ACLU Files Suit Over Random Subway Searches
Posted on August 4, 2005
WNBC 4 has a full one sided report complete with video available. I have to warn you though, it’s pure propaganda.
Now, the document in question is the United States Constitution and more specifically the 4th Amendment. Now pay attention to the key word in the text of the Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. source
Well, the keyword being unreasonable seems to jump right out. So let’s explore that.
- The method of choice of most terrorists is the suicide bomb.
- There has been 4 successful and 4 unsuccessful attempts on subways and buses within the past 4 weeks.
- We haven’t had an attack on US soil since 2001.
- Our mass transit systems are a prime target and wide open to attack.
- New York has the largest subway system in the world. Attacking it would yield massive numbers of casualties.
- Bomb delivery seems to utilize backpacks and other carry-on type bags.
- New York refuses to use racial profiling to conduct the searches. So they are being conducted randomly.
I don’t see anything that is being done to combat these 7 facts that could be termed unreasonable. The bombs are being delivered to their targets in backpacks and other bags. Ok, search bags that sounds reasonable. The New York subway system is too massive to check every bag in every station. Ok, check random bags in random stations. That too sounds reasonable.
So what’s the beef? You know what the beef is. If someone is carrying a dime bag of marijuana in a backpack and it gets searched, they will be arrested. The ACLU sees this as an invasion of privacy because they advocated the legalization of all illicit drugs.
Or someone may have a gun, unregistered, with no permit. The ACLU sees this as an invasion of privacy because no real crime has been committed (yet).
Anything preventive is unconstitutional to the ACLU. They want us to react not to prevent. By preventing a crime from occurring, we are invading the right of the criminal to commit the crime.
Add that to the fact that the ACLU is actively representing terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. The ACLU doesn’t have the best interests of Americans in mind. Simple, if it’s bad for America, the ACLU will defend it.
Blogger’s 1st Amendment Pledge
If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.
Thanks Mudville Gazette and Outside The Beltway and Basil
And all the while the ACLU is fighting our efforts to fight terrorism, we now have New Warnings From Al Quada! The ACLU needs to root for the our side for a change.
» Filed Under Border Control/Homeland Security, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
61 Responses to “ACLU Files Suit Over Random Subway Searches”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
The ACLU is actively representing those people held in G. Bay because they have no other representation, haven’t been charged with any crimes, have not been found guilty of any crimes and are being held for years.What the ACLU advocate is “due process” for these people if they are to be tried for crimes. Put yourself in their shoes - a foreign nation (it doesn’t matter who) comes into your country hunting for bad guys, people who’ve committed a terrorist act in their country. Would it be OK to take YOU and hold you for years because you took up arms against their occupation, even if you thought the terrorist act itself was wrong? I doubt you’d go with it. I’d fight any occupation of my home regardless of who it was or their reason for occupation, and I hope you would too.
That’s putting a lot of faith with the government and very little with it’s people. Especially a city government that doesn’t have an especially good record when it comes to being “random.”
That said, I think the ACLU is crazy to challenge this as though they’re some sort of civil liberties protection “obligation” squad. Can’t they be productive and present feasible alternatives if this is so wrong? As opposed to just taking up a contrary position that puts everyone at risk?
I don’t want to be killed on my way to work.
I am going to violate my own personal rules about trolls. Just so you know, I don’t normally address individuals who don’t supply a webpage link because they like to crap on other people’s thoughts without risking their own.
First off Richard, they are not entitiled to representation. Reason, they were captured on the battlefield taking up arms in violation of the rules of war. Even if the Geneva Conventions applyed, which they don’t, it would be a war crime to charge them with a crime and parade them before a US court. And they aren’t entititled to US guarentees of due process because they aren’t in the United States.
The United States has a couple of options when dealing with these enemy combatants. After the conclusion of hostilities, they would have to be either charged with a war crime (technically it is possible for this to occur) or send them back to their country of origin. But until then we are completely within our rights to hold them so that they cannot take part in the actions of our enemies.
tip: read the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949.
Next,I am not putting any faith in any government. But in this case, prudent actions to discourage the potential suicide bomber is not unreasonable.
Why shouldn’t subway and bus security be any different than airport security. Did the ACLU file a suit against bag searches at airports?
If not, why not? If, why did they lose? Homeland Security could solve this problem immediately.
Hey Jay,
I think I may know what your trackback issue is. On the Trackback URL above for instance it says,
http://stoptheaclu.com/wp-trackback.php/102
Which is actually the permalink address…by the way I was messing with that last night and I’ll fix it when I get home today.
The trackback URL should be
http://stoptheaclu.com/wp-trackback.php/102/trackback
So basically it’s missing the /trackback on the end.
Hopefully that will fix it.
Sorry to post off topic but I was in the can (or my thinking room as I like to call it) and it occured to me.
An enemy combatant is a soldier who is waging war. Under the Geneva Conventions, persons waging war must have the following four characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:
In uniform: Wear distinctive clothing making them recognizable as soldiers from a distance.
Openly bearing arms: Carrying guns or small arms and not concealing them.
Under officers: Obedient to a chain of command ending in a political leader or government.
Fighting according to the laws of war: Not committing atrocities or crimes, not deliberately attacking civilians or engaging in terrorism.
A combatant who has surrendered or been captured becomes a prisoner of war.
A captured person not wearing a uniform who is caught carrying weapons or engaging in warlike acts (such as a spy) is not a lawful combatant and is therefore not protected by the laws of war. Such persons should be treated according to applicable civilian laws.
We call then enemy combatants although by definition, they were not, so now they are not POW’s. So who gets to decide which civilian laws they are processed under? The U.S. since we captured them and they are on U.S. soil or the law of the land that they came from?
You know IV states civilian protection. So we are holding them to protect the innocent Iraqis? Since we are on foreign soil, there is no danger to Americans.
Since you brought up IV, you might also take note that the U.S. has violated IV 1 a&c (I lost interest in reading). Now are you going to tell me that they didn’t lay down their arms, right?
My TypePad blog server host is malfunctioning with TrackBacks again, so I’m forced to put a comment here to refer you to where I complimented your good work as per a link referral from Greg Wallace. http://thedailypolemic.blogs.com/rand/2005/08/aclu_sues_city_.html
Respectfully,
Rand Holman
“We call then enemy combatants although by definition, they were not, so now they are not POW’s”.
Under Article 42 of the Fourth Convention the detaining power may intern those who pose a security threat by either threatening the detaining power, espionage, or sabatoge. These enemy combatants may be interned then as prisoners of war for the duration of the conflict.
Meeting Geneva Convention standards, your comment is pointless. You should have read further. These detainees are not civilians.
Compounding the problem with your citing cl is the fact that the Conventions do not apply to these individuals. The do not wear a recognizable sign (ie uniform), they do not carry weapons openly, and they target civilians. All of these are violations of the rules of war. So the conventions do not apply to them.
However, that being said, we are a member nation who signed those conventions. Whether our adversary is or not, we are obligated to treat them as though they were. We have.
We’ve removed them from the battle area to a safe location. They are being housed, clothed, and fed. They are receiving medical attention and time spiritual worship.
To parade them in front of a court of law would be seen as a mock trial and a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Try again Jr.
I know this seems off topic now (even though it is the actual topic):
“We have no objection to reasonable searches, but we cannot and will not stand by while the police depjartment seeks to expunge the Fourth Amendment from the Constitution with a program that subjects millions of people to suspicion-less searches and that serves virtually no public-safety purpose,” said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the NYCLU, lead counsel on the case.
What’s the alternative? Does this mean that it would be acceptable to profile? Honestly, I’m looking for a serious answer here.
The airport analogy doesn’t hold up because airplanes are private property, subject to the private company’s terms and conditions of service: you wanna ride, you can get search. Note how prior to 9/11 that the vast majority of security in airports was provided by private companies.
The MTA (the metropolitan transit authority), on the other hand, is a public institution. So in a legal sense, that categorizes the train service as being legally equivalent to the sidewalks or streets. Is it alright to search people randomly on the sidewalks? What about their cars?
Arguably, it’s the slippery slope to a police state — that turns a blind eye to fact that once you give your rights up, you can’t expect to get them back.
On the other hand, I want their to be searches. What alternatives are their — beyond telling the ACLU where to go?
I almost posted about this topic too. Glad you did. My first thought when I read this article over on the ACLU site was, “do they not know about the bombings over in London, or Madrid?”
The ACLU will stop at nothing in the name of “freedom”. They are so delusion it’s pathetic. It makes me sick to think of them trying to pull their crap in the name of “freedom”.
The ACLU is bass ackwards.
Please “Jr?” Back to our name calling again. It just keeps me comming back.
Kathy, you can’t get to article 42 if you can’t pass article 1. Therefore, they cannot be enemy combatants!
Gribbit/Kathy, Gribbit said said, “Conventions do not apply to these individuals.” I already knew that, which is why I wrote what I did. Again, this means that they cannot be enemy combatants. They must be civillians!
Oops, as we both know, the G.C. doesn’t apply and the detainees should be given due process.
I don’t see anything wrong with someone peeking into my bag. I’m willing to sacrifice this amount of liberty for my safety. When you attend sporting events and concerts you are subjected to the same level of security. However, if they start displaying the content on my bag in public, then the ACLU should step in.
Tell me spacifically what entitles these detainees to due process?
The Constitution does not apply to foreign nationals in a foreign nation.
They are not being held in the United States. Why won’t you liberal idiots understand that? You tell me what entitles these detainees to due process?
The answer is nothing.
The U.S. base is U.S. soil.
Not true CL. We lease it from the cubans.
“Tell me spacifically what entitles these detainees to due process?”
Nothing entitles them to it. If you want to get down to it, no one is entitled to anything a society as a whole allows an individual to have.
Due process is a valued principle. As a country that has them, I’d suggest that we abide by them wherever possible. Since our legal system works (it does work, doesn’t it), there shouldn’t be anything to fear if these OBVIOUS criminals went to trial.
It’s funny the way the ACLU “announces” their lawsuits. It’s like they are calling their bets on a gambling ring or something. I wonder what woould happen if protesters marched on every one of their offices simultaneously? Mass arrest or mass lawsuit?
There is a reason that 42 comes after 1 cl. It clarifies points not made in earlier articles. How hard is it to follow that thought process? Geez.
19 Comments in this post…looks like my blog. Anyway, the dregs at Gitmo have no rights. They were not uniformed combatants. (Post #6 brilliantly said enough to close this debate - Bravo!) Therfore, they have no recognized rights under international military law. Nor do they have rights according to US Common Law. So why is the ACLU involved? The ACLU never met a terroist it did not like. So where are? Terrorists who are not recognized as military combatants who occupy a space outside recognized law. Oh well, they can rot there until we get all the intel we can out of them. Then we can send them back to whatever country they came from. They will probably end up on the battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan where they can be killed by by our troops or coalition forces. UH RAH!
Good for you, Gribbit, chasing this down. Hey, I just heard that O’Reilly is going at it big time tonight against the ACLU on this issue. Are they Bin Laden’s best friends, asks Shephard Smith? Well… damn near it seems!
Actually, the latest news from Afghanistan is that Afghan detainees will be transferred from Guantanamo Bay to an Afghan prison center under Afghan control.
See, it looks like what I said in the beginning of this debate is true. Imagine that…..
“It’s funny the way the ACLU “announces” their lawsuits. It’s like they are calling their bets on a gambling ring or something. I wonder what woould happen if protesters marched on every one of their offices simultaneously? Mass arrest or mass lawsuit?”
My God Joseph…common ground…this is like the twilight zone. Good call.
Well that is our ultimate goal here, a nation wide march. I can’t wait to find out.
great post.
All bask in my ego…I have fixed the trackbacks! Thank yer Uncle Sam fer them SQL lessons he sent me to. I am so smart! S-M-R-T!
Good deal John…thanks! Now, take a little break, I’ve got other things i need fixed.
Yeah, like a spell checker - please!
Kathy, it they can’t meet the requirements of 1, then you can’t to the clarification of #42. Why is that so hard to understand?
1st or all John,
If I lease a yacht, and it sinks because of negligent, I’m responsible.
If I lease a vacation house and it burns down because I’m negligent, I’m responsible.
It I lease a car and crash it, I’m responsible.
If I lease 100 acres and grow marijuana without the owner knowing, I’m responsible.
Just because the U.S. may lease the soil, it doesn’t mean they are not responsible for what happens on it.
2ndly, Laurence is right.
” I don’t see anything that is being done to combat these 7 facts that could be termed unreasonable.”
That’s what the suit is over.
As well as equal protection.
cl you can’t have it both ways. Gitmo isn’t sovereign US soil so your premise that they should be treated as civilians doesn’t hold any water. It seems like a bit of stretch to compare this situation to renting a boat doesn’t it? I say we treat the “detainees” exactly how Castro treats his prisoners. But of course since Cuba is a socialist paradise we don’t hear the left talk about that.
Since when does the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union represent non-Americans? Why is the treason law not used anymore? Because the ACLU uses “freedom” as an exuse to aid the enemy in a time of war. I’m sick over this kind of crap. The sad thing is most Americans don’t realize what’s happening to this country slowly and from with-in. You can thank you local bias media for that.
I can hear Bin Laden now… “Be patient my sons, and watch America bury itself under it’s own laws. They will not profile you, and if they do, all you have to do is call the ACLU and complain that you were harassed unjustly. It’s your word against theirs. That’s proof that God is on our side against the infidels.”
I bet he (Bin Laden) uses the lawsuit against the U.S. at GITMO in a handbook to his terrorists in training….
“See, all you have to do if you’re caught is find a journalist and tell how you’ve been abused. Just stick to your story no matter what. Western journalists are looking for abuses against Gods warriors.”
He probably uses the fact that Americans are not allowed to pray or have anything to do with God in public as part of his propaganda also…
“How can a society that is so against God be worthy?”
Sorry guys didn’t mean to go off topic.
“Since when does the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union represent non-Americans?”
In this case its the NY civil liberties union representing New Yorkers.
Of course we’re all free to disagree with the judiciary, but it should be acknowledged that SCOTUS considered the argument that Gitmo is beyond the reach of the Constitution, and rejected it; see Rasul v. Bush (2004). While the US/Cuba lease acknowledges Cuba’s “ultimate sovereignty,” it concedes to the US absolute jurisdiction and control of Gitmo for as long as the US chooses to occupy the area, leaving doubt about what actually remains of Cuba’s “sovereignty.” Also, since at least 1908 SCOTUS has recognized the rights of aliens to seek redress in US courts. But more importantly, a prisoner’s right to challenge his detention by a US agent does not arise because the prisoner is subject to the Constitution, but because the agent is.
Just FYI.
So, Gribbett, by your rationale, the US should be entitled to take people from any country we want with no justification, trial, charges or anything else if we feel like it? How is that in any way upholding the democratic values we all puport to hold so dear?
Shoot at us… yeah
Who invited all of these dupes in here anyway.
You people irritate me beyond all belief. No links, you hide your real email addresses, and you just say the most ignorant things.
Go somewhere that you are wanted, because it isn’t here.
Richard… “the US should be entitled to take people from any country we want with no justification, trial, charges or anything else if we feel like it?”
1. There is justification.
2. They are being tried.
3. They have been charged and classified as ‘Unlawful Combatants’.
“Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”
“Article. 3. The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.”
International Law, therefore, provides four separate categories:
1. Combatant members of armies or militias (soldiers);
2. Non-Combatant members of armies or militias (army doctors or chaplains, for example);
3. Non-Combatant civilians; and
4. Civilian Combatants (aka Unlawful Combatants).
The first two categories, upon capture, are eligible for treatment as POW’s. The third category is not eligible for POW status, but is eligible for protection under other statutes.
The final category, that of Unlawful (Illegal) Combatant, is not eligible for protection as a POW or as a civilian non-combatant.
How many times does this need to be repeated, before you get it?
The effort that goes into defending those who would kill us all if given the chance is astounding.
Boy isn’t that the truth John.
Gribbit/John, it is hypocritical of the U.S. to take the side of Liberty and Democracy and then not subject others to the same system. Yes, some of those who are detained may return to killing, but not all. Of course, if I was detained and not tried, I might be a little perturbed too, you? We are not defending terrorists, but democracy! Your telling me that it’s okay to break the law if you have a “good” reason? That is hypocritical in itself, but ,in general, in tradition with this site.
The problem is that what is intended to fight off terrorism today will not necessarily disappear when the threat is gone.
For example, in 1952, In God We Trust, was added to our currency and under God, was added to the pledge to fend off communism. Well, communism never was and isn’t a threat to the U.S. yet, what still remains on our currency?
One you give up a little liberty, you will never be able to get it back without a revolution.
The Absolutely Clueless Lawyers Union needs to take some of our taxpayer dollars and buy cable. One only needs to see what has occured in London to realize that these searches are not unreasonable.
“One only needs to see what has occured in London to realize that these searches are not unreasonable.”
Go live in the UK if it’s such a paradise of your unlawful search and seizure ideals.
“The effort that goes into defending those who would kill us all if given the chance is astounding.”
It’s astounding that we actually have values that we’ll actually defend and uphold in the face of adversity instead of just flushing them down the toilet because we really really hate someone? Again, if our legal system actually works and these people are actually guilty of something, then they’ll end up in jail forever. All the ACLU cares about is the “upholding of our values part.” I’m sure they’re perfectly happy to see these people in jail forever once they receive a fair trial.
Gribbett, I comment under my real name with a real email address. I’m not wanted here because I question what you post? I’m not arguing either way, nor have I disagreed with any of the posts, I’ve just questioned one or two of the points made. The reason i querstion these is because I believe in Freedom. I believe in democracy. I believe if we are to say our way is the right way, we have to live it, honestly and truly. Sometimes that means questioning tha actions of your government or their agents, because they get it wrong. I bring it back to the question of , “what if it were you”? Would you want to be locked up without any voice, or would you be glad of the opportunity to defend yourself against your accusers. A large number of those held at G. Bay have been released without charge. That’s because they’re not guilty. Some remain. They are guilty. What I’m saying is we can’t just blanket accuse everyone, lock ‘em all up and that’s that. Not if we want to hold our heads high as Americans.
Lawrence, what country do you live in? Criminals do not go to prison in America forever. Trust me. I have placed several there for “life sentences” only to see them walking the streets in a period of six to nine years.
I do not want to live in the UK, but I am also not a criminal so if someone wants to search me in an effort to make my public transportation ride easier, search away.
What is unreasonable about a subway search? It is no different than going through an airport checkpoint. If you are going to argue that the subway is your “vehicle” for getting to and from work then we both know where that stands on the exclusionary list.
My personal saftey and the saftey of others far outweighs the minimal disruption caused by a search of my baggage.
Maybe someone has a bag of sex toys. Maybe s/he either uses them or sells them for a living, that is really none of society’s business, but when her bag is searched and the contents revealed, this is a violation of his/her privacy. Are you telling me that s/he has to take a taxi? What’s next? If the terrorists use a taxi, then those have to be searched? What about ferries? Small planes? What’s stopping a car filled with explosives from driving into a subway station? The list goes on and on. Searching bags doesn’t solve anything and just give the terrorists opportunity to strike other methods of transportation as you are utilizing our only protection on only one method of transportation. While you may be willing to give up a little privacy for safety on the subway, you are missing the overall scope of the issue. There are an infinite number of ways to attack and by limiting one, you can not stop the others. I think the terrorists and me have already proven our point. You search airplane passengers, to we will attack trains/subways/buses. Now you are searching aircraft and subways, so we can attack taxis/buses/ferries/… Point proven yet?
cl…
Heres a possible solution… smokers and non-smokers were separated in public places, how about we separate riders on public conveyances.
You consent to a search and ride on the first 5 cars. If you refuse a search you ride on the last 5 cars.
You get to exercise your right and hope to live long enough to enjoy all of them and we get to go home and enjoy all of them.
Everyone is happy…what do you think?
cl…
If you don’t like that solution, try this one…
Alright, I think anyone who stops by here knows that I’m all about liberty, but there are limitations to what I deem free and here is one of these cases; searches. Although many think it is their right to ride without one, I think that you should be required to consent to one. Here’s why; if you are blown-up and become dead, who pays? The other taxpayers and me. Until a wavier is signed releasing the government and me from paying for your stupidity, then we should be able to mandate what we want you to do.
“so if someone wants to search me in an effort to make my public transportation ride easier, search away”
Then you have every right to volunteer for a search. Unfortunately, random searches aren’t reasonable, and thus aren’t covered by the 4th amendment (terrorists aren’t just randomly plucked from the streets of NY).
“What is unreasonable about a subway search? It is no different than going through an airport checkpoint.”
I pay for the subway with my taxes. I don’t deliberately pay for the airlines with my taxes (I mean, bailouts aside).
“My personal saftey and the saftey of others far outweighs the minimal disruption caused by a search of my baggage.”
Your judgement. I’m guessing that the constitution doesn’t allow it. I guess we’ll see who wins.
“Until a wavier is signed releasing the government and me from paying for your stupidity”
That’s great: can we have everyone in “the silver ring thing” sign that so I don’t have to pay for abstinance programs in schools? I think it’s stupid and don’t want to have to pay for it.
There are plenty of things I don’t want to have to pay for — sadly that’s why we live in this thing called a democracy: the price of entry is actually caring about a greater good.
We disagree about the greater good here, obviously. You say “safety” and I say “freedom.” I say safety is basically worthless without freedom. And you say that you can’t be safe without giving up some freedoms.
Laurence…
“Until a wavier is signed releasing the government and me from paying for your stupidity”
This statement was directed to cl…they are his words taken from an article he posted on his site concerning helmet laws. I just changed acouple words to show him his inconsistancy.
“I say safety is basically worthless without freedom. And you say that freedom is basically worthless without life.”
Well, Lawrence beat me to the reply, but well said. Of course, lobo, there is a fundamental difference between my argument and my argument that you tried to use against me. That is? As Lawrence said, freedom, as I say, privacy. Searches violate people’s right to privacy. There is the difference between a search and a helmet. Still consistent in my theories. Next.
Laurence…
“Unfortunately, random searches aren’t reasonable,”…”Your judgement. I’m guessing that the constitution doesn’t allow it. I guess we’ll see who wins.”
Basically, thats all you are doing, guessing and speculating.
cl…
You are anything BUT consistant!
You have demonstrated that you believe in Rights that suit you and those that don’t, you want to change by a mandate. Its all about you and what cl wants or believes.
“there is a fundamental difference between my argument and my argument that you tried to use against me.”
No difference at all! You support abolishing actions that could save thousands of lives that would result in billions being paid by the insurance companies ( see 9-11). All based on a belief that you have a Right to ‘privacy’ not outlined. Yet would MANDATE that Rights that are outlined, be taken away to save a few hundred lives that would result in the insurance companies saving YOU a few bucks!
Subway searches save thousands of lives? How? Where? The searches just cause the terrorists to adapt to the situation. I can think on many ways to get around the searches and I’m not a terrorist.
Where is the MANDATED right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Oh, it must be right next to the MANDATED right to privacy. Privacy is obviously a more important issue than stupidity.
You must be right. Why don’t we just continue to give up our rights and be subjected to our new founded dictatorship because the government knows what’s right. Why don’t we just toss the Constitution in the garbage. We don’t need it. Stop has the answer for everything. Let the government take control. What happened to the conservatives want of a small government. All I see is the government becoming larger (New Homeland Security Dept) and having more control. How can you not see that you are the cause of what you say you are against.
“Subway searches save thousands of lives? How? Where?”
Hopefully by catching terrorists before they can strike! Where? That is pretty obvious, isn’t it?
“The searches just cause the terrorists to adapt to the situation.”
SO WHAT! At least something is being done that MAY save lives! Which is a far cry better than what you are offering or suggesting, NOTHING!!!
You moan, groan, whimper, cry and critisize.
You have no answers and no solutions.
I gave you an opportunity and you chose to stay in your rut of critisism.
You critisize us for using the Government to protect our lives and freedoms, yet want to utilize them to take away our freedoms to save you some money. GIVE ME A BREAK!
“Where is the MANDATED right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet?”
Immediately following the Right to ride a motorcycle! Look it up.
I think the authorities should continue to work behind the scenes and flush out the terrorists. “Random” searches don’t accomplish anything because “random” just causes more intelligent terrorists. For example, if I wanted to attack a subway, I would leave a diversion bag by a terminal, when the officers respond and their attention directed, I could accomplish what I really wanted to do. Then there is also a plan B & C. “Random” searches don’t solve anything and actually place the general public in further danger. Yeah, great plan.
As for helmets, it is a privilege to have a driver’s license, therefore a privilege to ride a motorcycle, not a right given to us by anyone. If it were a right, I wouldn’t need a privileged driver’s license to ride one.
Your site is realy very interesting. http://www.bignews.com
Locksmith Fort Worth
According to a 12/02/05 NYT article
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/nyregion/02cnd-search.html
Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said through a spokesman, “Common sense prevailed.” in response to a ruling by Judge Berman approving the random bag searches by the NYPD. Mayor Bloomberg also supported the ruling.
Kelly, Bloomberg, and Berman all need a lesson in common sense. If a person with a bomb is stupid enough to continue walking past the police checkpoint *and* unlucky enough to be searched, he will simply refuse, exit the station, walk 6 blocks and enter the next station, where there is no police checkpoint.
This policy does nothing to increase security and at the same time cuts deeply into the skin of the New Yorker’s privacy, not to mention our rights under the fourth amendment.
-Eric Botticelli
http://freespeeches.net