[Y3a]

I guess it's important that the terrorists get the freedom to bomb the subways according to the ACLU.

Who's side ARE THEY on??

[cpt kangarooski]

Searches wouldn't deter terrorists significantly.

First, not everyone is being searched. This means that it is likely that if a group of terrorists each brought in something, few, if any of them, would be found out. This allows them to proceed with an attack.

Second, searches are likely to be cursory, due to the wide variety of bags available, and the tedium of searching. For example, if I were a terrorist, I would seriously consider the possibility of carrying a bomb while disguised as a homeless person, street musician/performer, or returning grocery shopper, all of whom would not draw a second glance (especially the bum) despite carrying large objects and bags, which couldn't be searched within effectively given that police must search rapidly if the New York subways are to run effectively.

Third, it is of little consequence. As with most US antiterrorism measures, it's less than worthless; where one avenue of attack is foreclosed, terrorists can easily adopt another. For example, if you can't bomb a subway, bomb a movie theater, a shopping mall, a school, a cafe or restaurant, etc. It is impossible, in terms of resources, to simply try to secure all of these places against terrorists. Thus, there will always be a vulnerability, and if there are terrorists, there will be an attack in the vulnerable place. This means that it is better to discourage people from engaging in terrorism altogether, than to discourage people from engaging in terrorism at any specific target. Additionally, because these pointless measures consume resources, we not only are not protected from terrorism, but are deprived of protection generally. A policeman in the subway is a policeman that cannot stop ordinary criminals, who are more numerous besides.

Fourth, civil liberties are more important than security. The government is infinitely more dangerous than any terrorist could ever aspire to be, able to deprive people of their freedoms, property, and lives on a virtually unimaginable scale. Terrorism, on the other hand, while flashy, is extremely rare. In fact, terrorism poses little actual risk anyway. In the US, most people die of either heart disease or cancer. Almost no one dies of terrorist attacks, lightning strikes, tiger attacks, etc. I would love to see a lot of the money we're wasting on completely ineffective anti-terrorist measures go to medical research, where it would be many times more effective and save many more lives.

So in short, I support the ACLU in this, and to the extent that we should worry about terrorists, infringing on the civil liberties of ordinary people is the worst way to go about it.

[sek929]

cpt, that was possibly one of the most intelligent things I've read in the political forum ever.

Somewhere theres a nail head buried right now

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

It is impossible, in terms of resources, to simply try to secure all of these places against terrorists.

Securing the borders would be at least a good start.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Securing the borders would be at least a good start.

As far as I understood the bombers in London all lived legally in the UK for decades.

[sek929]

Indeed, if you had enough hatred for a country I would say you could easily gain citizenship and live "peacfully" for many years before exacting revenge on :blank:

Treating anyone as a suspect only serves to help the government, not society.

[Y3a]

<< Fourth, civil liberties are more important than security. >>

Live free or DIE???

I don't have anything to hide, so searching my bag is OK.
If ya got dope, porno, stolen gooed or whatever then I guess I wouldn't wanna get searched either.
The government isn't just doing this for NO REASON. Thats when you start worrying. They would have already taken your guns.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

So in short, I support the ACLU in this, and to the extent that we should worry about terrorists, infringing on the civil liberties of ordinary people is the worst way to go about it.

Even from the ACLU's point of view, a suit is probably a tactically a stupid move.

Think about it. You have a common carrier, which is something that in other contexts has been held to create a diminished expectation of privacy (think about airports). On top of that, you have a genuine threat that is extremely serious. Surely the ACLU realizes that the odds are heavily against them winning? So they will lose, and probably appeal on up, and all it will do it create a precident that such searches are constitutional. That's tactically stupid litigation.

If they were smart they would at least wait until the feeling of a security emergency has passed. That would create a better climate for them. But noooo.

[sek929]

y3a , So by your logic being a pot smoker, if I had my 1/8th on me after a long day of work I'd get arrested right? Wasn't the original idea to prevent terrorism? Bingo.

I'm not a terrorist, I work hard, I go to college, I drink legal booze and smoke legal cigs but I also enjoy the calming effects of pot.

But when security gets that tight, the victimless criminals get screwed for enjoying life...

[budster101]

Actually being a drug addict that you are, you are also supporting terrorism by buying pot in the first place. You are not a terrorist, you just help them financially...

You are not a victim. You are a criminal.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by sek929

y3a , So by your logic being a pot smoker, if I had my 1/8th on me after a long day of work I'd get arrested right? Wasn't the original idea to prevent terrorism? Bingo.

I'm not a terrorist, I work hard, I go to college, I drink legal booze and smoke legal cigs but I also enjoy the calming effects of pot.

But when security gets that tight, the victimless criminals get screwed for enjoying life...

Pots illegal mister!!

[sek929]

Originally Posted by budster101

Actually being a drug addict that you are, you are also supporting terrorism by buying pot in the first place. You are not a terrorist, you just help them financially...

You are not a victim. You are a criminal.

Your trying to bait me with ignorant statements, sorry try again.

I didn't know terrorists had camps in Vermont

Now if I was doing H, maybe Al-Queada would benefit waaaaay down the road. But thats just silly.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by idjeff

Pots illegal mister!!

hah, I know.

If i was driving around, got stopped, cop smelled pot, my ass would get thrown in jail. But thats the normal system at work. I'm ok with the current level of enforcement, random searches of my property aren't welcomed unless I asked for it due to stupidity. The next step? Why not come into my house and snoop around because I am 21 and live in a city, I must be suspicious to most folks.

Its not warranted and it only serves as an illusion of safety.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by sek929

cpt, that was possibly one of the most intelligent things I've read in the political forum ever.

Somewhere theres a nail head buried right now

Yes cpt. kangarooski has his smartypants on tonight!

cheers

W-Y

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by sek929

Its not warranted and it only serves as an illusion of safety.

Just like removing nail clippers and pocket knives from airline passengers.

[Moderator]

the thing you oreilly/hannity lackeys don't understand is that the job of the ACLU is to push the boundries in order to keep the government honest..even when its distasteful.

they fight the difficult fights, and take alot of **** for it, so that the easy fights remain that way.

if we just laid over and accepted whatever the government told us, the erosion would progress and compound..little by little...stop taking it personally...they are a safety net and sometimes offensive stuff gets caught but hey, democracy's a bitch

we should all thank the ACLU...in fact, I'm going to donate money right now..seeya

[pman68]

Originally Posted by Moderator

the thing you oreilly/hannity lackeys don't understand is that the job of the ACLU is to push the boundries in order to keep the government honest..even when its distasteful.

they fight the difficult fights, and take alot of **** for it, so that the easy fights remain that way.

if we just laid over and accepted whatever the government told us, the erosion would progress and compound..little by little...stop taking it personally...they are a safety net and sometimes offensive stuff gets caught but hey, democracy's a bitch

we should all thank the ACLU...in fact, I'm going to donate money right now..seeya

Exactly right.

We may not always like who they decide to help (like Rush) but we NEED them.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

As far as I understood the bombers in London all lived legally in the UK for decades.

True, but thus far in the US we've been attacked (WTC in '93, and 9/11) by newly-arrived terrorists who possibly could have been stopped with better immigration policies. More secure borders would be a start, not the whole task.

[Randman]

I think the world would be much better off without the ACLU.

[budster101]

Ditto.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Randman

I think the world would be much better off without the ACLU.

How so exactly? I'm no fan of the NRA, for example, but I'm glad there's some over-the-top organization out there defending our rights to bear arms. The ACLU can be over the top, too, but they serve a purpose.

Some very basic freedoms are being eroded, for no real reason, and it should stop. E.g., drastic and ridiculous limits on photography. God forbid I take a picture of a building or a bridge, particularly if I have dark skin. The communists who want to turn the US into a police state are a real danger to our lives, too.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Randman

I think the world would be much better off without the ACLU.

No it wouldn't. It's all about checks and balances. Do you want to become a Cuba.

Soon people will be disappearing like in Argentina in the seventies.

Most people won't give a monkey squat till it effects them. And the odds are it will sooner or later.

Sounds like most of you would welcome a police state.

[budster101]

Ditto.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster

No it wouldn't. It's all about checks and balances. Do you want to become a Cuba.

Soon people will be disappearing like in Argentina in the seventies.

Most people won't give a monkey squat till it effects them. And the odds are it will sooner or later.

Sounds like most of you would welcome a police state.

OMG that is funny!! You really think the ACLU is a positive force That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Really there are two things they care about: rewriting our history to erase Christianity, and cater to the left.

I will say this about the searches though: Random searches are pointless. We need to profile. Not necesarily racial profile, but profile based on the intelligence and logic we have. Race would of coruse be a factor, but only that: a factor. (More important I think is behavior & clothing) But that's a top for another thread...

[cpt kangarooski]

loki74--

Really there are two things they care about: rewriting our history to erase Christianity, and cater to the left.

Any examples of the former, as distinguished from remedying violations of the First Amendment? As to the latter, there is no catering so much as there are similar interests in civil liberties. If you have a strong commitment to civil liberties regardless of politics, then you'll find yourself to some degree in agreement with the ACLU.

Crash--

True, but thus far in the US we've been attacked (WTC in '93, and 9/11) by newly-arrived terrorists who possibly could have been stopped with better immigration policies. More secure borders would be a start, not the whole task.

Certainly, because not only are foreign sleeper terrorists possible, but there are also terrorists who turn to it later in life, e.g. Rubin, or who are US nationals, e.g. Kaczynski, McVeigh, Rudolph, Muhammad, Krugel. Plus the Anthrax terrorist, who AFAIK hasn't been determined to be anyone specific.

However, I doubt that merely attempting to shore up borders would actually work due to the large number of illegal immigrants who are not security risks, but who would probably overwhelm all but the most expensive and thorough of border guards. I suspect it'd be more effective to dramatically open the doors to immigration so that the need to turn to illegal channels dries up.

Behavior is probably the key factor, btw. That's how they got Ressam.

Y3a--

Live free or DIE???

Well, as mentioned, these so-called security measures will not in fact make people safe. So presently the choice is between 'live free and die' and 'live oppressed and die.'

However, I have no problem with security measures which are not hostile to freedom. There is not nearly as large a concern with police observing passengers and, based on proper characteristics coming to have a true probable cause, or at least an articulable and reasonable suspicion. Doing so not only is a more efficient use of police resources, but probably has a higher success ratio than what's currently implemented.

On a related note, there is a lot of movement lately towards a policy of shooting to kill suspected suicide bombers. This is an insanely crazy idea. First, suspicions can easily be unfounded, such as with that poor guy in London (who, if the story is to be believed, was running from plainclothes officers brandishing guns -- most people would probably run, as it's not evident enough that they're really police). Second, it's not that difficult to engineer a dead man switch that would set off a bomb if the bomber is killed before deliberately detonating it, and I would expect to see them become pretty standard if this policy is carried out. Particularly since the level of suspicion involved would be extremely low.

This is the sort of thing that makes me more afraid of government than terrorists. The government is better funded, equipped, staffed, has a far more pervasive presence, and is often harder to keep control over.

[Moderator]

funny all of these anti-ACLU people on the boards...and none of 'em know why they feel that way..all they can say is "ditto". I'll tell you why..its because oreilly beats it into your head with his "The ACLU wants the terrorists to win" bs.

Whatever happened to the GOP that believed in personal freedom and responsibility...wasn't there a liberterian element to the Republican platform once upon a time....wtf happened? Where did this neo-fascist streak come from....and why is everyone not just accepting it, but cheering it on? This is frightening.

[Moderator]

dbl up.

[zizban]

This is a case the ACLU will not win. While I'm against the idea of random bag searches in subways, all the state has to do is show a compelling interest for them to win. I think here the state certainly can show it searching bags in rooted in the compelling interest of public safety.

[Moderator]

I agree, but I'm still glad the ACLU is putting up a fight.....I got a seatbelt ticket last month after being stopped at a road block for no reason whatsoever at 7 o'clock at night...just driving home from renting a movie with my girlfriend.

Setting up roadblocks to bust people for seatbelt violations is out of control, imo....so I'm happy to see someone trying to check this trend.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I guess it's important that the terrorists get the freedom to bomb the subways according to the ACLU.

Who's side ARE THEY on??

exactly, I don't mind being searched at all, this is just rediculous. You have to wonder if the ACLU doesn't want the terrorists to succeed in killing people.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Moderator

I agree, but I'm still glad the ACLU is putting up a fight.....I got a seatbelt ticket last month after being stopped at a road block for no reason whatsoever at 7 o'clock at night...just driving home from renting a movie with my girlfriend.

Setting up roadblocks to bust people for seatbelt violations is out of control, imo....so I'm happy to see someone trying to check this trend.

so you equate not wearing a seatbelt with blowing up people on a subway car?

[Moderator]

I'm saying i don't appreciate being searched by cops for no focking reason....you think searches can stop these "folks" from bombing subways? Do you have any idea how impossible a task that is? How much liberty will you give up for the illusion of safety.

Ok, so we turn a subway station into an airport...maybe that'd help. So they'll bomb a bus....then what? Should we be stopped in malls, on buses, on the street during rush hour, in a cab, in our houses...good god..how do you think police states begin? Just like this!..wake up!

The Right used to have a healthy skepticism about the governemnt? Where the Fcuk did it go?

and budster.....such a simple minded fellow...pot funds terrorism..really? pot? there isn't another substance that might be a better fit? black, sticky....no not resin...c'mon you can say it. Yes, that's right... you know the answer...good boy..

[zizban]

Originally Posted by Moderator

I agree, but I'm still glad the ACLU is putting up a fight.....I got a seatbelt ticket last month after being stopped at a road block for no reason whatsoever at 7 o'clock at night...just driving home from renting a movie with my girlfriend.

Setting up roadblocks to bust people for seatbelt violations is out of control, imo....so I'm happy to see someone trying to check this trend.

As a member of ACLU myself, I'm glad they are fighting this as well. I was just commenting on their chances of victory in court.

[Mark Larr]

Sticking our head in the sand is a better solution.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Moderator

I'm saying i don't appreciate being searched by cops for no focking reason....you think searches can stop these "folks" from bombing subways? Do you have any idea how impossible a task that is? How much liberty will you give up for the illusion of safety.

Ok, so we turn a subway station into an airport...maybe that'd help. So they'll bomb a bus....then what? Should we be stopped in malls, on buses, on the street during rush hour, in a cab, in our houses...good god..how do you think police states begin? Just like this!..wake up!

The Right used to have a healthy skepticism about the governemnt? Where the Fcuk did it go?

and budster.....such a simple minded fellow...pot funds terrorism..really? pot? there isn't another substance that might be a better fit? black, sticky....no not resin...c'mon you can say it. Yes, that's right... you know the answer...good boy..

'

that is your opinion and I respect it, but as someone who rides the nyc subway several times a day I welcome the searches.

As to profiling, I say why not. At this point it has reached such a level of stupidty for hurting people's feelings that some would rather let people die rather than offending a few folks.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Any examples of the former, as distinguished from remedying violations of the First Amendment? As to the latter, there is no catering so much as there are similar interests in civil liberties. If you have a strong commitment to civil liberties regardless of politics, then you'll find yourself to some degree in agreement with the ACLU.

As to the former, if you know so much about the ACLU, you should know about their crusade to remove all signs of Christianity from all state seals. Call that "remedying a violation to the first amendment" all you want, but that's just your opinion. If you ask me, those symbols have historical context, which the ACLU is unjustly trying to erase. That is my opinion, which I do not state as fact. Judge it for yourself. As for the latter, that is also a matter of opinion. Which you are of course stating as fact.

Moderator: Wear your seatbelt. It may save your life one day. Be patient with security checks as well. They may save your life one day too.

Trust me, your right to be skeptical about the government has not gone anywhere. You are throwing around hypothetical circumstances that will probably not happen. You are making a mountain out of a mohill. If we eased up on security and something bad happened, I bet all you guys would go and b!tch about the government not properly protecting us. They're dmaned if they do and damned if they don't.

There have been no laws passed against your right to question the government or be skeptical. Where are you getting this from?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by loki74

... I bet all you guys would go and b!tch about the government not properly protecting us. They're dmaned if they do and damned if they don't.

Thats where the key difference emerges. In the event of such attacks I don't think I'd blame the government for not "policing" the hell out of us enough, I'd simply be angry at their inability to deal with the heart of the problem, which is hatred towards western influence of Muslim holy lands.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

so you equate not wearing a seatbelt with blowing up people on a subway car?

No, he objects that measures which are supposedly taken to fight terrorism are used to catch regular criminals or report traffic violations. Ditto for searches of bags: the intention is to search for bombs and not drugs.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by sek929

Thats where the key difference emerges. In the event of such attacks I don't think I'd blame the government for not "policing" the hell out of us enough, I'd simply be angry at their inability to deal with the heart of the problem, which is hatred towards western influence of Muslim holy lands.

#1) You "don't think." Therefore you argue my point without having to stand by your argument at a critical time. Win-win for you, right?

#2) How many people have to die for the "event of such attackts" to be considered present in your eyes? You don't want us to defend ourselves until someone dies as a result of us not. What if that someone is you or your family? I don't want anyone to die because of lax security,

Do you wait until you get a virus before you install antivirus? Some people do. I call it learning the lesson the hard way.

[LaGow]

Lots of very frightened people here on this board. Let me add to the paranoia:

Nothing stops a determined terrorist. Nothing. Not invasive security measures, not thousands of troops. For those who don't believe me, then you're not paying attention to what's happening in Iraq almost every day. The ACLU should be applauded for taking a potentially unpopular stand to do what is right by the Constitution. When people let fear dictate policy, we slide down that slippery slope toward fascism. Think Nazi Germany happened by mistake? Think again.

It takes courage to remain free in the face of a threat.

[loki74]

The Nazi regime was not formed by the imminence of attacks upon German civilians by every non-Aryan group. Your analogy is 150% or more flawed.

It does take courage to remain free during a threat. But consider this:

1) Courage will do you nothing when there is a piece of shrapnel less then five milliseconds from perforating your head.

2) You can be secure and free at the same time.

You see. This is not fear. This is not paranoia. And it is not dictating your life. You are the one who is afraid and paranoid about some sort of ficticious dictatorship arising from eleveated security. At the current time do you think that a terrorist attack or the rise of a dicatatorship in America is more imminent? I'm going with the former.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by loki74

#1) You "don't think." Therefore you argue my point without having to stand by your argument at a critical time. Win-win for you, right?

#2) How many people have to die for the "event of such attackts" to be considered present in your eyes? You don't want us to defend ourselves until someone dies as a result of us not. What if that someone is you or your family? I don't want anyone to die because of lax security,

Do you wait until you get a virus before you install antivirus? Some people do. I call it learning the lesson the hard way.

Ok I am sure I won't chastize the government for not policing the hell out of us, happy?

And your reasoning shows that you believe force is the way to eliminate terror, which it isn't. I think if we stay the current course we are increasing the risk of attacks, like London.

Fire doesn't get put out by fire.

[budster101]

Oh contrare. When dealing with an oil rig fire, an explosive charge is used to put out the fire by starving it of oxygen...

Fire does put out Fire.
Paper Covers Rock.
Scissors cuts Paper.
Rock Crushes Scissors.

[sek929]

An explosive isn't "fire"

[budster101]

Yeah, it's explosive.... it's fast and it puts out the fire... so, we need something to stop the bombings right?... Hey, let's just not profile anyone ok?...

Not.

[sek929]

So the fastest way to end terror is..... a bomb?

[loki74]

There is no one "best" way to eliminate terror. It is a combination of brute force and the mind. While our soldiers fight out the good fight with these sickos, researchers at home should be figuring out how to prevent them from brainwashing again, etc etc that type stuff. They should also put together a propaganda plan. The word "propaganda" has negative connotations, but it is a tool, and can be used honorably and honestly.

But all this is off topic.


Back on topic:
Another part of eliminating terror is security. I do not think that this random stuff is effective. We need to profile. But that is not what the ACLU is pushing for. They are pushing for no extra security. Figuratively speaking, they want us to go into a blizzard in our underwear. This is so obviously ridiculous.

PS LaGow, I'm still waiting for an answer.

[budster101]

Yes, bomb the bad guys... low grade tactical nuclear weapons.

Or, in a non-literal sense, bomb the bad guys by upping security with stringent profiling of those who would bomb us...

[Y3a]

<< ... I'd simply be angry at their inability to deal with the heart of the problem, which is hatred towards western influence of Muslim holy lands. >>

So are we 'right' to remove all the Miuslim influence in western culture?? Perhaps removing the Muslims from Salt lake City and the Mormons sacred grounds??

The problem is that Muslims cannot cope in a changing world, and deal intelligently. Instead we get violence jealousy and hatred. The Muslim cultures need t grow up. Institutional immaturity is not an excuse!

[budster101]

Hear-Here... or something like that.

<applause>