I'm angry this morning

[lookout123]

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.

[Elspode]

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

[jinx]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Annoying and ineffective (as most government decisions are) but seemingly reasonable.

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.

[dar512]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by lookout123

With only 15 cops that sounds like a ridiculous waste of time.

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by lookout123

You are asking to use a service and they have put a condition on the use of that service.

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.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.