Suitably Flip

Countercounterterrorism

A trial began in New York yesterday, wherein the New York Civil Liberties Union is trying to put an end to police inspections of bags and packages at subway entrances.

The civil liberties group argues that the searches violate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against illegal searches and seizures, while the city asserts that they are an effective deterrent to a terrorist attack.
...
Christopher Dunn, the civil liberties union's top lawyer in the case, said, "The only people being searched under this program are innocent New Yorkers." The searches have not uncovered any terrorist plot, or even contraband, he said.

By the same logic, if a speed trap fails to clock people speeding, is it necessarily ineffective?  Or is it possibly serving as a deterrent?  Does the fact that the only people being radar gunned are lawful drivers somehow imply inefficacy?

Of course, it's likely the NYCLU is less concerned about the effectiveness of the program than the supposed affront to personal privacy.

[A] plaintiff, Joseph E. Gehring Jr., a lawyer, said the search policy could cause him to violate his ethical obligations to keep client information confidential. A third plaintiff, Partha Banerjee, said he had felt humiliated when his bag was searched at a political rally several years ago.

While riders selected for a search have the option of refusing and exiting the subways, two plaintiffs - Norman W. Murphy, a federal worker, and Andrew D. Schonebaum, a social worker - said they viewed that choice as illusory because they have to take the subway to and from work.

Yes, and helping to keep our persons physically intact is such an illusory benefit when we have to suffer the humiliation of a bag search.

Honestly, if it's that daunting an imposition (or if you're plagued by an ethical quandary such as Mr. Gehring's), walk away and try a different entrance.  I ride the subway with a bag twice a day, with one end of the trip terminating at Grand Central, and I've not only never been searched, I've never even seen a search.  If your delicate constitution or sensitive documents absolutely preclude a search, it shouldn't be too hard to avoid.  And it doesn't seem too dear a cost if it shores up an otherwise vulnerable avenue for death and destruction.

This case is the first time such a practice has been contested with respect to public transit systems, but it seems well established nonetheless.  The searches are substantively equivalent to those at airports, office buildings, sporting events, etc. (except with respect to their relative infrequency). 

The NYPD points out that a sign in the NYCLU's office informs visitors that their bags are subject to search at any time.

More on this nonsense: Stop the ACLU, Law Hawk

Comments

Countercounterterrorism

A trial began in New York yesterday, wherein the New York Civil Liberties Union is trying to put an end to police inspections of bags and packages at subway entrances.

The civil liberties group argues that the searches violate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against illegal searches and seizures, while the city asserts that they are an effective deterrent to a terrorist attack.
...
Christopher Dunn, the civil liberties union's top lawyer in the case, said, "The only people being searched under this program are innocent New Yorkers." The searches have not uncovered any terrorist plot, or even contraband, he said.

By the same logic, if a speed trap fails to clock people speeding, is it necessarily ineffective?  Or is it possibly serving as a deterrent?  Does the fact that the only people being radar gunned are lawful drivers somehow imply inefficacy?

Of course, it's likely the NYCLU is less concerned about the effectiveness of the program than the supposed affront to personal privacy.

[A] plaintiff, Joseph E. Gehring Jr., a lawyer, said the search policy could cause him to violate his ethical obligations to keep client information confidential. A third plaintiff, Partha Banerjee, said he had felt humiliated when his bag was searched at a political rally several years ago.

While riders selected for a search have the option of refusing and exiting the subways, two plaintiffs - Norman W. Murphy, a federal worker, and Andrew D. Schonebaum, a social worker - said they viewed that choice as illusory because they have to take the subway to and from work.

Yes, and helping to keep our persons physically intact is such an illusory benefit when we have to suffer the humiliation of a bag search.

Honestly, if it's that daunting an imposition (or if you're plagued by an ethical quandary such as Mr. Gehring's), walk away and try a different entrance.  I ride the subway with a bag twice a day, with one end of the trip terminating at Grand Central, and I've not only never been searched, I've never even seen a search.  If your delicate constitution or sensitive documents absolutely preclude a search, it shouldn't be too hard to avoid.  And it doesn't seem too dear a cost if it shores up an otherwise vulnerable avenue for death and destruction.

This case is the first time such a practice has been contested with respect to public transit systems, but it seems well established nonetheless.  The searches are substantively equivalent to those at airports, office buildings, sporting events, etc. (except with respect to their relative infrequency). 

The NYPD points out that a sign in the NYCLU's office informs visitors that their bags are subject to search at any time.

More on this nonsense: Stop the ACLU, Law Hawk