Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fighting the Man
A 15-year-old took Tony Blair's government to court over curfew laws that allow police to force home anyone under 16 who is out at night without supervision. And the boy won. His rationale for putting up a fight:
"Of course I have no problem with being stopped by the police if I've done something wrong," he said in a statement. "But they shouldn't be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I'm under 16."
That's a principle so simple even a child can understand it. Even if political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have trouble.
The British High Court's ruling is a clear setback for Blair's campaign to curtail--I hope he actually used this phrase--"yobbish anti-social behaviour." But even if it fails completely, the PM can undoubtedly console himself by finding something else to outlaw. More here; link via Sploid.
|7.21.05 @ 3:19PM|#
If I were 15 years old again (or any similarly young age), I would totally idolize that kid as my peer. Good for him. Curfew was always something I vehemently opposed, especially when I was subjected to it.
|7.21.05 @ 3:25PM|#
Of course, as of today you're now subject to random searches for
using public transportation in New York City, so the police are now
allowed to treat everyone as criminal.
No word on what happens if you refuse to cooperate.
|7.21.05 @ 3:29PM|#
I'm innocent, and I fear being ripped apart by glowing shards of shrapnel the next time I take the subway. Does that count?
|7.21.05 @ 3:40PM|#
Well of course I have nothing to fear, I just don't want some transit cop pouring through the reams of porn I carry with me wherever I go. But I suppose it's a small price to pay for the extra security we'll gain; I mean, I'm sure nothing frightens a suicide bomber more than potentially being subject to a random bag search.
|7.21.05 @ 3:43PM|#
of course there is always "Hedgepeth v. WMATA". Wherin it was
held that if a child committs a crime that an adult would be
ticketed for, it is perfectly acceptable to arrest said child, even
if you didn't have to.
From what I hear there is a bit of Libertarian support for these
kinds of judges.
|7.21.05 @ 3:43PM|#
Could this rationale be used to challenge curfews in the States?
Do minors tend to have more rights in the UK ?
It seems that in the USA, minors are considered as having very few
rights until the age of 18
|7.21.05 @ 3:46PM|#
From watching Parliament on C-SPAN, Anti-Social Behaviour laws
are a big point of contention in the UK. The yobs are seen as a
problem by most, but there's not so much agreement on how to handle
it.
The Lib Dems seems closest to what would resonate on H&R:
www.libdems.org.uk/parliament/feature.html?id=4930&navPage=features.html
There is a point of common agreement in all parts of the House
that, when behaviour becomes threatening, intimidating or
harassing, and when people of any age intervene in the lives of
other people to make their lives a misery, it is
unacceptable.
There is a question as to what antisocial behaviour is, and the
Joint Committee on Human Rights has suggested that we should be
careful about how we define it. The Liberal Democrats have a
fundamental objection to the way in which the Government have
drafted this part of the Bill.
|7.21.05 @ 3:50PM|#
The scariest part of the Nytimes report on bag searches is the
last quote from the police commissioner:
"It's a safety issue. People don't consider any measures that
you take for safety to be an inconvenience. This is New York
City."
|7.21.05 @ 3:53PM|#
"But I suppose it's a small price to pay for the extra security
we'll gain; I mean, I'm sure nothing frightens a suicide bomber
more than potentially being subject to a random bag search."
The failure of his mission is pretty frightening, espcially to the
people who build the vest, run the training camps, and organize the
operation.
|7.21.05 @ 3:57PM|#
The failure of his mission is pretty frightening, espcially
to the people who build the vest, run the training camps, and
organize the operation.
Because a suicide bomber would never respond to being selected for
a random bag search by doing something irrational like setting off
his bomb prematurely.
|7.21.05 @ 3:59PM|#
Not to mention that if it's the vest that goes
boom a random bag search will do precisely two
things:
1) Jack
2) Shit
|7.21.05 @ 4:14PM|#
you're now subject to random searches for using public
transportation in New York City
WTF??!? I'm speechless.
This is New York City
Meaning... what? We're used to putting up with bullshit like this
on a routine basis, so one more thing won't matter?
|7.21.05 @ 4:19PM|#
About these random searches in NYC:
Are some given percentage of people pulled aside at the turnstiles?
Or is it one of those things that happen randomly during your trip,
whenever a cop feels like it?
Cuz a bad guy might decide that a bunch of people standing in a
line, slowed down by cops and checkpoints, constitute a "target
rich environment.
Or, if he's sitting on the train, waiting for the right moment, and
then he sees a few Infidel Cops come up to him, he might decide
that the new target justifies pushing the button a little
early.
And even if he was planning on leaving the bag behind and escaping
alive, he might decide that dying for the cause is better than
being arrested and either imprisoned for life or executed.
So the only terrorists that will be thwarted by this are the ones
who would rather go to prison than die for the cause.
|7.21.05 @ 4:19PM|#
Mo, at a minimum, random searches cause suicide bombers to set
themselves off at less desireable locations (like the open air,
rather than a sardine-can subway car), which reduces the
damage.
This sort of thing has happened a number of times in Israel.
|7.21.05 @ 4:22PM|#
I tried to get some kids organized against a curfew in my home city, and suceeded in nothing more than getting about 30 seconds of TV time on a local news show. The kids weren't interested. I wish I'd thought of bringing suit.
|7.21.05 @ 4:32PM|#
So, Joe, I take it you think that whole "search and seizure" bit in the Constitution is now obsolete?
|7.21.05 @ 4:35PM|#
I just returned from an Amtrak trip to NYC. On the return, there was an announcement that certain riders would be chosen randomly and their bags would be searched. Oddly enough, leaving DC, there was no such search but the ticket-takers were much more vigilant about checking identification.
|7.21.05 @ 4:46PM|#
Jennifer,
Going onto the MTA's property and using their services gives them
some rights over your behavior. Just as when you go to the
airport.
|7.21.05 @ 4:50PM|#
Going onto the MTA's property and using their services gives
them some rights over your behavior. Just as when you go to the
airport.
I'd agree with you if this was a security measure taken up by
private companies on their own property, but it's not it's the city
of NYC and it's both the NY State and Federal constitutions
circumscribe their conduct.
Mo, at a minimum, random searches cause suicide bombers to set
themselves off at less desireable locations (like the open air,
rather than a sardine-can subway car), which reduces the
damage.
Except for, as I understand it, you will be able to refuse to be
searched and then denied entry to the train/subway/bus. Then you
just go to the next station and get on there.
|7.21.05 @ 4:52PM|#
Joe-
Almost every road and sidewalk in the country is government
property, too. Does that mean the cops should be allowed to conduct
random searches of everybody who goes out in public?
|7.21.05 @ 4:59PM|#
Random searches on the NY subway are ludicrous--especially if you can just refuse to submit to one and walk away, as I have read. Now, I am totally against random searches just on principle, but what good is a random search if you can just say "nah, don't feel like it today" and walk away? If I were a terrorist, this search thing would be very easy to get around.
|7.21.05 @ 5:02PM|#
The building I work in inspected every single bag for about six months after 9/11, then stopped. I have no problem when it's a private entity doing the searching, nor when it's every bag that they're searching. It's this "random" nonsense that pisses me off. 'Cos if they're *really* concerned about public safety, they'd check *every single* bag. Instead all they care about is giving the *appearance* of caring. Hm, just like the airlines.
|7.21.05 @ 5:03PM|#
Jennifer: I see it as a shortcoming of the state trying to
provide services. The government can't discriminate because of the
5th, so we're left with the choice violating that right and
searching everyone as they enter public space, or accepting that
bad actors can use our system to kill us.
Make more (all) property private, and there's no sphere in which
the bad actors are free to operate.
|7.21.05 @ 5:10PM|#
"So, Joe, I take it you think that whole "search and seizure"
bit in the Constitution is now obsolete?"
Its been that way for sometime now I think Jen.
|7.21.05 @ 5:12PM|#
Also (as to the original thread), if you are legaly an adult at 18 in the US, how can a drinking age of 21 yrs be legal?
|7.21.05 @ 5:25PM|#
From what I hear there is a bit of Libertarian support for
these kinds of judges.
Where do you hear that?
|7.21.05 @ 5:39PM|#
Kwais-
Yeah, I expect that our GOVERNMENT would try and take our rights
away; I'm just surprised to hear a lover-of-the-People like Joe
saying it's fine.
|7.21.05 @ 5:42PM|#
From what I hear there is a bit of Libertarian support for
these kinds of judges.
Where do you hear that?
This is in reference to libertarian support of Roberts.
|7.21.05 @ 5:45PM|#
I spent some time as a reserve MP, and we would occasionally do
random searches of every x car to come through the gate.
Invariably, car number x happened to be the one full of attractive
females.
Random, indeed.
|7.21.05 @ 5:46PM|#
And then there's this quote from MSNBC (via AP):
Kelly said passengers selected for searches will be approached
by officers, who will ask them what they are carrying, and request
them to open their bags. If an officer looking for explosives finds
some other form of contraband, police said that person would be
subject to arrest.
Super.
|7.21.05 @ 5:48PM|#
Jennifer,
MTA stations have a different legal designation than public spaces
like sidewalks and parks. The A is for Authority (you gotta problem
with that? heh), which is a quasi-government entity that behaves
like a private entity for certain purposes, and like a public one
for others.
But that's not really the point, either. The Constitution forbids
unreasonable searches, not all searches, so the question becomes,
what is reasonable? Under certain circumstances, I'm sure you'd
agree, even searches of citizens on the public sidewalk would be
acceptable - given what are termed "exigent circumstances."
Even if we had a government airline like Israel, I wouldn't object
to having my bags searched.
|7.21.05 @ 5:54PM|#
And, Joe, I take it you assume this newfound power will only be
used for good purposes, not to expand government power?
The fact that the government runs it. and it is paid for by
taxpayer dollars, is all the more reason why the Constitution
should apply--it is to limit the rights of the government, not
individuals.
I take it you also saw Ugh's comment? To protect us from them scary
terrorists, the cops will apparently be increasing the number of
marijuana smokers they arrest.
|7.21.05 @ 5:55PM|#
Random searches, eh?
Cue another batch of stories of little old ladies getting the third
degree and security experts pointing out that searching some tiny,
random fraction of MTA users won't do jack...
|7.21.05 @ 5:57PM|#
Jennifer,
I used to have to go through a metal detector to enter
Congressional office buildings and courthouses. Sometimes, they'd
search the bag by hand.
You gotta problem wit dat?
|7.21.05 @ 5:59PM|#
Joe-
So the entire city has to be held to the same standards of security
as the offices of the highest levels of government? Yes, in fact, I
do have a problem wit dat.
|7.21.05 @ 6:05PM|#
Any other fellow New Yorkers here care to hazard a guess as to how this will go down? Long lines at the turnstiles? Shouting matches between guidos and cops? Fisticuffs? Shots fired?
|7.21.05 @ 6:12PM|#
So, Jennifer, how many of us plebes does it take to equal a
district court judge?
I blew it on the "Authority" comment, but you dropped the ball
there.
|7.21.05 @ 6:16PM|#
Joe-
So I'd have to be arrogant to think a Congressman might be more of
a target than an average person?
|7.21.05 @ 6:17PM|#
Also, one has to wonder at the manpower that's going to be required in order to search even a tiny fraction (say, 1%) of MTA riders. With over 7 million daily subway and bus riders, that's about 70,000 searches a day. If they're stopping 1 out of every 100 riders, that's maybe (totally guessing here) one every six minutes, or ten an hour. That's 80 searches per cop per day. Divided into 70,000 equals... 875 cops! Who apparently have nothing better to do.
|7.21.05 @ 6:18PM|#
First of all, I'd like to appologize for this long rant but
Jesus, what a bunch of pussies. "Oh, freedom is so scary. People
could do bad things to me." Well no fucking shit. I take it that
the concept of living in a free country is just too fucking scary.
Freedom by its very definition mean risk.
I have a suggestion: China. They have lots of rules. You don't hear
too much about terrorists acts happening in china. And they don't
have any of that due process crap to get in thier way.
And this "oh, its just a little inconvenience." I've been fucking
"just a little inconvenienced" to death. I know George Carlin could
do this better but just how many of the "little inconviences" do
you have to have before life is one major inconvenience? Can't get
sudafed in oregon. Can't get drugs if I am in pain. Gotta deal with
stupid ass TSA agents at the airport. I'm open season in my car on
the road. cops can search my bags now and don't even have to
articulate any fucking suspicion. gotta have bags searched to get
into seaworld. Gotta be stopped going in CA on I-40. Gotta be
stopped going up I-5 outta San Diego.
Oh and DRF, fuck that "if your innocent, you have nothing to fear"
Tell that to all those people who stared death in the face and have
since been released from death row thanks to DNA. Tell them, with a
straight face, that they have nothing to fear from the government.
Maybe your not aware of this but cops lie... a lot. Prosecutors
stick to strict liability crimes cuz they are too fucking stupid to
prove mean rea. Cops plant evidence. Prosecutor bully people into
plea bargins because, even if they don't have a case, people, even
if they know they are innocent, will take the plea bargin rather
than risk the full brunt of the law.
Imagine that folks. An attorney will make you sign a plea KNOWING
that you are innocent because he needs big numbers to run for
attorney general or a judgeship. Nah, that doesn't happen. What am
I saying.
Thanks. Rant Concluded.
|7.21.05 @ 7:04PM|#
Oh and DRF, fuck that "if your innocent, you have nothing to
fear"
Troy, I mostly agree with you, but you need to grow a
sarcasm-detector.
|7.21.05 @ 7:25PM|#
joe: By using the word "reasonable" the Founders gave us a fuzzy
line. It is an instance where the Court then must tell us what is
reasonable today, in light of Original Intent and achieved
precedent.
How would all y'all feel if as part of the condition of these
random searches, to keep them reasonable and to limit executive
overreach, it was declared that anything found in a transit search
(and maybe even a Terry Stop) would be inadmissible in under any
prosecution not following from the intent of the search? We can
search anybody getting on the train because we want to protect the
train and passengers from damage. If the search uncovers spray
paint or Sarin, it is admissible. Weed and porn, conversely, are
not admissible, and even if they found a suitcase full of meth,
they couldn't use it as evidence of drug or conspiracy crime.
|7.21.05 @ 7:38PM|#
I like joe, really I do, even though he just demonstrated a very, very good "slippery slope" arguement as he slide right into Stalinism.
|7.21.05 @ 8:12PM|#
Dynamist-
I don't know about Joe, but I'd consider your proposal.
Funny thing is, that's already how normal search warrants work (or
at least it did in the 80s, when I took junior-high-school
Civics)--a search warrant has to specify just what they're looking
for, so if I'm a cop looking for proof that you lead a
counterfeiting ring and I find a huge pile of cocaine on your
kitchen table, I can't (or couldn't?) do jack about it.
Warrantless, random searches should be held to the same standards,
assuming they should exist at all.
|7.21.05 @ 9:09PM|#
Unfortunately, Jennifer, I think the whole warrant thing is a lot more lax now, but I'm not sure of the specifics.
|7.21.05 @ 9:21PM|#
Dynamist-
I guess my only concerns with your proposal are:
1) Spray paint? WTF? I mean, I know that vandalism is a problem,
but if somebody takes the subway to a shopping center and buy ssome
spray paint to take home and you want him arrested,
whatupwidat?
But, more seriously:
2) I'm cool with not arresting people for having drugs if the
search was to find bombs. But what if the cops find obvious
evidence of murder?
3) What about somebody with some electronics that, to the cop's
untrained eye, "might be" bomb components?
|7.21.05 @ 10:27PM|#
Dynamist,
anything found in a transit search ... would be inadmissible
under any prosecution not following from the intent of the
search
Sounds good. Is it even remotely feasible, or is it fantasy?
|7.21.05 @ 10:32PM|#
Well, whatever you feel about the appropriateness of searching
transit passengers, the fact that the proposal does virtually
nothing to enhance safety while imposing significant costs in terms
of hassle, invasion of privacy and potential incarceration for
non-terrorist related crimes like carrying a joint, ought to be
enough to prove its undesirability.
First, randomly searching is statistically just about the worst way
to really catch a terrorist and we all know that even if we find it
impolitic to admit. Second, the chance of being searched is going
to be tiny unless they hire an army and grind the transit system to
a halt. What makes anyone believe that someone willing to blow
themselves up is going to fear at most a 1 in a 100 (totally
unrealistic - more like 1 in a 1000, if that) chance of being
caught? And, if what some have claimed is true - namely that you
can refuse to be searched and the only penalty is being denied
entrance, then the whole thing is an utter farce and provides
absolutely no security whatsoever.
Ultimately there is simply no reasonable chance that this policy is
going to make you any safer unless what you fear is your neighbor
lighting up a blunt. Let's face it, this is simply going to be
another tool in the "war on drugs" not the "war on terror." And
don't think law enforcement doesn't know it.
|7.21.05 @ 10:34PM|#
I wonder if I'll get pulled over and searched tomorrow on the
train/in the station/on the stairs/on the street over the
station/somewhere nearby.
Actually, what I'm waiting for is that cool x-ray machine they had
in "Total Recall". At least they search everyone equally. Of
course, you can always jump out of the machine sideways and use
nearby humans as shields to evade the cops...
|7.21.05 @ 10:35PM|#
Let's face it, this is simply going to be another tool in
the "war on drugs" not the "war on terror." And don't think law
enforcement doesn't know it.
Well said.
Jason Sonenshein|7.21.05 @ 10:49PM|#
If the terrorists hate us for our freedom, doesn't that mean that any action that a government takes to diminish freedom is a capitulation to the terrorists. By making New Yorkers less free, Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly are helping the terrorists. Why do Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly hate America?
|7.22.05 @ 1:41AM|#
Re: the whole searches on New York MTA thang: I'm surprised some street theater group hasn't taken up this idea: just get a whole bunch of people with vibrators and sex toys in their bags to go through next to parents with children. Enough of them get searched, and next thing you know Dobson is screaming against random searches "for the sake of the children."
|7.22.05 @ 1:42AM|#
I just scrolled down to the next topic; they could also call it art and apply for a grant!
|7.22.05 @ 4:20AM|#
thoreau: The fuzz would still have to prove intent to defile the
train with paint. I'm just saying they could use the paint as
evidence. People with washing machine timers are still gonna get
hassled at the point of contact, but it would hopefully keep the
Maytag Repairman out of jail once Sargent Friday put the pieces
together at the station house.
Jennifer: Sounds like we have similar experiences. joe brought up
reasonable, and I'm looking for a way combine the other
requirements of the 5th into practical terms.
Rhywun: Fat chance, because of thoreau's #2. Even if we finessed
the terms, so that the non-sought evidence was admissible only in
felony prosecutions, or some such thing, the "protect the children"
crowd and the "law-and-order" types wouldn't want to make the
trade-off. An attache full of Pedophile Monthly back
issues probably couldn't be ignored.
First we would have to defeat in court the random searches as
practiced, and then suggest replacing them with a more reasonable
alternative maybe before it got appealed to the Supremes. I don't
see the Executive giving up any power just because it makes sense
under the Consititution.
|7.22.05 @ 7:47AM|#
Speaking of Troy's earlier comment, I heard on NPR this morning
that Oregon's thinking of making cold remedies like Sudafed and
Theraflu prescription only. It was a Democratic bitch who proposed
the bill, but the Republican bastards support it too; one was
quoted as saying that to defeat meth, "we all have to make
sacrifices." Fuck you.
The last time I had a cold it cost me about twenty dollars for
various remedies, plus twenty minutes of my time to go to the
store, buy the stuff and go back home. But if someone in Oregon
gets that same minor cold, it will be a MAJOR and expensive
inconvenience.
I had no health insurance back in grad school, and I have no idea
how I'd've afforded to make it through if I needed a doctor visit
to take care of all the colds I caught. But, hey! It's all in the
interest of public safety, right? Maybe the cops in New York can
check my bags to make sure I have no illegal cold medicine,
too.
|7.22.05 @ 7:53AM|#
Maybe Oregonians, in an act of mass civil disobedience, can go to the state house and let their runny noses dribble all over the legislators' desks. Yes, that would suck for the legislators, but as one pointed out, "we all have to make sacrifices."
|7.22.05 @ 8:25AM|#
Jennifer-
If a group of people went to sneeze and dribble all over
legislators, they'd probably be charged with bioterrorism.
I'd like to think that making cold medicine prescription-only would
be the final straw that would provoke public resistance to the drug
war. But studies would be released showing just how dangerous it
(potentially) can be to use the wrong cold medicine at the wrong
time and dose, and people would then "realize" that they "need" a
doctor's advice before taking Sudafed. And the Drug War Propaganda
Machine would kick into high gear against meth.
And, let's face it, they have a pretty good propaganda machine. I
mean, even though marijuana is widely considered a joke, it's still
verboten for politicians to talk about legalization. A propaganda
machine that's more powerful than comedy is a very powerful one
indeed.
Let's face it, this is simply going to be another tool in the
"war on drugs" not the "war on terror." And don't think law
enforcement doesn't know it.
This point needs to be repeated again, and again, and again.
|7.22.05 @ 8:48AM|#
Thoreau-
I really think our country's beyond hope, at least in its current
form. I read 1984 for the first time when I was thirteen. And at
the time, I found fault with the novel, specifically the way that
today the government would reduce the chocolate ration from twenty
grams to ten, and then tomorrow people started spontaneous
demonstrations thanking the government for raising the ration to
ten grams. No way, I thought. People can't be that damnably stupid.
What the hell is Orwell talking about?
But damned if he didn't turn out to be right.
|7.22.05 @ 8:56AM|#
And another thing--I read once, a couple of years ago, that cold
remedies can sometimes make a cold last even longer than normal,
because suppressing the symptoms does something-or-other. (In
retrospect, I think it was written by one of those
virtue-through-suffering people.)
Anyway, when I was teaching I used to get colds all the time, from
all those sick kids. So after reading that article, the next time I
caught a cold I decided that I was going to Be Tough, and Stick It
Out without medicine.
Bad, bad, BAD idea. The cold got worse and worse, and by the time
it was two days old I felt so awful that I broke down and took
medicine. But by then it was too late--the medicine did nothing
because my cold had morphed into a viral infection or something
like that, and I had to take off work and go to the doctor and get
a prescription for antibiotics. Had I listened to Jeff and just
taken some damned NyQuil and DayQuil right off the bat, it would
have been a minor inconvenience, but because I refused to take cold
medicine a minor inconvenience turned into a serious illness.
ANd I suspect that a LOT of folks in Oregon, those who don't have
insurance or can't take the time off work without getting into
trouble, will have the same experience as me. So in the interest of
Combating a Major Health Problem, Oregon will increase the chances
that a minor matter will become a Major Health Problem. Fucking
brilliant.
|7.22.05 @ 8:56AM|#
Jennifer-
What I find most Orwellian is the way that even self-described
libertarians, of all people, have no problems with torture...um, I
mean, frat pranks, and indefinite detentions without trial. You
gotta figure that if anybody would oppose those things it would be
libertarians.
And I realize that libertarians are a tiny fraction of the
population. But given that a lot of conservatives (who are far more
numerous) do the same thing, I'm forced to conclude that this isn't
just some rare paradoxical quirk, but simply a manifestation of the
way that the state can get anybody to go along with anything.
|7.22.05 @ 9:09AM|#
Thoreau-
Yeah. The torture apologists, or those who say that hell yes, the
President should have carte blanche to decide who gets to be
imprisoned for life without trial, wouldn't surprise me on a
Freeper board, but here?
We're screwed.
Maybe after work I should stock up on NyQuil and DayQuil while it's
still legal to buy.
|7.22.05 @ 9:22AM|#
Jennifer,
In light of the last two weeks, I think you'd have to be delusional
to think that ordinary people on the subway aren't significant
targets of terrorism.
|7.22.05 @ 9:29AM|#
Dynamist, I think that sounds about right. Also, I don't think
it would be "reasonable" to make this standard operating procedure
for rail (unlike air travel, where the damage can be exponentially
higher), but should only be allowed if there is some reason for
heightened security for subways - say, if a campaign of terror
attacks on subways were underway.
Brian Courts, "First, randomly searching is statistically just
about the worst way to really catch a terrorist and we all know
that even if we find it impolitic to admit." Unlike searching every
single bag that goes on a plane, this practice functions entirely
as deterrence, not interdiction.
|7.22.05 @ 9:34AM|#
Joe-
So how much freedom are you personally willing to give up to enjoy
the illusion of safety? In New York City, a car is an albatross
that only the wealthy can afford to have. So you, Joe, Mr. Champion
of the Poor and Downtrodden, have no problem with basically saying
that New York's working class can say good-bye to the right to go
to work or visit a friend without having the government search them
and their personal possessions based on a whim, not a
warrant.
As a person who officially qualified as Poor and Downtrodden until
relatively recently, I'd like to say on behalf of my socioeconomic
class: help yourself all you fucking want but for God's sake stop
shoving your help down my throat.
Aw, fuck it. To prevent these random searches from clogging up the
subway lines, maybe New York can ED some poor folk's homes to tear
down and build Search Waiting Rooms. And Joe the Wise City Planner
can determine just which houses have to go, and just where to
search to provide maximum mixed-use utopian benefit. Please, Joe,
tell me how to run my life! I can't be trusted with that big, scary
responsibility on my own!
|7.22.05 @ 10:41AM|#
So in the UK we have a national newspaper, the Independent,
calling for airport style security on the underground (our name for
the subway). Forget about rights for a moment. From a pragmatic
point of view this scheme is deranged. It is hard to imagine how
anyone even vaguely familiar with the underground might have begun
to dream it up.
The leader claims security would only add 15-30 minutes per journey
- "inconvenient, but not unreasonable". Do the math. If you commute
every week day for 40 years you would spend over a year of your
life queuing, presuming you take no time off to sleep.
Is this how civilisation will end, not with a bang but with a
whimper? One half of the population employed to waste their lives
searching the other half of the population who waste their lives
obediently filing past.
There are more ways for terrorists to win than letting off
bombs.
jimmy|7.22.05 @ 12:19PM|#
amazing how a thread about curfews for juvenilss turned into another h&r "let's capitulate to the terrorists" fest.
|7.22.05 @ 12:22PM|#
Unlike searching every single bag that goes on a plane, this
practice functions entirely as deterrence, not
interdiction.
Yes joe, that's the theory. But my point right after that dealt
with the deterrence issue. Do you really believe it will be any
deterrence at all to someone bent on blowing themselves up a subway
car when the fact a 1 in a 1000 chance of being searched? Come on.
This is just another step in the direction of law enforcement's
ultimate dream to be able to search anyone anywhere anytime. If
they have to rationalize it in terms of "national security" or the
"war on terror" or whatever, so be it. It just helps to keep people
looking the other way while their pockets are being picked of their
few remaining subway tokens of freedom, if you will.
|7.22.05 @ 12:24PM|#
Ugh, was in a hurry and should have hit preview - that sentence
in the middle should read:
Do you really believe it will be any deterrence at all to someone
bent on blowing themselves up on a subway car when they face a 1 in
a 1000 chance of being searched?
|7.22.05 @ 3:53PM|#
I wonder if curfew laws (the original subject of this thread)
started off as a method to get kids who were actually causing
trouble off the street? If you were not causing trouble, the cops
would leave you alone.
If so look were we are now. Basically zero tolerance for kids out
past curfew not matter what. What does this portend for the future
of the subway searches? What will government history writers (as in
1984) of the future say about this?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245