I'm angry this morning
 

I read in the paper this mornig that DC area public transportation cops are going to start randomly searching bags of law abiding citizens before allowing them to board buses and trains. No probable cause that a crime has been committed by that person is needed, and neither is a search warrant. The cops will just randomly pick you and search you. For no reason at all.

I was annoyed by the increases in airport "security," and grumbled about it, but I only fly once every few years, so that didn't impact me much. Going into a sporting event or concert, there is also security, but that's like entering private property and is rare for me, so I was OK with that too.

But this news really pisses me off. This is searching people for no reason as they go about their normal daily business. And then barring them from travel if they don't consent to a search.

I survived the September 11th attacks, along with 99.99999% of the rest of America. I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists attacks than the police state we are in today. I know what I'm asking for here, I saw 9/11 with my own eyes in my own town.

I'll refuse to consent to any search, and according to the article, I will be turned away from transportation that day. They will stop me from going about my normal daily business.

That would make me angry too, Glatt. It often seems to me that we have more to worry about from the terrorists within than the terrorists without. Bin Laden must be feeling pretty smug today as he watches the US gradually implode from within. 9/11 was successful beyond his wildest dreams. :mad:

That's outrageous. Our police have extensive stop and search powers, which may or may not be misused (depends which part of town you live in, and what your ethnic origin is, I suspect).

I sort of expect better of America on that sort of thing. I don't know why, I am no starry eyed idealist. I think it's probably a hang-up from the America I saw as a kid growing up. What America stood for on cinema and television screens. There always seemed a harshness to that America, in terms of the bottom rung, but there also seemed to be a highly moral view of fairness, individual freedom and the responsibility to act.

This is probably why I have a love/hate relationship with America *smiles* I do believe you represent the best and worst of modern western civilisation. You epitomise it.

This sort of thing is one of the major reasons I will not be voting republican for this election.

Yep, glatt, I was pissed off at the "police state" mentality the day after 911 and have remained so every day since. I am far more scared of my government than "the terrorists".

To trot out the tired old saw,

Yes. The culture of fear has been twofold: the government imposes limitations to our liberty to "protect" us, and those of us under the thumb of fear are to smile and nod because we feel the need to be "protected." Implied danger has given Big Brother free reign, and this police state can only be usurped if more than one or two of us is willing to refuse illegal search or seizure.

But then we're late for work, or something. What are our options?

I wish I would be the civil disobedient, and refuse the slight to my freedom, but I probably won't be.

That sounds like what the police should be doing.Plllbt. A random search isn't going to stop a terrorist. Especially if they know that random searches occur. This isn't about that anymore though, now is it?

Why, the Democratic Congress made it all possible, they are the ones who approved the laws that expanded the police powers of the country. You want Big Government, you are about to get it.

:kettle:

I wonder how long before the ACLU gets a hold of this one.

jinx and I were randomly selected to be searched when we flew from AZ to Cabo. they repeated that it was purely a random search. they didnt check inout bags, just pulled us a side and gave us a light pat down. i had my cell phone in the leg pocket of my jeans, and he totally missed that. it could have been a big knife or a box cutter. i think the girl cop just wanted to rub jinx a little. srsly.

This statement is wrong in so many ways.

If the republican party was ever about smaller government, it isn't any more. Or will you try to convince me that the federal government has shrunk over the last eight years?

And, of course, the size of a government has no relationship to whether it infringes personal liberty. Dictatorships have very low overhead.

Did you intentionally palm that card or was it a knee jerk response?

I've been randomly selected before in airports too. This pisses me off so much because it's everyday life that they are doing this. Imagine if they randomly selected you at the N.J. state border on your commute to work. That's what this is.

I just wrote a letter to the board of directors of the transit agency. I hope they read it.

The sky's not falling, because it's only 15 cops to search 1.2 million people, but that's also why it won't work. So why go through the trouble of violating the rights of every law abiding citizen they do randomly select?

I wonder. Do they have some information of some type of impending terrorist attack? Not that it would warrant them infringing on rights, but still.

Ever since the bombings in Madrid, intelligence agencies have said that the time before and just after an election are peak times for attacks.

But WMATA didn't say that this is a temporary measure. It's a new policy and they are training more people to implement it further in the future.

the point i started off that last post to make, but forgot to was this:

The cops that are doing the actual searches will (because they do it every fucking day) begin to pick out people that look like they won't put up a big fight about the whole thing....and people that are obviously going to be easy to search. They don't really WANT to catch a terrorist, they just want to fill their quota and have an uneventful day, and get home to their tv set.

SO, glatt, try looking a little nutty and keep open containers of mayonnaise in your coat pockets. or sprinkle white powder around you if they try to select you.

Hello? What are you? Four years old? The Congress and the excutive branch at the time of 9/11 were Republican. They remained Republican when all those happy new laws were passed which detract from our liberties. It is the Republicans who want to look in our windows and tell us what kind of sex to have. It is the Republicans who want to deny a 16 year old rape victim access to an abortion. Ever hear of the Evangelical Right? Get a grip, Merc. The Republicans are hardly the scions of civil rights that you seem to think they are. :eyebrow:

i think hitler was a republican

I'm good at that.

Get an EFF swat-team hat, or an ACLU sticker on your bag
https://secure.eff.org/images/conten...lder/12801.png.
http://www.carryabigsticker.com/imag...illance300.gif

They do bag searches when you go to the cricket here. They're mostly looking for musical instruments and alcohol though. People who go to the cricket don't usually worry about trying to shoot or stab anyone. They just go to get rowdy and drunk.

OK, so they are saying they're going to wand you and look in your bags before you can get on buses and trains?

1) With only 15 cops that sounds like a ridiculous waste of time.
2) Why is it a big deal? I "randomly" get flagged for searches every single time I fly, it isn't a big deal. You are asking to get on a crowded vehicle at which point they may or may not check to make sure you aren't carrying weapons. They aren't wandering around the streets stoppng random people are they?

*** quick note ***

I'm not saying you're wrong for being upset, I'm just saying I don't get it. You are asking to use a service and they have put a condition on the use of that service. Annoying and ineffective (as most government decisions are) but seemingly reasonable.

Clearly, you all hate freedom. Well, except for Merc. :rolleyes:

I don't think its reasonable.
How common are terroristic acts that it's reasonable to detain and search people without cause. You accept it before getting on an airplane, you'll accept it before getting on a bus, will you accept it before enter a mall or grocery store - how about exiting your house... when will it stop?

The more you fear (or hate, or think stupid) your neighbors, the more the government gets away with.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

There's a reason it's in there.

Nah ... he wasn't prolife.

That sucks.

Most of the reasons why have already been discussed.

I think it is time for some civil disobedience. I'm thinking of sit-ins around the bus depot to prevent them from moving, or something.

This is stupid paranoia. It has gone to far. It should be stopped and wound back.

:2cents:

Hello? What are you? 2 years old? What are you? Four Years old? The Congress and the excutive branch for the last 2 years have been completely controlled by the demoncrats.

Hey, YAFI..................

I will be voting Republican. The Democrats will lose the war in a disgraceful hurry, just like they've wanted to for years. That will make Osama very very happy, just like killing thousands of Americans does. So the Dem Party is just too big a pack of morons to merit support by anyone with a respect for freedom.

Voting Dems in will not fix this DC problem, Dar.

But will it make it worse?

Um. The Patriot Act was passed under a Republican majority.

Leaving Republicans in won't make it get any less oppressive, either.

It would seem so, unless they are just trying to set a precedent. Then when someone suspicious, maybe someone they have been watching, tries to board the train, they can search them without later being challenged in court. :idea:

Only the first time. The second time it was passed and renewed in toto by under a Demoncratically controlled Congress. Don't try to blame that on anyone but the Demoncrats and Pelosi.

Technically, you are right. And that's why their lawyers tell them they can get away with this. I don't have to consent to a search. I can always find another way to work. It's optional.

But when you look at the numbers, and see that 1.2 million people ride a bus or train in this city each and every day, you see that it's part of everyday life. It's really not optional. Then, when you think about how many other things out there are technically "optional" and that they could use as an excuse to search you, it becomes obvious that this is a slippery slope.

LJ crosses the NJ border every day to get to work. Border crossings make a nice place to set up a random checkpoint. The authorities could very easily say that it's optional that you travel across borders and that a search there is just fine. There are all sorts of borders. Checkpoints could be set up at county borders within each state. Or at the city limits. Precinct border. It's optional that you cross a border.

With only 15 cops policing 1.2 million people, this will have ZERO effect on the terrorists, but it will have a 100% effect of violating the basic rights of each law abiding commuter who is coerced into consenting to a search or is blocked from their daily commute because they refuse the search.

Coercion seems like such a strong word there. They can ask - you can refuse. I agree that someone who uses public transit may not realistically have another option. The "for the greater safety of all" argument has been abused too much already. I dunno. I'm not happy about it either in principle.

It is strong, but I think it's accurate. Coercion is making somebody do something they don't want to do by have an alternative that is even worse. I don't think the majority of commuters want to be searched. The only reason they would submit is because they judge that submitting is better than being late to work and possibly losing their job.

Dude, it was ORIGINALLY passed by the republickins. It was re-passed by the Demoncratic Majority Congress. They own it now.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...06/19/telecom/

A nice little ditty:

http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/c...cussionID=3750

These signs appeared yesterday. This one is in a dark corner, out of the way, and not visible to people entering the station. You can only see it on your way out (Unless you routinely look behind you as you walk forward.) In other stations, they are prominent and well lit.

They have that sign in most stores, malls and shopping centers.

But in those places, they won't search you unless they see you steal something. It's called probable cause.

I've had a cursory search of my bag for about 20 years now.
Entering concerts, museums, galleries, theatres... and Harrods.

I haven't noticed an increase in searches since America was bombed. But then we've never been systematically searched on public transport either.

I am not positive, but...
If there are written notices specifically stating that is their policy, you have the option not to shop there, but they do have the option to search your bag.

In most cases you are correct, but I know that my local target store has thee notices and they do search bags. So does Costco and some retailers at the mall.

I found a Link

Well, it is private property, and they can do that. But they aren't law enforcement. When the cops search you on the bus or train for no reason in DC, they are doing it for security and are looking for explosives. But if they find drugs, you are going to jail for that. If a security guy looks in your bag as you are leaving a store and sees a baggie of weed, I don't think he has the authority to detain you for that.

Good question, but I bet he could call the cops and take down your plate number.

Did you read your link?
Bag searches are only legal if they're voluntary (says so in your link repeatedly). When they stop you to check your receipt at Walmart, you can simply say "no". Trust me, I've done it several times. If you let them, they are only going to look at the bags of merchandise you just bought and check it against your receipt - they are not going to look in your purse or backpack.

Certainly pubs and clubs here will call the police if they find you with drugs on your person.

Yes I did read the link. I know what it says - I was sharing both personal experience and then a link differentiating the two.

Inasmuch as there hasn't been any -- I'd've known -- maybe you're right.

For years there has been a deal of bellowing about "Our rights are violated, including our rights under the Third Amendment, and others ad nauseam! And you're all oppressed!" from people who are driven less by civil rights concerns than by the most virulent and discreditable prejudice against Republicans. These bellowers are without credibility, being penile-encephaly cases all. Their allegations just don't impress the thoughtful as having any substance. You'd think these fellows don't want to win the war or something, the way they violently objected to every imaginable measure to actually win it.

*blinks*

Yes, Dana, it's something you don't really know much about, but among our 300 millions we've got some of these jackanapes too. They don't strike me as altogether rational.

I'm sure if they could find you, they'd be glad to strike you.

Being less than rational. But I know how to cause an irruption of rationality into such people.

In this case, the officials behind the policy are mostly Democrats.

That's because of your increase in video surveillance, most likely.

They did overwhelmingly approve Patriot Act 2 and all the further laws which allowed unwarrantless wiretapping.

...or something kinda like that...