ACLU Launches Campaign Against Random Searches
Posted on November 21, 2006
Since the ACLU thinks random searches are so terrible, and no one came to them to complain about the MBTA, they have decided to advertise in search of some clients.
Civil liberties activists yesterday launched an advertising campaign to question the MBTA’s random bag inspections and collect customer complaints that could lay the groundwork for a lawsuit.
The advertisements, which ask customers to tell their stories of being searched, will run on the T’s subway system during the next 10 weeks.
“We’re trying to have the public serve as our eyes and ears to see how this policy is being implemented and to see if it’s leading to an unconstitutional infringement on people’s rights,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.
The T reinstituted random bag inspections in October after a pair of federal court rulings that upheld the constitutionality of a similar inspection program in New York City. The T has also trained its police officers and front-line personnel to use behavioral recognition techniques to spot suspicious activity in passengers.
“Safety and security experts . . . have told us that random baggage inspection is another important element we can use to insert uncertainty into the minds of terrorists who may want to strike at the MBTA,” T General Manager Dan Grabauskas said.
The ACLU is against any kind of search no matter how it will protect us. They are against profiled searches, random searches, and searches across the board. If it were left to the ACLU there wouldn’t be any kind of searches allowed. Strange that the NYCLU has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.
It seems the searches are not the only security enhancement the ACLU is worried about. The complaint could not be complete without the race card being played.
Rose said the ACLU believes the T’s use of behavioral screening could open the door to a host of abuses. “We’re concerned it’s just a pretext for engaging in racial or ethnic profiling,” she said.
Grabauskas said, “Racial profiling is absolutely useless to us. This is training that points us in the direction of someone who may be acting suspiciously.”
Michelle Malkin pointed out last year the “do nothing” attitude of the ACLU when it comes to fighting terror.
How many times have you heard civil liberties activists argue that national security profiling should be based on behavior, not race/ethnicity/nationality/national origin/religion?
That’s the argument the ACLU makes again and again and again.
But if your B.S. detector starts going off full-tilt, you are not alone.
Truth is, the ACLU doesn’t want behavior-based profiling, either.
When it comes to National Security I have yet to find any government action the ACLU has not opposed. Despite the deceptive slogan of “Safe and Free” the ACLU banner their website with, the ACLU is making America less safe.
Hmmm…seems the ACLU isn’t the only one fighting National Security measures.
Former Attorney General Janet Reno and seven other former Justice Department officials filed court papers Monday arguing that the Bush administration is setting a dangerous precedent by trying a suspected terrorist outside the court system.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
2 Responses to “ACLU Launches Campaign Against Random Searches”
-
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
How do you get:
out of:
?
Is it really so hard to believe that a policy might not be implemented in the same manner that it was designed?
Is that so absurd? She’s not asserting that there are racially abuses, just that the system appears particularly vulnerable to abuse.
A typical white male can go through his life without ever concerning himself with this sort of thing, but why is this site so quick to jump on anyone that does question a policy or its implementation?
The ACLU may very well find that there are no allegations of abuse. They may find that there are some questionable allegations of abuse. They may file a suit and lose. Regardless of what the end result is, is it wrong to ask the question??
Less safe than what? Less safe than we were 6 years ago, when few of the contentious “national security” initiatives were in place?
You cannot make a person “less safe” by opposing a new policy. At best, you would be preventing someone else from making that person “more safe”.
I think you find it deceptive because you don’t give as much weight to the “and Free” part as they and I do. The ACLU and I believe the government’s policies of the past 5+ years have focuses almost exclusively on the “safe” part. We believe that “safe” is good and important, but without a healthy dose of “and free”, “safe” doesn’t get you much.
Where should the proper balance be struck? It’s a tough question and I , being nothing more than an educated layman, don’t presume to know with any degree of precision. All I know is that I’m very glad that someone is acting as a counterweight to the governments unending powergrab.
I happen to be White and have had more abuse at the hands of the police than some of my Black associates. Some cops have bad days. I have been blessed enough not to get shot yet. Maybe I should shave.
I like the police a lot better when they are in a good or at least neutral mood. I do seem to avoid them more when I am driving a newer car. I have also gotten older.