Boston MBTA to randomly search bags

[QCassidy352]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...004/06/08/t_to_check_packages_bags_at_random/

Keep in mind this is the same day Ashcroft defends Bush's authority to use torture, if he so chooses. Wouldn't it be easier just to tear the Constitution up all at once and be done with it?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[wdlove]

I see nothing wrong with a random check of bags on the MBTA. It is public transportation. The general manager is correct, if something happened here like in Spain the public would want to know why this wasn't being done. My question would be why not start now.

 

[QCassidy352]

OMG. The fact that a fair number of people actually think like you is *terrifying.* Yeah, it's public transportation - but my bag is private property.

Why shouldn't they do it?

A) It's yet another governmental invasion of privacy.

B) It has ZERO chance of deterring a terrorist attack. If a terrorist wants to set off a bomb on the T, you think they would be scared by a few MBTA cops asking to see bags?? ROFL. Anyone serious about setting off a bomb could evade searches so easily it's absolutely laughable. The ONLY thing this will do is hassle people who are doing nothing wrong.

C) Ok, pay very close attention to this one: IT VIOLATES THE 4TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. But I guess most people are so used to having their Constitutional rights trampled on, they hardly even notice anymore.

The only thing scarier than the fact that the government wants to take all of our rights is that some people will hand them over and thank the government at the same time. Terrorism isn't the least bit worrisome compared to things like this.

 

[virividox]

this is similar to the random stop and search powers in england granted by PACE. hmmm i wonder if anyone will challenge this in the courts they do have grounds to challenge it

 

[question fear]

I see nothing wrong with a random check of bags on the MBTA. It is public transportation. The general manager is correct, if something happened here like in Spain the public would want to know why this wasn't being done. My question would be why not start now.

and how often do you really ride the t?
I ride the T a fair amount, and I don't want to have to open my bag every damn time i get on.
my stuff is my damn stuff, they have no right to search me.
this is just posturing, which makes it worse. searches for a purpose are one thing, searches to seem less incompetent are dangerous.

 

[KingSleaze]

Terrorists/terrorism

OMG. The fact that a fair number of people actually think like you is *terrifying.* Yeah, it's public transportation - but my bag is private property.

Why shouldn't they do it?

A) It's yet another governmental invasion of privacy.

B) It has ZERO chance of deterring a terrorist attack. If a terrorist wants to set off a bomb on the T, you think they would be scared by a few MBTA cops asking to see bags?? ROFL. Anyone serious about setting off a bomb could evade searches so easily it's absolutely laughable. The ONLY thing this will do is hassle people who are doing nothing wrong.

C) Ok, pay very close attention to this one: IT VIOLATES THE 4TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. But I guess most people are so used to having their Constitutional rights trampled on, they hardly even notice anymore.

The only thing scarier than the fact that the government wants to take all of our rights is that some people will hand them over and thank the government at the same time. Terrorism isn't the least bit worrisome compared to things like this.

And the people that would bomb trains or use airplanes as guided missile aren't terrifying?

A) Yes it is. So is someone else blowing your head off.

B) You don't know if it deters the terrorist attack because it doesn't happen. The deterrence comes from the visible attempt to be doing something, which if successful, would catch the terrorists in the act. Fewer would try OR would make a bigger effort to get around the inspection. Making effort to evade inspection, would just cause more attention, leading to higher chance of being caught.

C) Ok, the 4th amendment prohibits UNREASONABLE search and seizures. Seeing as how the terrorist organizations are now using such methods as bombing public conveyances, suicide bombs, etc. a brief inspection of baggage isn't unreasonable to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare" (Preamble to the Constitution)

I agree that my private things are my private things. I can keep them private, by using private transportation. Public transportation is another matter. I don't have anything to hide.

 

[wdlove]

Those that are complaining would be the first to yell the loudest is a Spain like attack. "Why didn't you do something to stop this?"

Public means public.

 

[plus_c]

As a Metro rider in Washington DC, I'm fairly interested in seeing how this turns out. My bet is that it will slow down commuters so much that it won't last long. WMATA was considering having everybody pass through a bomb detector machine (they even piloted it at one Metro station for a month), but they're still debating the impact to commute times for passengers. If Boston can prove that they can make security checks without a substantial increase in commute times, I'm sure that WMATA will be quick to follow.

However, I would say that this only limits one potential path for a terrorist. Someone who really wanted to attack a metro system could do so quite easily by sneaking onto the tracks. If graffiti artists can do it, why not the terrorists?

 

[question fear]

Those that are complaining would be the first to yell the loudest is a Spain like attack. "Why didn't you do something to stop this?"

Public means public.

and private means private.
my stuff, my expectation of privacy.

 

[Sun Baked]

I guess that police officer will probably arrest anyone carrying drugs, guns, etc. -- while the little old lady with the bomb walks onto the train unmolested.

 

[KingSleaze]

and private means private.
my stuff, my expectation of privacy.

And my expectation of safety in public places, on public transport.

You want to keep your stuff "private" when you go out in public? Please don't take public transit. Make sure you leave your handgun (for your own safety, that's why you got it) at home when you take that airplane trip. Oh, wait a moment, that violates the second ammendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (except in airplanes, where it might interfere with the preamble to the Constitution "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare")

Do you get it? Yes, you may keep your stuff private. When you take your private stuff out in public.........you have asked for protection from other peoples "bombs" (er, their private stuff).

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I guess that police officer will probably arrest anyone carrying drugs, guns, etc. -- while the little old lady with the bomb walks onto the train unmolested.

And that is the problem I have with the random searches. While I do not support the use of drugs, and want more gun control; I worry about the real reason for the searches.

 

[question fear]

And my expectation of safety in public places, on public transport.

You want to keep your stuff "private" when you go out in public? Please don't take public transit. Make sure you leave your handgun (for your own safety, that's why you got it) at home when you take that airplane trip. Oh, wait a moment, that violates the second ammendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (except in airplanes, where it might interfere with the preamble to the Constitution "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare")

Do you get it? Yes, you may keep your stuff private. When you take your private stuff out in public.........you have asked for protection from other peoples "bombs" (er, their private stuff).

but that doesnt give someone the right to assume my stuff is dangerous. it's illegal for a police officer to search me based solely on my choice of reading material on the t, it's illegal for them to wiretap my house "in case" something comes up, it's illegal for them to search people just because they might potentially maybe possibly have a hint of a bomb. like others have said, this is an intimidation tactic, not a careful investigation, and they dont have the right to use me as an intimidation tool, nor does anyone have the right to presume that I am dangerous without any information or evidence to back up that statement.

 

[KingSleaze]

Terms and Condition for Use

but that doesnt give someone the right to assume my stuff is dangerous. it's illegal for a police officer to search me based solely on my choice of reading material on the t, it's illegal for them to wiretap my house "in case" something comes up, it's illegal for them to search people just because they might potentially maybe possibly have a hint of a bomb. like others have said, this is an intimidation tactic, not a careful investigation, and they dont have the right to use me as an intimidation tool, nor does anyone have the right to presume that I am dangerous without any information or evidence to back up that statement.

The presumption was made on Sept 11, 2001 in this country, March 11, 2004 in Madrid, that "someone" might want to use public conveyances to hurt/kill a lot of people. If that is indimidating to you, welcome to the real world. It's called "Prevention", it's not a search, a wiretap nor an investigation. The original article refers to the use of bomb sniffing canines, you wouldn't even have to expose your stuff.

I hear your complaint of "Invasion of Privacy". Do you complain about it at the airport? Do you complain about it at the amusement park (I've seen bag inspections at Six Flags, Universal Studios and SeaWorld)? I think it's something like "terms and conditions of use". The various industries also have the right to protect themselves and their customers from the few nutcases that would use the deaths of hundreds of innocents to make a statement. If they can't get the bombs on the planes/trains/buses, then they need to make them more sophisticated to be able to detect the vehicle to cause the desired destruction for their statement. More sophisticated, more complex, harder to accomplish---Prevention.

It may not stop all terror attacks, but it will reduce the number and severity of the ones that might occur.

I've never met you, but I do wonder what could be so private that ensuring public safety takes a backseat.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

The presumption was made on Sept 11, 2001 in this country, March 11, 2004 in Madrid, that "someone" might want to use public conveyances to hurt/kill a lot of people. If that is indimidating to you, welcome to the real world. It's called "Prevention", it's not a search, a wiretap nor an investigation. The original article refers to the use of bomb sniffing canines, you wouldn't even have to expose your stuff.

I hear your complaint of "Invasion of Privacy". Do you complain about it at the airport? Do you complain about it at the amusement park (I've seen bag inspections at Six Flags, Universal Studios and SeaWorld)? I think it's something like "terms and conditions of use". The various industries also have the right to protect themselves and their customers from the few nutcases that would use the deaths of hundreds of innocents to make a statement. If they can't get the bombs on the planes/trains/buses, then they need to make them more sophisticated to be able to detect the vehicle to cause the desired destruction for their statement. More sophisticated, more complex, harder to accomplish---Prevention.

It may not stop all terror attacks, but it will reduce the number and severity of the ones that might occur.

I've never met you, but I do wonder what could be so private that ensuring public safety takes a backseat.

Prevention can only go so far. The only way we can prevent another 9/11 or 3/11 is through genocide of the fundamentalist Islamics. Bomb sniffing dogs seems harmless enough, but what safeguards are there that a person would only face arrest for being a "terrorist threat"? A bomb sniffing dog could also find drugs. Does this person then get arrested, or are the drugs seized and the person given a pass?

Thanks to 9/11 and conservative zeal, the Founding Fathers are probably twirling in their graves. For when you start to chip away at the bedrock of the freedoms we have enjoyed as a nation for over 200 years - it is hard to put it back in the box.

If you believe that we can prevent another attack, then you probably believe that you can have tax cuts without spending cuts too.

 

[KingSleaze]

Prevention can only go so far. The only way we can prevent another 9/11 or 3/11 is through genocide of the fundamentalist Islamics. Bomb sniffing dogs seems harmless enough, but what safeguards are there that a person would only face arrest for being a "terrorist threat"? A bomb sniffing dog could also find drugs. Does this person then get arrested, or are the drugs seized and the person given a pass?

Thanks to 9/11 and conservative zeal, the Founding Fathers are probably twirling in their graves. For when you start to chip away at the bedrock of the freedoms we have enjoyed as a nation for over 200 years - it is hard to put it back in the box.

If you believe that we can prevent another attack, then you probably believe that you can have tax cuts without spending cuts too.

Call it "Conservative Zeal" if you want to, I consider it "Reality" (very unlike "Reality TV"). Prevention again will never be a perfect thing, genocide is NOT the answer either (you'll just inflame others into taking up the "cause"). Bomb sniffing doesn't find drugs--different compounds are involved, different training programs.

If you accepted airport "security checkpoints" and no firearms prohibitions on airlines before 9/11, what do you find different (from the public safety standpoint) about similar conditions for other modes of public transportation?

Nope, I'm too much of a realist to believe that ALL terrorist attacks can be prevented. I also do believe that you can have tax cuts without spending cuts, unfortunately, somewhere down the road, spending cuts and/or tax increases will be REQUIRED to recover from the inevitable deficit that results.

 

[DJMad]

I take the T to and from class everyday. Since I use a dj bag for my book bag and have like 16pockets in the bag this could be a real pain in the ass. They might get away with this for the summer but the second all the studients come back it will just create chaos.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

The big purpose of the security searches is to scare off wannabes and poseurs.

Richard Reid got a bomb onto a plane with a little help. Now we have to take of our shoes. Heaven help us if someone is caught smuggling in a butt plug loaded with TNT...

Bombs in bags onto a train are a known method of attack so people with an axe to grind but without much creativity will be able to duplicate it so they need to be scared off from even the attempt.

My guess is the searches will for the most part be half-hearted and half-a$$ed and will only inconvenience people and scare off wannabe's.

 

[caveman_uk]

My guess is the searches will for the most part be half-hearted and half-a$$ed ..

Judging by the clueless morons I've encountered doing Airport security at both Logan and LAX then you're probably pretty close with the latter. Over-zealous idiots that couldn't find their own asses with both hands....

 

[jsw]

It seems to be every other week that a bus is blown up in Israel. Since I assume that Israel is aware of terrorist threats, and I assume that they do not like it when a bus is blown up, I further assume that they've tried to prevent it. If bag searching prevented bus bombs, I'm fairly sure that they might have thought of that. I therefore conclude that it must not be a very effective technique.

Bombers usually wear the bombs. I suspect that there would be a bit of an outrage if we start strip searching everyone.

I agree that public transportation is public, and I'm all for "the greater good". I simply am opposed to using techniques which are ineffective and problematic.

Terrorism works by instilling terror. That's why it's so cheap - one shoe bomb and the whole country is walking through detectors in their socks.

You cannot prevent terrorism. There are limited resources to reduce it. We should spend those resources intelligently, not on patting down college kids to see if they've got some weed, er, a bomb on them.

 

[sketchy]

OMG. The fact that a fair number of people actually think like you is *terrifying.* Yeah, it's public transportation - but my bag is private property.

Why shouldn't they do it?

snip

Do you hold the same stance for air travel? there should be no metal detectors or bag searches?

do you fight when you fly and they make you take your private items out of your pockets when walking through a metal detector?

This is the same thing.

You also have the option of walking.

I don't liek the though of being searched, but I understand why they are doing it.

 

[rainman::|:|]

I think they ought to go a lot farther than this-- Weekly searches of all residential dwellings in the USA, combined with full body-cavity searches of all international travelers (well, wait, just shut down the borders). We could keep a strict inventory of everything inside the USA, what people are doing, what things they have. Eventually, if the US got strong enough, we could start searching other nation's residences, in which case we could resume air travel with them. In a perfect world, eventually the USA could search every home on the planet, to make things Really Safe for us all. But, manpower would be too difficult. No, wait, I got it-- We could all help out, every Sunday afternoon we all go our neighbor's houses and search them, that way the police wouldn't have to. Maybe volunteer committees would be formed to go around communities and randomly break into homes, to make sure nothing illegal is going on. I mean, if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about, and there are so many terrorists (not to mention serial killers and liberals) hiding in American residences, it wouldn't be unreasonable. Really, it would be unreasonable not to search everything and everyone, all of the time... in the name of Public Protection.

bye bye 4th amendment. it was good to know you.

paul

 

[sketchy]

Bomb sniffing dogs seems harmless enough, but what safeguards are there that a person would only face arrest for being a "terrorist threat"? A bomb sniffing dog could also find drugs. Does this person then get arrested, or are the drugs seized and the person given a pass?

*snip*

If you believe that we can prevent another attack, then you probably believe that you can have tax cuts without spending cuts too.

quit trying to change the subject

when police search your car they ask first -- if you agree, anything found in the car is fair game. If you refused to have a bag searched they could detain you and get a warrent. -- so if you want to get to your destination on time you would agree to have your bag searched.

If you have drugs in your bag you know you are breaking the law. no pity from me if you get caught.

 

[rainman::|:|]

quit trying to change the subject

when police search your car they ask first -- if you agree, anything found in the car is fair game. If you refused to have a bag searched they could detain you and get a warrent. -- so if you want to get to your destination on time you would agree to have your bag searched.

If you have drugs in your bag you know you are breaking the law. no pity from me if you get caught.

Uh, no. They are required to get consent, which can be in the form of implied-consent... Which could include, getting out of the vehicle if the officer asks you to "please step out of the vehicle". They will never, never never ask you if they can search. They don't need to. You'll cooperate your way into implied consent before you know it.

It's not about who has what illegal thing. It's about who has the authority to strip us of our constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of privacy.

paul

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

quit trying to change the subject

<snip>

If you have drugs in your bag you know you are breaking the law. no pity from me if you get caught.

I wasn't trying to change the subject. I was illustrating that the public is all too willing to roll over and give in, "because it will make us safer", or "gee, I don't want to pay more taxes". We just want to feel good, and not look at the long term implications of the governments actions.

Again, when you give up rights, they are hard to get back.

You may accuse me of trying to change the topic gain, but I'll offer a hypothetical situation:

A large group of terrorists purchase handguns and rifles, they go to all corners of this nation and kill 1,000 to 2,000 people before SWAT teams take them out. Do we then eliminate the right to firearm ownership in the US? Do we require mandatory registration and surprise inspections of your home and property to inspect those weapons? This right is given to us by the Second Amendment.

So is privacy by the Fourth Amendment:

Amendment IV

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.

Fairly clear that there has to be an expectation or need for the search. And a warrant needs to be issued. Using dogs or random searches to find a reason to detain a person for such a warrant goes beyond the "probable cause" that our Founding Fathers had in mind.

What is to stop a person from being detained for having printed materials that support the fundamentalist thoughts of Islam? Or a book supporting a state's succession from the Union? Where do we draw the line? Aren't people with such material a potential threat?

The Constitution and the Bills of Rights are not something that you can choose parts to follow or not.