the public at the time, makes it right? Sorry, but all you "strict constructionists" can't have it both ways, Leder. Either an action by the administration and congress of the day, or a law enacted by them, is either constitutional, or it's not. If it's not, all the popularity for the "cause" is no excuse for that law to stand. The same applies here. If the constitution says that, in general, you cannot search someone without probable cause of a specific crime, and without a warrant, that's what it says. It doesn't say that a general fear of a certain crime maybe, possibly happening, somewhere in the country is justification to throw out the Fourth Amendment.

Actually, leder, yes I can. Note that even you use the term "appropriately tailored" roadblock. O'Connor was talking about having some form of fore-knowledege of the criminal act, and setting up a checkpoint to to search under a specified set of criteria.

What you forgot to mention, was that the Supreme Court upheld the case against Indianapolis, stating that the City could not run random checkpoints to look for "general criminal activity", be it drug running, or any other crime, including the catch-all of "terrorism".



Again, leder, you are misreading the opinion. Note that they call for special circumstances for this exception, as in searching the house and effects of someone on probation. First, in this instance, a probationer is still under the jurisdiction and control of the courts and law enforcement. They have yet to complete their sentence for the crime they were convicted of, until they satisfy that probation. Therefore, according to the ruling, a drug addict for example, has not yet the right to refuse a warrantless search of his person or property for illegal drugs, weapons, etc. Second, these people are already known to have committed criminal acts against law abiding citizens. There was no prior criminal history to look back on, and be able to say, "well, there's our excuse for stopping and searching them".

How can you possibly extend this to mean that we can just stop anyone on the street, with no criminal background at all, and force them to submit to a check of their briefcase or backpack? I don't believe that you can.

If a state can set up random roadblocks to remove drunk drivers from our roads, then the state can set up random roadblocks to remove terrorists from our subways. And never mind that we already have these searches. Your bags get examined at the airport, with absolutely zero claim or pretense of reasonable particularized suspicion. So if the ACLU is correct, then we should also get rid of the current security screening at airports, as the circumstance is exactly the same.

And if one or some of you haven't read the case, please do so. Indianapolis v. Edmunds. They were using the K-9 squad. The dogs cannot tell whether you are operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs, but they can tell if drugs are in your vehicle. And that changed everything because that was the signal that they were merely trying to find those in possession of drugs, and not more specifically, checking for drug-impaired drivers. One should have known or guessed that, since there is zero distinction between the rationale that supports roadblocks to remove drunk drivers from the road and the rationale that supports roadblocks to remove drug-impaired drivers from the road. And if the former is a-okay, then so should be the latter.

The solution, well, here goes....the law should be written such that it provides that weapons, explosives, etc., are subject to the ban and will subject one to arrest and criminal prosecution if found during the search. The law should also provide that if drugs, etc., are found, that such will be confiscated but absent a prior claim of reasonable particularized suspicion, will not subject one to arrest and criminal prosecution [we could add a provision providing that the claim of reasonable particularized suspicion must be made, in written form, prior to the search, i.e., you look like you're higher than a kite, they say so, and hand you a written form notifying you of their suspicion in that regard]. The only concern left is misplaced notions of privacy [you value your right to be let alone over someone else's, and maybe your, life] and the bother involved in the search.

I am absolutely thrilled that Tony Blair reported that THE interest of the State is the very lives of its people. Everything else is secondary to that.

Are these kinds of lawsuits hindering our ability to keep our country safe from possible terrorist attacks?

These kind of law suits defend our civil liberties from incursion from an overzealous government. It is the type of challenge that should and must be launched against governmental incursion into individual rights.

It is true (IMO) that a police state would have a higher probability of preventing a higher percentage of acts of violent extremism.



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?

For defending our constitutitonal rights? No the blame should go on policies that were deemed to be unconstitutional in a court of law using our due process. The blame should go on the people who carry out such attacks. The blame should go on the multi-billion $$ budget that ended up failing to prevent a terrorist attack.

I wonder what side of this issue Sam Adams and Patrick Henry would have stood on?

If this practice is unconstitutional should no challenge be launched against it?

No, Kivrot, it's not the same at all. For a couple of reasons. The roadblocks used to check for drunk drivers, are usually not as "random" as you believe. First, they are usually set up in an area near a local bar or tavern, at or near closing time, which aids in the "specific crime" argument. Second, once the roadblock is set up, they stop every car coming along that route, and not just a select few. They talk to all of the drivers, and check for proper registration and licensure as well. All totally legal, as driving is not a fundamental right, but a privilege which can be revoked.

Also, at least up until 9/11, it was usually not the "state" that was examining your bags at the airport, but the airline itself. As a private company, they have the right to determine, and enforce the provisions for travelling on their aircraft. If you don't like it, well, you're certainly free to find another way to your destination. It's also worth noting that the random personal searches, even after all of the bags have been checked, are also being contested.


Not at all. Yes, they were using a K-9 squad to determine, without prior probable cause, if people going through their checkpoints were carrying drugs, not just driving impaired by them. There was no setup at all, like with the drunk driving examples I listed above, to give even an impression of probable cause. After all, there are no bars or taverns for these vehicles to have been coming from at 1:00am, with the roadblock just a block away. And the police had no accurate, probable cause to believe that any particular car stopped was indeed involved in drug running. This was an illegal fishing expedition, pure and simple. You may think that the city of Indianapolis was correct, however, the Supreme Court disagreed with both you and them.


I could probably live with this, with a single additional provision:

No more "random" searches. If you're going to do it, might as well do it right. Every shopping bag, backpack and briefcase gets checked, at every subway and light rail terminal and/or entrance. No exceptions, just like at the airport. However, considering that about 9 times as many people use this mode of transportation in a week, as use airlines in 6 months, I think you're gonna have some serious time and manpower issues. You really think, for instance, that everyone using the NY subway system is going to be willing to wait around for two hours to have their bags checked before before they can go home at the end of the day? Or arrive 90 minutes early to go through the same checks before they leave for work in the morning? I certainly don't, and I'm willing to bet there are a whole lot of other folks who agree with me.

I find it funny how some people are against the ACLU filing a lawsuit to find out if the government of the state or federal governments ever go to far. After all wouldn't you rather they challenge the law on the merits and if found unconstitutional it be remedied or withdrawn?



Like a few people have said even if the people or the courts agreed with what Lincoln or Roosevelt did it was wrong. Especially in Roosevelt's case, because it was a roundup of people without justifications just suspicions based on their race/ethnicity disregarding whether they were citizens or not. We also did it after 9/11 with the roundup of middle eastern men without any probable cause of guilt.

Post-9/11 Immigrant Roundup Backfired - Report

US Report Faults the Roundup of Illegal Immigrants after 9/11



While I am glad that they deported the people that were here illegally for overstaying their visa's, to condone the roundup is wrong as the evidence shows no one that was rounded up was charged with terrorists activities.



This is a very laughable argument for several reasons. As most people believe the War on Terror is going to last a very long time if not generations, so any laws that were put in place to deal with this will be here a long time. Once government has powers we really don't see them taking them away, as well if the War on Terror does last a long time if not generations and people come to expect that certain civil rights are taken away/curtailed, will people remember how it was before such rights were taken away and require those rights given back? Also who said that they would withdraw these extraordinary measures once its over since they won't be in office at the time?

With your argument about airport vs. commercial entities a few people tried to address this but didn't completely finish the argument. As a few people said with airports everyone has to go thru the security checkpoints, which means metal detectors, bags searched thru x-ray and possible more extensive searches if their's suspicions. Compared to commercial entities they don't have a right to search you unless they have someone that is specifically trained and is licensed with those abilities such as armed guards. Most of the time they are their just to try and prevent theft and in most cases such as most retail stores they can't even detain you unless trained to do so and have reasonable suspicion.

Loss Prevention Retail Store Exit Bag Checks



Shoplifting Detention & Arrest



So you're comparisons between airports vs. commercial entities is apple and oranges. As well stores aren't using metal detectors they are electronic article surveillance tags that if not removed will trigger an alarm. Even if you could some how still make a comparison it would fall on one last thing airports are searching everyone for safety vs. stores protecting their investment of merchandise.

Then there is this example that shows how flawed the random searches at the subway terminals is from FargoUT.



FargoUT's friend and the others I have heard thru the news is if they don't allow the officer to search which means they can't enter there what is stopping them from just going to another location and have no problems, even if there was officers at each station are they going to pick out the same person so it would not matter where the person tried to enter the train station? I think not that is one of the flaws of doing random searchs, its more of a perception of safety rather then actual.



Leder did you even read your own article that you claim backs you up? From the article we get....

N.Y., N.J. commuters OK with bag searches



If it's not a deterrent what good is it? As well the other part I highlighted said the rider had no problem's with the random searches as long as it didn't inconvenience him. Also the title of the article doesn't actually hold up to the article or the poll, since the poll doesn't ask a specific question. Such as.... Are you ok with the new random searches at the train stations? or Do you think the random searches are the right course of action to protect you? If the poll then represented what the title of the article says then you would have evidence to back up your claim.

This is what happens when societies are scared, they let their government make broad and over reaching measures which usually are only feel good measures and not necessarily care if this measure or that measure should not be excepted because it works against what our founding principles are. Just remember how right before the elections when their was some hint they that Al-Queda might do something, I can't remember what was said right now but it went something along the lines of it might be necessary to hold off the elections? Or how fast me might go into martial law if we do get attacked again?

For the record I am against the the police road blocks whether it for seat belts (I where mine all the time), the drunk driving ones etc. , because usually people know about them and find ways around them if they need to for what ever reason. I feel if you are going to stop me I better have done something wrong.



Funny Cube Jockey I have been saying the same exact thing also.

Let us not for get this statement

Are these kinds of lawsuits hindering our ability to keep our country safe from possible terrorist attacks?

That is almost LOL funny- like a lawsuit is the beachhead for terrorist attacks- considering the odds of even being the victim of a terrorist attack, are country IS safe from terrorist attacks- what we are NOT safe from is conservatives with an axe to grind LOL

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?

I don't even understand the logic of this question- how would a failure of the CIA and local police intelligence be the ACLUs fault? As pointed out here, these searches do nothing for safety, and do everything to erode our basic freedoms.

Everytime I see a conservative knee jerk reaction to some attack, I thank whatever Gods that be we have an organization like the ACLU fighting for our freedoms. The ACLU will get another check from me this year for sure- they are as much a defender of our freedoms as any soldier in the field, and possibly more- they keep us from turning into another dictatorship, more than any organization in the US- and lawsuits like this show this time and time again. Quite simply, there is no greater defender of our liberties than the ACLU.

NiteGuy:

You and I agree on Indianapolis v. Edmunds. It is precisely the presence of the K-9 unit that demonstrated that the concern was not to save me and you from being injured in our person and/or property as a result of the negligence of a drug-impaired driver. The K-9 unit instead demonstrated that the purpose was to search for drugs, and never mind any immediate danger to me and you from drug-impaired driver. So I agree with the decision.

Re the other roadblocks that we are all accustomed to. Please don't think that just because the roadblock is set up a half mile or so from the nearest bar/tavern that such means that there is probable cause, or any other word or phrase even remotely close to the same. The probable cause requirement is specific to person, so unless the cops know that I was just in that bar/tavern, the fact that the roadblock is a half mile or so from the bar/tavern and I just happened to be found at the roadblock in a motor vehicle, does not come anywhere close to showing probable cause for, first, my seizure, and second, my search. You also mentioned checking for license and registration as a partial justification. Really? Licenses are nice, because they provide some indicia that one has the necessary skill to avoid wrapping one's vehicle around that light pole, but if I'm driving at a/the appropriate speed, staying within my lane, and otherwise not following too closely, maybe my not having a license means nothing in terms of safety? And leaving aside the percentages for now, just who causes the majority of motor vehicle accidents, licensed or unlicensed drivers? And registration? Isn't that why we have those stickers on our license plates? So maybe that should be good enough unless we truly do get to the point wherein the man has some other justification for seizure and search before we allow a seizure and search based on the pretext of enforcement of vehicle registration laws.

So why don't we simply call it what it is. We can read the Constitution until the proverbial cows come home, but it seems to me that the bedrock premise is that we will uphold a reasonable seizure and search. And that's why, despite me making a mockery of the claim that the customary roadblock even begins to comport with notions of reasonable particularized suspicion, we still have them. Our society, or if you prefer, our highest court, has simply determined that given the number of dead, maimed, and otherwise injured humans, and the minimal instrusion and bother involved, roadblocks to check for drunk drivers are reasonable and thus legal. My fellow lawyers will know what I mean when I call that the Learned Hand test for the reasonableness of any particular search or seizure.

And let me eliminate a red-herring. Change my use of "airport" to "courthouse." Since we have person and baggage screening in that venue as well, and the courthouse is indeed owned and operated by a government. My best guess is that trial lawyer me has had my bag screened thousands upon thousands of times.

Let me end by going back to the matter of random. I saw that you want to add an additional requirement, to wit, that we all get searched. Query: if we posit that even so much as the seizure and search of a single individual without probable cause is unlawful, are you suggesting that we cure that illegality by subjecting all to the same?

Not at all, as I'll explain later. I would just as soon that we didn't have the need searches at all. However, I could certainly see where, as I said, like with the airlines, citizen complaints and the ACLU would not have as much standing, if everyone's bag were searched, and everyone were subject to a metal detector, etc.

But that's not what we have been discussing. The problem, and the reasons for the lawsuits, is that they aren't making everyone go through metal detectors, and they're not checking everyone's bags. They are pulling people out of line in random fashion, which as several of us have noted is not even going to be close to securing the subway system in New York. After all, we are talking 5 to 7 million passengers a day - not a year - a day on the NYC subway system. With that many riders, there is no possible way that pulling a few hundred out to randomly search for explosives is going to be any kind of deterrent to a terrorist. His chances of winning the lottery are better than his chances of being caught in a random search.

The only possible way to come close to securing it, would be to do as the airlines do - search everyone. I doubt then that the ACLU would have anything to hang their hat on. But, it's also going to take more time, inconvenience, and money than anyone will be willing to pay just to get to work in the morning. As I said in my earlier post, you would see 2 hour waits, or longer, just to get on the train or bus each way, and probably at each transfer. And how much more would the fare be, to pay for it all? Double? Triple? Quadruple?

Look, I understand that the government needs to look like they are doing something. But random bag searches isn't the answer. It isn't effective, and it isn't constitutional. Searching everyone isn't the answer either. It isn't practical.

As to the former, I would much prefer that an organization like the ACLU, dedicated to asking the courts whether these kinds of actions are constitutional, be around, rather than to just be subject to the the whim of the government, with no recourse.

It's obvious my position on the subject has been greatly misinterpreted. I will try my best to clarify it.

However, first i think it is important to mention that these random searches by the NYPD are completely optional. If a person decides not to be searched...then it is ok...but they cannot ride the subway. I don't know if that tidbit of information changes things for many but it is something to take into consideration and further reason why the random searches are useless.

The whole time i have been saying i disagree with the random bag searches. My point in this debate has always been that while random bag searches look ineffective and pointless...it is good to have a police presence in the subways to look for suspicious activity. The reason i brought up the supreme court cases was to try to play devil's advocate so to speak and explain why the NYPD has a quasi ,albeit hazy, constitutional basis for the searches.

My position on how to handle the subways and transit system is to have a police presence and commit to searches of all suspicious activity. I also believe that profiling to a certain extent would be wise due to the amount of information that the NYPD and intelligence services have garnered. That's it. I am not for ripping the 4th Amendment to shreds. I am for protecting the lives of my fellow New Yorkers who are just trying to get to work.

Questions for debate:



No, the plaintiffs in the case filed the lawsuit based on justifiable fears. If you are a member of Greenpeace, who is to say that some over zealous officer won't view that as a terrorist threat? How about if you're an attorney and you have some important client information in your bag? There are some justifiable concerns here. Not only that, but the 4th amendment doesn't cease to exist in a time of war. Make the searches random, not randomly common to just a few people who happen to be a member of a minority group and politically active-which could reasonably occur.




No, one of the contentions of the ACLU is that the searches are ineffective. They are failing to conduct searches at a majority of the entrances and they announce where they are searching ahead of time according to the ACLU webpage.