Get Used to Those Subway Searches

A federal judge has upheld New York's subway searches, according to the Associated Press.

"The risk of a terrorist bombing of New York City's subway system is real and substantial," U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman said. [...]

The judge cited the testimony of police officials who said the search policy might cause terrorists to choose a different target.

"Because the threat of terrorism is great and the consequences of unpreparedness may be catastrophic, it would seem foolish not to rely upon those qualified persons in the best position to know," Berman said.

Story here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The judge cited the testimony of police officials who said the search policy might cause terrorists to choose a different target.

    So, these searches might not actually have an effect on terrorism?

  • ||

    ...well, of course (!) -- every Federal Judge & every 1st-year law student knows that the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution {..and its twin in the New York State Constitution} may be directly voided by any policeman or politician who discerns that a "threat of terrorism is great". [??]

  • ||

    So now we're evauating the Constitution according to a (weak) efficacy test? "Well, the government has a good reason for shitting on the Bill of Rights, so we'll give 'em a pass." Unfuckingbelievable.

  • ||

    "Unpredictability is the enemy of terrorists and the ally of those trying to prevent an attack," said Cohen

    I thought it was the opposite: Unpredictability is a strength for terrorists and a weakness for those trying to prevent an attack.

  • KipEsquire||

    The scariest part to me is the casual use of the word "consent" (i.e., if you want to ride the subway then you must "consent" to a search).

    Just like I "consent" to paying taxes, I guess.

  • ||

    "The risk of a terrorist bombing of New York City's subway system is real and substantial," U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman said. [...]

    The Constitution, on the other hand, is a figment of our imagination.

  • ||

    "it would seem foolish not to rely upon those qualified persons in the best position to know"


    Yeah, just listen to the experts, folks. You have no rights regarding security, health care, child-rearing, diet, etc. that experts are bound to respect - just leave it up to them.

  • ||

    Have you ever searched a suicide bomber????

    It goes something like this:

    "Hello sir, Open your bag and spread your legs for me please?"

    "Sir, I SAID OPEN YOUR BAG"

    police officers draw guns.

    "ARE YOU DEAF?" I SAID...

    BOOM, ballbearings traveling at supersonic speed spread everywhere piercing flesh and blood of everyone within a 50-100 yard radius.


    Anyone who thinks this makes us ANY safer from a well financed and determined enemy like Al Qaida should proceed to buy more duct tape for chemical attacks.

  • ||

    My Fourth Amendment rights group, Flex Your Rights, put out "The Citizen's Guide to Refusing New York Subway Searches" immediately after the searches were implemented in July. Unfortunately, it's as appropriate now as it was then.

  • ||

    The Constitution, on the other hand, is a figment of our imagination.

    Actually, it's a living, breathing document. However, it's been kind of lazy in its middle age, and so the Bill of Rights has atrophied.

    What our Constitution needs is a personal trainer. The ACLU and IJ are available for reasonable rates.

  • ||

    Dude, don't blame the victim.

  • ||

    I've got no problem with the government enforcing its own rules for its own subway, regardless of the fact that bag searches make nobody safer. Oh wait, yes I do.

    Number 6:

    So now we're evauating the Constitution according to a (weak) efficacy test? "Well, the government has a good reason for shitting on the Bill of Rights, so we'll give 'em a pass." Unfuckingbelievable.

    And yet you still claim that random ID searches on a bus simply passing by a Federal buliding are perfectly fine. What gives?

    Simply put, there is NO way to prevent terrorism on the ground. I understand the theory that you want to make it as difficult as possible (hell, I used to lock my soft-top Jeep), but that will NEVER stop a truly committed person. The only question is how much bullshit are we willing to put up with for a non-obtainable goal?

  • ||

    Putting aside the Constitution in favor of policies that pass an efficacy test is one thing. Putting it aside for policies that fail that test, is another.

    The way they're working the searches has zero deterrent value and high nuisance value. I don't feel any safer because a terrorist stopped by a cop can refuse to be searched and walk to the next subway entrance to try again.

    Doing nothing, or setting up metal detectors at every turnstile, are the only options, and one of them isn't really an option.

  • ||

    You know, it's the slow encrounchment on our rights that's getting me.

    I wish they'd just go straight to concentration camps for every third person.

  • ||

    BOOM, ballbearings traveling at supersonic speed spread everywhere piercing flesh and blood of everyone with a 50-100 yard radius

    You forgot to say - That after all of the carnage, it is discovered that the suicide bomber was not a suicide bomber after all. It was only some poor schmuck of a Brazilian student that could not speak English that well. And the police do not care because they were doing their job of protecting us from ourselves...any person would have made the same mistake.

  • ||

    "The Constitution, on the other hand, is a figment of our imagination."

    The REAL Constitution is written in invisible ink on the back of the phony one that everyone ignores.

  • ||

    I wish they'd just go straight to concentration camps for every third person.

    I'll volunteer to go.

  • MP||

    it would seem foolish not to rely upon those qualified persons in the best position to know

    Damn fools who wrote the Constitution...what were they thinkin'?

  • ||

    MP-

    To be fair, the Founders had never contemplated the possibility that hostile foreign agents might be operating on US soil. It was simply unthinkable back then that violence might come to these shores. It was a simpler, more innocent time. Maybe if George Washington hadn't been such a peacenik hippie, the Founders would have written a Constitution that didn't restrain the power of the state.

  • ||

    Way to go Thoreau. Satire should not be subtle. Now if someone other than brain dead can set policy....

  • ||

    You forgot to say - That after all of the carnage, it is discovered that the suicide bomber was not a suicide bomber after all. It was only some poor schmuck of a Brazilian student that could not speak English that well.

    Oh, no. The cops will get that threat and blow his head off...

  • dhex||

    oh fiddle fuck.

  • keith||

    British terrorists during the Revolutionary War were frequently undermined by their continued insistence on wearing their bright red military uniforms.

    Anyway, on to the next court.

  • ||

    So the theory here is that, on substantive issues of fact, such as the efficacy of the policy, the courts should take it on themselves to second guess the executive branches.

    Brilliant. That isn't a disaster in the making at all.

  • ||

    joe-

    The efficacy of policy isn't the only issue here. Our Constitutional rights also come into play.

  • ||

    thoreau,

    I know, but I'm asking about something else.

  • ||

    Another ruling by our imperial courts and imperial judges

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement