ACLU Thinks Cops More Dangerous Than Terrorists
Posted on August 13, 2005
A solemn handful of plaintiffs surrounded New York Civil Liberties Union head Donna Lieberman last week as she announced the agency’s latest lawsuit–this one targeted at new procedures allowing for the random inspection of bags carried onto the subways. This will not come as a surprise–the agency has had an exceptionally busy few years, since 9/11, campaigning against expanding police powers, increased surveillance and other antiterror measures, all of which, the NYCLU and likeminded watchdogs regularly inform us, pose a greater danger than any that might come from the terrorists themselves. How Americans of normal intelligence respond to this reasoning should make entertaining reading someday.
Most of those entering the subways these days are, it seems, unperturbed by the prospect of a bag check, and not a few have made clear their approval of such precautions. Indeed, in its latest war on the security search, the NYCLU has entered on decidedly iffy terrain: one close to home, psychologically, for masses of Americans (and not just those who take city trains and buses), all in a good position to weigh the sort of argument which holds that government security methods are a greater threat to them than terrorism.
Excellent Article At Opinion Journal Go Read it.
» Filed Under War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
30 Responses to “ACLU Thinks Cops More Dangerous Than Terrorists”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Surely you recognize that the searching of Americans without clear probable cause creates a Constitutional question? One need not agree with the ACLU to recognize the existence of a legal question needing a clear answer.
Personally, I welcome the lawsuit so we can settle the matter.
Me too because I dont mind being searched as I know that they will not find that I have done anything wrong. Only criminals and terrorists and other scumbags mind being searched as they are the low life of the world.
What Dethanial says should be common sense.
Lets say hundreds come to your house, and you get word that someone has a gun and plans on using it to kill someone there. You have no idea what they look like. What do you do?
“Most of those entering the subways these days are, it seems, unperturbed by the prospect of a bag check, and not a few have made clear their approval of such precautions.”
the ACLU’s lawsuit doesn’t prevent anyone who wants to ask a cop to search them to do so.
If it were young white males that were the culprits of 9/11, the Cole, the London bombings and other terrorist attacks, I think all of the other races would demand that searches targeted young white males, and I wouldn’t disagree.
Racism wouldn’t apply (as it never does) for young white males.
Furthermore, white males would not be inclined to protest such searches, as it would benefit the ones that are NOT a part of terrorism.
And I doubt you would hear a peep out of the double-standard-ACLU.
Search everybody – we have found that the idiot suicide bombers even have recruited women. What scumbags. There is nothing to say that they will not recruit asians, blacks, whites, even native americans.
“the ACLU’s lawsuit doesn’t prevent anyone who wants to ask a cop to search them to do so.”
Exactly! Suicide bombers will be bowling cops over to ask them to search them before they board the trains. Brilliant!
Typical…inconvenience the innocent and protect the guilty!
“Typical…inconvenience the innocent and protect the guilty!”
Cuz right now the searches only affect the guilty. silly me.
“Cuz right now the searches only affect the guilty. silly me.”
Any action taken will obviously affect everyone who uses the system, that stands to reason.
Is it perfect? NO. But it goes much farther in possibly detecting and preventing a bombing or other terrorist activity than anything you have offered here.
If you have a possible solution or idea…lets hear it.
Profiling based solely on gender or presumed race is ineffective and counterproductive. For example, a joint study between the Council on Crime and Justice and the Institute on Race and Poverty found that, in Minnesota, whites were stopped and searched at a far lower percentage than minorities but the percentage of searches resulting in seized contradband was actually significantly higher for whites.
This study is one indication of the fallacy regarding racial profiling. Effective use of profiling is more about behavior than anything else. Remember, a properly trained police officer knows that spending time searching an innocent person just because they appear to be of Arab descent potentially means missing that white guy wearing a coat in hot weather who avoids eye contact.
The Israeli’s have used profiling for years to great success with a population that often times is impossible to differentiate based on ethnic origin.
In my opinion, since public transportation systems are known targets then that creates reasonable probable cause for all passengers. Unless we are willing give the police unlimited resources to search everyone, then we must allow them the discretion to use the resources we give them in the most efficient way. This, however, does not mean we allow them to use this discretion in violation of the Constitution or prevailing case law. If a pattern of discrimination emerges against a protected class then bring a lawsuit.
I do not want the police wasting their time on a young man simply because he appears Arab. I want the police to be trained in the proper use of profiling that alerts them to high-risk passengers based on behavior, posture, AND appearance.
Doing nothing is not an option nor is searching every passenger. Random searches are also pointless. We need a security approach that provides a reasonable degree of safety while minimizing the logistical impact on the protected system without violating the Constitution. Legitimate and smart profiling is the answer.
“If you have a possible solution or idea…lets hear it. ”
searches backed by probable cause.
fark…
Mark S’s. opinion is correct and addresses your solution… “In my opinion, since public transportation systems are known targets then that creates reasonable probable cause for all passengers.”
Mark S. …
I basically agree with all you wrote. The only reason I can see that we are discussing this is… doing nothing is not an option and random searches are not as effective as we require, BUT…random searches are what they chose to do at this time and I consider that better than nothing.
Profiling is the answer, but the ACLU is going to cost the State of NY a bundle in litigation, on top of what they are spending for additional LE. It will start all over again when and if they do get around to profiling.
“In my opinion, since public transportation systems are known targets then that creates reasonable probable cause for all passengers.”
Really? so its reasonable to put any passenger in jail, because being on the subway is probable cause that you are commiting a crime?
Random searches don’t provide any more safety than no searches at all.
What if the officer stops and searches me while the guy with C-4 strapped to his stomach passes through.
Why not send me in with a large bag to distract the officer while the other passes by.
How do random searches provide more safety? They don’t!
Hell, check out airline security, which isn’t random at all. Everyone is screened and look at the items that still get on planes. You are wasting time and money for a little bit of peace of mind, that’s all.
You wanted a suggestion, how about we take this officers who are standing around just hoping to come across a terrorist out of sheer luck or stupidity of the terrorist and have them follow up terrorist leads handed down from the federal task forces.
Fark –
No one is advocating a goon squad that simply arrests people because they look suspicious. Probable cause and arresting someone are not synonomous. It is possible to question and search a person without arresting them or disposing of them in that secret police sort of way.
This approach to probable cause is exactly how the Federal government can search people at the airport. The burden on public transportation would be too much to handle searching every passenger. Do we pat down every passenger who enters a bus to promote fairness? Such measures would strangle public trasnportation.
The best method for security is to search all. But if that’s not possible, then profiling is the next best thing. It trains police officers to assess many variables to decide whether a passenger is high-risk and needs questioning. How exactly is that an unreasonable position?
” Probable cause and arresting someone are not synonomous.”
Probable cause is what is enough to arrest.
Fark –
Probable cause is what is enough to arrest.
Very true. But if the police already operate under your standard then why doesn’t everyone entering the airport get arrested first, questioned and searched second?
Everyone wishing to enter an airplane is searched under the pretense that airplanes are known targets and therefore anyone trying to access them is a suspect. Everyone entering a courthouse is searched because it is a known target of desperate people. Why should we create a different standard of probable cause for a public transportation system, when we know it is a prime target of mass violence, than what we currently use for a courthouse?
There is no substantive difference between the two. I will be pleased if we can search every passenger wishing to ride public transport. However, do you not agree that such security would bring public transport to a halt and would be prohibitively expensive? Do you think random searches are effective?
You advocate the use of probable cause, well, that’s what I’m talking about. Train police officers to spot the characteristics of high-risk passengers as a reason to exercise probable cause. If a police officer is not properly trained to recognize high-risk passengers how do you suggest they exercise their power of probable cause? Perhaps we should issue them dice? Or maybe magic eight-balls?
“Should I stop that guy over there?”
‘Answer unclear. Please ask again.’
“Very true. But if the police already operate under your standard then why doesn’t everyone entering the airport get arrested first, questioned and searched second?”
because airport searches are not due to probable cause.
Fark –
Airport searches are not conducted under probable cause? Then how are they not unconstitutional?
“Airport searches are not conducted under probable cause? Then how are they not unconstitutional? ”
I think those are based under implied consent or some other diminised expectation of privacy. But not suspicion.
Okay, I’ll concede, for the sake of argument, that it may be implied consent or diminished expectation of privacy and not probable cause.
Why does that create a substantive difference in the way we should search passengers on public transportation?
“Why does that create a substantive difference in the way we should search passengers on public transportation? ”
Because I think we should search the millions of people on public transit everyday based on individualized suspicion, and not some decree that once one is in public transit there is a diminished expectation of privacy.
Fark –
So your position is that probable cause should not be expanded to all passengers because it is, I presume, unreasonable or unfair to assume guilt of all for the bad acts of the few. Okay, that’s a reasonable argument.
However, such an argument directly supports the main point which is profiling. If we are only concerned with the suspicious individual, then we are left with the question: how do we efficiently spot the suspicious individual?
In your pursuit of striking down my statements on probable cause you have given support to my position on profiling. As you have pointed out, expanding probable cause is unnecessary if all that’s required is individual suspicion. Profiling is an efficient means for spotting suspicious behavior.
“So your position is that probable cause should not be expanded to all passengers because it is, I presume, unreasonable or unfair to assume guilt of all for the bad acts of the few.”
My position is that when you have probable cause to search a person, go ahead. Otherwise, let them get to work.
“In your pursuit of striking down my statements on probable cause you have given support to my position on profiling.”
Depends. I want to ‘profile’ suspicious behavior, which is basically what probable cause means. Others want to profile skin color. That ends up getting brazilian electricians shot.
Fark –
So then we’re in agreement. Train police officers to recognize high-risk passengers based on multiple factors, not just gender or skin color, and use this probable cause to stop them, ask them questions, and if necessary, detain them further.
Stop random searches as they are ineffective and a waste of police resources. Do not search everyone because not only would it be cost prohibitive but it would also crush public transportation logistically. Search only those passengers who possess the factors associated with a security threat.
You still have not answered how legitimate profiling techniques violate your definition of probable cause. If anything, they serve as support to your wishes. Do you agree?
“You still have not answered how legitimate profiling techniques violate your definition of probable cause.”
Legitimate is what makes probable cause. That’s a tautology.
Fark –
I disagree. Probable cause is a legal conclusion that must be decided in court. The fact that not all cases where probable cause is used end up in court does not change the fact that probable cause is a discretionary tool of the police that must be adjudicated, on a case by case basis, to determine its proper application.
Your defintion of probable cause assumes that, when it is exercised, it is always right. Not so. Probable cause, by defintion, is not certain. When it appears police have abused their discretion in applying probable cause, the courts properly get involved to decide the matter. Training police in profiling does not remove the court’s job in deciding whether the police have acted properly.
I have asked you to make a firm statement as to where you stand on the proper use of profiling. I have demonstrated that your view of probable cause works, theoretically and practically, within my desire for profiling yet you have focused solely on pedantic arguments that add nothing to the larger issue.
Unless you formulate a reasoned opposition to my arguments, which as I have demonstrated would be counter to what you have written so far, then I will consider this discussion settled and that we are in agreement regarding the need for profiling.
“I have asked you to make a firm statement as to where you stand on the proper use of profiling.”
What kind of profilign are you talking about? I think we should profile suspicious behaviors. Are you talking about just skin color?
Quit farking with me!
Your blog is very interesint