QCassidy352 said:
1. I disagree that terrorists would even alter their plans given this deterrent. In their place, I surely would not. But even if they do - what has that gotten us? So they walk on to the tracks instead of getting on the train? How does that help anything?
2. So if someone used a car bomb on a bridge or a mall tomorrow, would you then advocate random searches of cars as a "condition of use" of the roadways? Why, given your stance, *don't* you advocate the other kinds of searches I've listed? Just because terrorists haven't used a car bomb *yet*?
3. Quoting myself:
"'Reasonable has a legal meaning with regard to searches, as defined by the Supreme Court. A search is 'reasonable' when it is conducted based on the suspicion that a person is doing something illegal - and that suspicion must in turn be based on suspicious behavior by the suspect. It is a mistake to assume an everyday meaning of 'reasonable' in this case because the Supreme Court has already defined it otherwise."
(edit: this is a much better way of saying what I want than what I first wrote)
In order for a search to be legally "reasonable," the searching officer must have "probable cause" to conduct the search. This is black letter constitutional law. A search conducted without probable cause is inherently unreasonable and therefore violates the 4th Amendment. If you don't like that definition of "reasonable," take it up with the US Supreme Court.
1. So, if you had any inclination to be a terrorist, you would take your backpack bomb onto the train (because that is what worked before) instead of altering the plan slightly to prevent being caught with a bomb before you got it on the train. You would take your backpack bomb to be inspected, before you got there.
If they were to sneak the bomb out onto the tracks, it would require additional complexity to the bomb to ensure that it blew up when a train was on top of it. It would require a larger bomb to inflict harm to the people inside the train, to get through the body of the train.
Sounds like a whole new plan to me.
2.You haven't been paying any attention to what I've said. Somebody (else) owns those trains, and as they recognize a need to keep their customers safe. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE apply. I can prevent you from getting into my car (not accounting for breaking in, of course)(if I wanted to) unless you submitted to a bag inspection. Same as at airports.
Terrorists have used car bombs. That's another reason why you can't leave unattended vehicles parked next to airport entrances, why you can't leave an unattended car parked next to the mall. That's why those posts are planted on the walkways approaching those buildings, to prevent car bombs from getting close to buildings
I don't advocate inspecting every car before it gets out on the public roadways because right now it would require too much manpower and the technology doesn't exist for it to be automated. Even if such technology should come into existence today, implementing it is another matter. I again wouldn't advocate examining cars as they got onto the public roadways. Why? Because THAT would be an invasion of privacy! My car is not public transportation (other than the public that I care to transport under my terms and conditions for use).
3. Goes back to my contention regarding "terms and conditions for use". In your consent to use the public transport, if the owner desires some form of reasonable inspection implicit in its use, you are thereby consenting to the inspection. (see United States vs Knights{A Supreme Court case}- I'll abbreviate here. "One term of his probation required respondent to submit to searches of his person or property, quote, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer. The acknowledgement signed by respondent stated: I have received a copy, read, and understand the above terms and conditions of probation and agree to abide by same." Then "Less than a week after respondent was placed on probation, State police came to suspect that he was involved in an act of vandalism against electric and telecommunications facilities that caused approximately $1.5 million in damage. Relying on the search condition, police searched respondent's residence and found evidence implicating him in the crime.").
a. He gave consent.
b. "Police came to suspect" sounds to me like there was some reason to be suspicious.
c. He didn't have to consent to probation.
If the owner should (somehow)determine that a reasonable method of deterring a terrorist attack is to institute a random baggage check, and has to be submitted to as a condition for use. If you want to ride his train, you need to give your consent to get his/her consent. You don't have to consent to ride the train if you object to the terms of use that the owner wants to apply to it.
But griping about your rights in this regard..........fine, don't ride the train. Keep your stuff private. It isn't about rights.
