Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

ACLUeless Libs sue NYC over subway security

If we get attacked again, then these dipscheisses will sue since nothing was done. Morons.

LINK: http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/crime/nyc-suit0804,0,646390,print.story?coll=nyc-homepage-breaking2

Article:

NYCLU sues city over subway searches
BY JOSHUA ROBIN and DAN JANISONSTAFF WRITERS
August 4, 2005

The New York Civil Liberties Union will file suit against the city Thursday to keep police from searching the bags of passengers entering the subway, organization lawyers said.The suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, will claim that the two-week old policy violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures, while doing almost nothing to shield the city from terrorism.It argues that the measure also allows the possibility for racial profiling, even though officers are ordered to randomly screen passengers."While concerns about terrorism of course justify -- indeed, require -- aggressive police tactics, those concerns cannot justify the Police Department's unprecedented policy of subjecting millions of innocent people to suspicionless searches," states the suit, a partial copy of which was provided to Newsday.Names of the plaintiffs -- subway riders who object to the searches -- were redacted in the copy, but are expected to be released Thursday morning.A city Law Department spokeswoman said that since officials had not yet received the suit, she could not yet comment.The city is named as a defendant, along with the police department and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.Thursday, before the suit was released, Kelly said that the searches were "just one more layer, one more tool.""No one thinks that will be the solution, but it does give a potential terrorist something more to think about," he said.The civil liberties union has criticized the searches as over-reaching since Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the measure on July 21, after terrorists targeted London's mass transit system for the second time in two weeks. It also calls the stops ineffective because terrorists can walk through entrances where police are not screening.The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of law enforcement to conduct random searches, said Barry Kamins, a professor of criminal procedure at Fordham and Brooklyn law schools. But it found that those checks can be considered unlawful if their primary purpose is for law enforcement, such as searching for evidence of a crime. Rather, police must use the stops chiefly to preserve public safety, he said.The suit comes as elected officials continue to tussled over racial profiling. Nine City Council members Thursday asked Bloomberg to direct officers to note the racial or ethnic identity of people searched.The call came after a city councilman and a state assemblyman suggested young Arabs should be targeted for searches to prevent terror attacks.Robert Lawson, a Bloomberg spokesman, said that the police already have adequate safeguards. "The mayor has repeatedly stated since the start of this policy that there would be zero tolerance for racial profiling," Lawson added.Staff writer Daryl Khan contributed to this story.

4 Comments:

  • At 12:20 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Well Nick, I am not about to argue what the ACLU is attempting to do, nor what the city of New York is currently doing. It seems almost pointless, especially on this BLOG. I would, however, like to present you with a question that I think does have some relevance.

    The question is: where does it stop?

    One thing that the left commonly argues, that I tend to agree more with is: how far can we stretch our constitutional rights before we simply begin losing our freedom all together?

    The point is simple. As Ray Kelly said himself in that article, this is not going to prevent terrorism. Now, granted, it is a means to DETER a would be terrorist, but I think the main concern of many Americans (and the ACLU in this case), is what's next?

    Imagine for example that you wake up one morning to find that all of the bridges in Sydney have been blown to bits by terrorists. Should we then expect that our own government will implement guard stations on both ends of each major bridge in each major city?

    Imagine if you woke up and read that the local streams and rivers in Madrid had all been contaminated with some sort of toxic substance. Should we expect that all the local parks and swimming holes be closed down or that people going to these places must first be searched?

    While I realize those may be dramatic examples, or perhaps not, the question I asked was 'where does it stop?'

    We KNOW that this so called terrorist threat can pop up anywhere. There are no rules associated with it. I am certain that both you and I could think of hundreds of ways in which to harm the general population of an area. God knows we wouldn't, but we could. And if we can, then anyone else can too, especially if they are so determined to do so.

    I think you just have to realize that a good portion of the US (and the world for that matter) fears that we will be giving up right after right and the worst part about it is that it will NOT solve the problem. ...there are just too many variables to consider.

    So with that in mind, I don't know if you can see a slightly different picture of where they are coming from, but I would at least be curious to know your thoughts on my question. Where should we draw the line if the line keeps extending further and further, and the problem is not being solved?

     
  • At 8:12 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Kevin, with all due respect, the slippery slope you worry about never happens. It was more likely to happen in World War II and when the war ended the courts went back to normal, and certain laws were nullified. We went back to normal. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measure.

    No point in arguing? ON THIS BLOG. That hurts, Mr. Debate and Talk.

    I just have to say this:

    Civil Rights and PC Nicities will be of little comfort when half of the NYC Subway is bombed or shot up. Those little tidbits and lawyer grandstandings will do NO GOOD to someone who's been blasted, burned, or is scooping their guts and blood back into their torso.

    Tell that to the London victims.

    I am tired of the lawyers and their little brown pals manipulating the law. They know the most effective weapon is not always a gun or a bomb, rather some stupid NYU Lawyer and their idiot liberal gophers.

    Yeah, when will it stop....

     
  • At 2:02 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Well, as per being sick and tired of lawyers, I entirely agree. There is nothing worse to me than knowing that the current administration MAY be doing things for their own benefit, but the only people legally qualified to fight such speculations may ALSO be doing things for their own benefit.

    Arrrrg -- I just want a hint of honestly in our country.

    But I digress.

    I understand your point entirely, and I think for the most part, you are correct.

    I am not sure you entirely addressed the root of the question tho. What I was searching for was: what is the point of taking these extreme measures if we KNOW they won't actually solve the problem?

    It just seems to me to be one of two things: either an excuse for the government to impose upon people freedoms (the more conspiratorial view), or it's just like going through airport security (in which it simply provides others with a false sense of security).

    I mean, perhaps I am wrong, but aren't they only searching peoples bags??? How much sense does that make when you think about it? From what I understand, the large portion of suicide bombers do NOT carry bags, they just strap themselves full of explosives.

    The point is, you can't stop determination. I'm sure you could go through the security 10 times (without anything in your bag), before you figured out the system and ultimately found ways around it.

    Most of us wouldn't think to find those security flaws, but one who wanted to cause damage most certainly could, and WOULD.

    So again, what's the point?

    ...and I don't mean to sound like a dick about that question, but I'm serious, I can't figure out a legitimate rationale to it.

     
  • At 2:03 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    PS: Sorry for writing it's pointless to argue such a thing on your BLOG.

    My comment, however, simply stemmed from this having something to do with the ACLU.

    I am fairly certain that if the ACLU found the cure for cancer, there would still be something negative written about them on here.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home