![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
We can whine enough to keep them from banning open drinks on the subways, and we can rant enough to keep them from banning photographs...
But this one is apparently going through with no real problems. What gives? It's not going to stop anybody, and the only practical purpose of this whole thing will be to give sex shops a bit of an increase as everybody buys massively embarassing objects to carry around Just In Case.
This is my own fucking city, for crying out loud! My own city. I'm not a massively patriotic citizen, and, in truth, I don't especially care what nonsense goes on in the rest of the country I'm arbitrarily bound to... but this is my city.
It's my own city, and I almost want to leave.
Edit: The NYTimes version of this story
New York Starts to Inspect Bags on the Subways
By SEWELL CHAN and KAREEM FAHIM
The police last night began random searches of backpacks and packages brought into the New York City subways as officials expressed alarm about the latest bomb blasts in the London transit system.
The searches, which will also include commuter rail lines, are not a response to a specific threat against the city, said Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who authorized the searches shortly before he announced them at a morning news conference.
So, we're not in any imminent danger, but...
See, that's what worries me. They pick a little thing like this, a little "freedom", as it were, and then they've got their foot in the door. It's like those psychology experiments. People who are asked to put a little sign on their lawn are more likely later to put a big, ugly sign on their lawn than people who never had the small sign there. People who give up a little bit of freedom are less likely to protest against the big ones than they would be if the people in power hadn't started small.
The police have previously inspected bags at major events like parades and demonstrations, and the authorities in Boston conducted random baggage searches on commuter rail lines during the Democratic National Convention last year, but officials here could not recall a precedent for a broad, systematic search of packages in the New York City subways, which provide 4.7 million rides each weekday.
At some of the busiest of the city's 468 stations, riders will be asked to open their bags for a visual check before they go through the turnstiles. Those who refuse will not be permitted to bring the package into the subway but will be able to leave the station without further questioning, officials said.
And walk three blocks to the next station, proving how useless this is. Plus, it'll create even more jamming in the subways. And it's stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. So stupid, I can't think of a better word.
Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly promised "a systematized approach" in the searches and said the basis for selecting riders for the checks would not be race, ethnicity or religion. The New York Civil Liberties Union questioned the legality of the searches, however, and Mr. Kelly said department lawyers were researching the constitutional implications.
Because we haven't heard that one before.
I'm also a little surprised that they got the lawyers in on it after deciding to implement the policy anyway.
"Every certain number of people will be checked," Mr. Kelly said. "We'll give some very specific and detailed instructions to our officers as to how to do this in accordance with the law and the Constitution."
Paul J. Browne, a Police Department spokesman, said officers would focus on backpacks and containers that are large enough to carry explosive devices or ordnance. Officers are unlikely to search pocketbooks, he said. "We have some history of what those look like," he said. "They're bigger than a handbag."
*thinks about the vast number of people who use bookbags and duane reade bags every day*
Oh dear.
Searches began last night at several stations, including 14th Street-Union Square in Manhattan and an undisclosed station along the No. 7 line near Shea Stadium, in Queens. Today, the first full day the searches will be conducted, two of the many stations to be checked are Woodlawn-Jerome Avenue, on the No. 4 line in the Bronx, and Lafayette Avenue on the A line in Brooklyn. Mr. Browne said the search policy would continue indefinitely.
Indefinitely. Not to be paranoid here, but there's nothing so permanent as a temporary tax. Insert your favorite slippery slope scenario here.
Transit officials in several other cities - Boston, Washington and San Francisco - said they were considering similar measures, although few have actually started randomly checking bags. A spokesman for the Bay Area Rapid Transit in San Francisco said officials were not certain whether they have the legal authority for such searches. "This could be the lawyer's dream case," said the spokesman, Linton Johnson. "There is this balance of civil liberties and protection."
Lisa Farbstein, a spokeswoman for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which carries 1.2 million subway and bus passengers each weekday, said officials in the capital would watch how the effort went in New York. "It could be an option for us," she said, "but we are not there yet in terms of an implementation plan."
After the July 7 explosions in London, transit officials in Atlanta and Salt Lake City notified passengers that they reserved the right to inspect packages and bags, but the number of searches has been very small. In Utah, where a 20-mile rail system carries 45,000 passengers a day, a total of two bags have been inspected.
In Boston, for two weeks before the Democratic convention, subway stations were selected at random and bags were checked before riders entered the system, said John Martino, deputy police chief at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Police ran swabs across the bags and then put the swabs in machines that could detect explosives. "When we did it, we actually had people asking to be screened," Chief Martino said yesterday in a telephone interview. "It makes them more comfortable knowing that it was being done."
William W. Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association, an industry group, said comprehensive coverage of any major urban transit system would be next to impossible. "If you were going to try to check a very high percentage at every station or on every train, it would be incredibly labor-intensive," he said.
Still, he said, the searches could deter would-be attackers and improve the public's confidence. "The public wants to feel safe, as well as be safe," he said. "So this has a benefit of perception."
1. I highly doubt that this will actually deter anybody. Let's face it - if you're determined to blow something up, you'll find a way. Faith manages, right?
2. Feeling safe isn't the same as being safe. And feeling safe when you're not actually safe is one of the worst things, because it puts you in danger.
Mr. Kelly said his department would "reserve the right" to expand the searches to buses and ferries, and he made it clear that many subway riders could be affected. "Ideally, it will be before you go through the turnstile," he said. "You have a right to turn around and leave, but we also reserve the right to do those types of searches if someone is already inside the system."
At the selected stations, as many as one in five or one in ten passengers may be picked for a search, said Mr. Browne. Supervisors will check that the searches are being randomly conducted, he said.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority said its own smaller police force would conduct similar searches on the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad. At Grand Central Terminal, an announcement was repeated over the loudspeakers last night: "Passengers are advised that their backpacks and other large containers are subject to random search by the police."
We're getting up to the good part. Griff, you ready?
Mr. Bloomberg acknowledged that passengers might be inconvenienced. "It's a complex world where, sadly, there are a lot of bad people," he said. "We know that our freedoms are threatening to certain individuals, and there's no reason for us to let our guard down."
Our freedoms are threatening to certain individuals. Yes, that's right. Terrorists don't hate us because, say, our country is in an illegal war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians. And they don't hate us because we have, in the past, supported oppresive regimes if it suited our interests. No, they hate us for our freedoms. They don't envy those freedoms, they just hate us. And this is making us safer by taking away part of our freedom. Or something.
The mayor said he spoke with Gov. George E. Pataki and with the secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff, shortly after hearing about the attacks in London yesterday, two weeks to the day after four bombings in the transit system there killed 56 and injured 700.
The police will focus on stations with heavy Manhattan-bound traffic in the morning and on stations with commuters leaving Manhattan in the evening. Riders will be asked to open their bags or allow them to be sniffed by trained dogs.
Mr. Browne, the police spokesman, said, "Obviously we're going to use common sense for someone that appears to be an imminent threat." For example, he said, if a passenger with a large package had both fists clenched, police officers would be justified in asking him to stop for a search. Anyone found to be holding illegal drugs or weapons is subject to arrest, he said.
Oh, great. Now it won't be "ooh, your skin is too dark", it'll be "ooh, you're acting funny". Just what I need in my mornings.
The Transit Bureau of the Police Department has 2,200 officers and 500 supervisors, and even with the hundreds more that have been added for subway patrols, it is unclear how many riders can feasibly be searched. At Times Square, for example, there are 165,876 turnstile clicks on a typical weekday. Some of the system's turnstiles are used by a dozen passengers a minute.
Mr. Browne said such searches had been discussed "from time to time, over the last three years." Some riders expressed cautious support. Hani Judeh, 24, a Palestinian-American medical student who lives in Brooklyn, said he shaved his beard, stopped speaking Arabic publicly and attended mosque less regularly after 9/11.
And he's not even a terrorist (I assume). It seems reasonable that potential terrorists would take the same precautions, and also have the sense not to walk around with their fists clenched whilst carrying large packages.
He said he favored the searches, as long as they did not involve racial profiling. "They should check bags, but they can't discriminate," he said. "You can't tell Indian from Pakistani, you can't tell West Indian from black, you can't tell Arab from Mediterranean."
But this one is apparently going through with no real problems. What gives? It's not going to stop anybody, and the only practical purpose of this whole thing will be to give sex shops a bit of an increase as everybody buys massively embarassing objects to carry around Just In Case.
This is my own fucking city, for crying out loud! My own city. I'm not a massively patriotic citizen, and, in truth, I don't especially care what nonsense goes on in the rest of the country I'm arbitrarily bound to... but this is my city.
It's my own city, and I almost want to leave.
Edit: The NYTimes version of this story
New York Starts to Inspect Bags on the Subways
By SEWELL CHAN and KAREEM FAHIM
The police last night began random searches of backpacks and packages brought into the New York City subways as officials expressed alarm about the latest bomb blasts in the London transit system.
The searches, which will also include commuter rail lines, are not a response to a specific threat against the city, said Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who authorized the searches shortly before he announced them at a morning news conference.
So, we're not in any imminent danger, but...
See, that's what worries me. They pick a little thing like this, a little "freedom", as it were, and then they've got their foot in the door. It's like those psychology experiments. People who are asked to put a little sign on their lawn are more likely later to put a big, ugly sign on their lawn than people who never had the small sign there. People who give up a little bit of freedom are less likely to protest against the big ones than they would be if the people in power hadn't started small.
The police have previously inspected bags at major events like parades and demonstrations, and the authorities in Boston conducted random baggage searches on commuter rail lines during the Democratic National Convention last year, but officials here could not recall a precedent for a broad, systematic search of packages in the New York City subways, which provide 4.7 million rides each weekday.
At some of the busiest of the city's 468 stations, riders will be asked to open their bags for a visual check before they go through the turnstiles. Those who refuse will not be permitted to bring the package into the subway but will be able to leave the station without further questioning, officials said.
And walk three blocks to the next station, proving how useless this is. Plus, it'll create even more jamming in the subways. And it's stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. So stupid, I can't think of a better word.
Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly promised "a systematized approach" in the searches and said the basis for selecting riders for the checks would not be race, ethnicity or religion. The New York Civil Liberties Union questioned the legality of the searches, however, and Mr. Kelly said department lawyers were researching the constitutional implications.
Because we haven't heard that one before.
I'm also a little surprised that they got the lawyers in on it after deciding to implement the policy anyway.
"Every certain number of people will be checked," Mr. Kelly said. "We'll give some very specific and detailed instructions to our officers as to how to do this in accordance with the law and the Constitution."
Paul J. Browne, a Police Department spokesman, said officers would focus on backpacks and containers that are large enough to carry explosive devices or ordnance. Officers are unlikely to search pocketbooks, he said. "We have some history of what those look like," he said. "They're bigger than a handbag."
*thinks about the vast number of people who use bookbags and duane reade bags every day*
Oh dear.
Searches began last night at several stations, including 14th Street-Union Square in Manhattan and an undisclosed station along the No. 7 line near Shea Stadium, in Queens. Today, the first full day the searches will be conducted, two of the many stations to be checked are Woodlawn-Jerome Avenue, on the No. 4 line in the Bronx, and Lafayette Avenue on the A line in Brooklyn. Mr. Browne said the search policy would continue indefinitely.
Indefinitely. Not to be paranoid here, but there's nothing so permanent as a temporary tax. Insert your favorite slippery slope scenario here.
Transit officials in several other cities - Boston, Washington and San Francisco - said they were considering similar measures, although few have actually started randomly checking bags. A spokesman for the Bay Area Rapid Transit in San Francisco said officials were not certain whether they have the legal authority for such searches. "This could be the lawyer's dream case," said the spokesman, Linton Johnson. "There is this balance of civil liberties and protection."
Lisa Farbstein, a spokeswoman for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which carries 1.2 million subway and bus passengers each weekday, said officials in the capital would watch how the effort went in New York. "It could be an option for us," she said, "but we are not there yet in terms of an implementation plan."
After the July 7 explosions in London, transit officials in Atlanta and Salt Lake City notified passengers that they reserved the right to inspect packages and bags, but the number of searches has been very small. In Utah, where a 20-mile rail system carries 45,000 passengers a day, a total of two bags have been inspected.
In Boston, for two weeks before the Democratic convention, subway stations were selected at random and bags were checked before riders entered the system, said John Martino, deputy police chief at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Police ran swabs across the bags and then put the swabs in machines that could detect explosives. "When we did it, we actually had people asking to be screened," Chief Martino said yesterday in a telephone interview. "It makes them more comfortable knowing that it was being done."
William W. Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association, an industry group, said comprehensive coverage of any major urban transit system would be next to impossible. "If you were going to try to check a very high percentage at every station or on every train, it would be incredibly labor-intensive," he said.
Still, he said, the searches could deter would-be attackers and improve the public's confidence. "The public wants to feel safe, as well as be safe," he said. "So this has a benefit of perception."
1. I highly doubt that this will actually deter anybody. Let's face it - if you're determined to blow something up, you'll find a way. Faith manages, right?
2. Feeling safe isn't the same as being safe. And feeling safe when you're not actually safe is one of the worst things, because it puts you in danger.
Mr. Kelly said his department would "reserve the right" to expand the searches to buses and ferries, and he made it clear that many subway riders could be affected. "Ideally, it will be before you go through the turnstile," he said. "You have a right to turn around and leave, but we also reserve the right to do those types of searches if someone is already inside the system."
At the selected stations, as many as one in five or one in ten passengers may be picked for a search, said Mr. Browne. Supervisors will check that the searches are being randomly conducted, he said.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority said its own smaller police force would conduct similar searches on the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad. At Grand Central Terminal, an announcement was repeated over the loudspeakers last night: "Passengers are advised that their backpacks and other large containers are subject to random search by the police."
We're getting up to the good part. Griff, you ready?
Mr. Bloomberg acknowledged that passengers might be inconvenienced. "It's a complex world where, sadly, there are a lot of bad people," he said. "We know that our freedoms are threatening to certain individuals, and there's no reason for us to let our guard down."
Our freedoms are threatening to certain individuals. Yes, that's right. Terrorists don't hate us because, say, our country is in an illegal war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians. And they don't hate us because we have, in the past, supported oppresive regimes if it suited our interests. No, they hate us for our freedoms. They don't envy those freedoms, they just hate us. And this is making us safer by taking away part of our freedom. Or something.
The mayor said he spoke with Gov. George E. Pataki and with the secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff, shortly after hearing about the attacks in London yesterday, two weeks to the day after four bombings in the transit system there killed 56 and injured 700.
The police will focus on stations with heavy Manhattan-bound traffic in the morning and on stations with commuters leaving Manhattan in the evening. Riders will be asked to open their bags or allow them to be sniffed by trained dogs.
Mr. Browne, the police spokesman, said, "Obviously we're going to use common sense for someone that appears to be an imminent threat." For example, he said, if a passenger with a large package had both fists clenched, police officers would be justified in asking him to stop for a search. Anyone found to be holding illegal drugs or weapons is subject to arrest, he said.
Oh, great. Now it won't be "ooh, your skin is too dark", it'll be "ooh, you're acting funny". Just what I need in my mornings.
The Transit Bureau of the Police Department has 2,200 officers and 500 supervisors, and even with the hundreds more that have been added for subway patrols, it is unclear how many riders can feasibly be searched. At Times Square, for example, there are 165,876 turnstile clicks on a typical weekday. Some of the system's turnstiles are used by a dozen passengers a minute.
Mr. Browne said such searches had been discussed "from time to time, over the last three years." Some riders expressed cautious support. Hani Judeh, 24, a Palestinian-American medical student who lives in Brooklyn, said he shaved his beard, stopped speaking Arabic publicly and attended mosque less regularly after 9/11.
And he's not even a terrorist (I assume). It seems reasonable that potential terrorists would take the same precautions, and also have the sense not to walk around with their fists clenched whilst carrying large packages.
He said he favored the searches, as long as they did not involve racial profiling. "They should check bags, but they can't discriminate," he said. "You can't tell Indian from Pakistani, you can't tell West Indian from black, you can't tell Arab from Mediterranean."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 01:55 am (UTC)Just my two cents.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:05 am (UTC)2. Not everybody is being searched. These are oh-so-random searches which, in the end, will not be very random at all.
3. There's no way they could possibly search enough people to make any impact, not on the trains.
4. Baseball games aren't run by the government. The management doesn't technically have to follow the fourth amendment. However, the MTA does.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:31 am (UTC)I dont think it bugs me that much, I've been searched going into so many places, they search going on planes, going into buildings, they had searched cars going into tunnels and over bridges, how is this different?
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:36 am (UTC)If somebody merely punches me instead of killing me, and I go to my mother for help, the last thing I want is for to say "Well, you could've been killed".
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:49 am (UTC)I don't see it being very effective, as there are probably many more ways someone could sneak a bomb in. And with checks being random, that most likely means that they won't catch the one or two people who are sneaking in bombs in their bag. But they're still not the end of the world.
I see the difference between the hubub against banning open drinks and photography and the lack of it here is that they're not actually banning anything. It's great that you're informing on the issue, but I personally don't see it as something all that horrible.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:51 am (UTC)What do you propose we do? I'm not saying it's the right answer, but I can't think of one right now, that will at least make a dent.
And people have been saying that they can't search ANYONE so that makes it ineffective, but that isn't necessarily the case. If you had a bomb and thought you had a chance of being searched, would you go through with your plans?
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:53 am (UTC)Would you bring your bomb in your bag if you knew you had a chance of being checked?
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 03:06 am (UTC)Doing this stupid feel-good nonsense is going to do two things: 1. It will remind us all to be scared. I hate fearmongering. 2. It will give the sillies a false sense of security, and thus put us in more danger.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 03:07 am (UTC)Well, I wouldn't bring a bomb anyway, since I like our trains and don't want to hurt people. Plus, if I did, as I say below, bombs wouldn't be my normal M.O.
However, if I were so inclined... sure would. And if I got checked, I'd have a backup, possibly a "blow it up right now" trigger, so I'd take a few cops down with me.
Because I'd be a terrorist, that's why, and if you're a terrorist that's already about to get caught, you might as well at least do some damage.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 03:10 am (UTC)1. They're not checking everyone. This means, in the end, that they will be doing profile, despite all protests to the contrary. I don't want to see some people being checked ten times a day while others (me) pass through without comment.
2. It's fear-mongering. It's like putting the National Guard on the streets again, except not quite so dramatic, so it's more insidious. I don't like this sort of manipulative behaviour from my mom, damned if I'm going to like it from the fucking cops.
3. This sort of bandaid treatment is even worse than just the fearmongernig. It will prevent the Powers that Be from coming up with real solutions. Just what we need. Because of this silly placebo, we'll be in more danger.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:27 am (UTC)So they should keep up the good work they've been doing prior to this idea, and not add anything new. I can't think of anything they could actually do to stop a terrorist attack if they didn't hear about it in advance already.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:31 am (UTC)Although the last paragraph worries me, about how you can't tell Indian from Pakistani and so forth.... instead of saying, you can't tell good from bad by race. It doesn't mention checking Caucasians at all, so maybe I wouldn't even be at risk for the checks *sighs*
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:36 am (UTC)Oh, and my lothario has had comments made on his condoms when they set off the metal detectors. I think the comment he got was "Good for you" as he was allowed to continue. But not everyone wants their condoms found or commented on, and I suspect had he been female the experience would have been less pleasant.
Airport security is starting to get better at not being hideously abusive or invasive as they've spent a lot of time working to improve problems. Especially after the reports of them molesting pre-teen girls. But at first, just after 9/11/2001 they had to bring in lots of people to get this up and running and they weren't well trained. Any massive increase in security means having lots of people who don't have a lot of experience in how to be courteous and respectful when they're checking other people having power over other people. And that's just nasty.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:41 am (UTC)Yes, this means a risk of some of us getting killed. We've always had this risk and no matter what we do, we will always have this risk. You can't make life risk-free. And it's worth some increased risk to actually be allowed to live your life.
b) Not pick unnecessary fights with other countries. Try to be good world neighbors. Maybe people will hate us less if we're not torturing and killing their children.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 05:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:53 pm (UTC)I wonder if Boston will ever take up a measure like this. I hope not, but I guess it's possible. They're already trying to encourage us to spy on each other.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 01:55 am (UTC)Just my two cents.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:05 am (UTC)2. Not everybody is being searched. These are oh-so-random searches which, in the end, will not be very random at all.
3. There's no way they could possibly search enough people to make any impact, not on the trains.
4. Baseball games aren't run by the government. The management doesn't technically have to follow the fourth amendment. However, the MTA does.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:31 am (UTC)I dont think it bugs me that much, I've been searched going into so many places, they search going on planes, going into buildings, they had searched cars going into tunnels and over bridges, how is this different?
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:36 am (UTC)If somebody merely punches me instead of killing me, and I go to my mother for help, the last thing I want is for to say "Well, you could've been killed".
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:49 am (UTC)I don't see it being very effective, as there are probably many more ways someone could sneak a bomb in. And with checks being random, that most likely means that they won't catch the one or two people who are sneaking in bombs in their bag. But they're still not the end of the world.
I see the difference between the hubub against banning open drinks and photography and the lack of it here is that they're not actually banning anything. It's great that you're informing on the issue, but I personally don't see it as something all that horrible.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:51 am (UTC)What do you propose we do? I'm not saying it's the right answer, but I can't think of one right now, that will at least make a dent.
And people have been saying that they can't search ANYONE so that makes it ineffective, but that isn't necessarily the case. If you had a bomb and thought you had a chance of being searched, would you go through with your plans?
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:53 am (UTC)Would you bring your bomb in your bag if you knew you had a chance of being checked?
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 03:06 am (UTC)Doing this stupid feel-good nonsense is going to do two things: 1. It will remind us all to be scared. I hate fearmongering. 2. It will give the sillies a false sense of security, and thus put us in more danger.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 03:07 am (UTC)Well, I wouldn't bring a bomb anyway, since I like our trains and don't want to hurt people. Plus, if I did, as I say below, bombs wouldn't be my normal M.O.
However, if I were so inclined... sure would. And if I got checked, I'd have a backup, possibly a "blow it up right now" trigger, so I'd take a few cops down with me.
Because I'd be a terrorist, that's why, and if you're a terrorist that's already about to get caught, you might as well at least do some damage.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 03:10 am (UTC)1. They're not checking everyone. This means, in the end, that they will be doing profile, despite all protests to the contrary. I don't want to see some people being checked ten times a day while others (me) pass through without comment.
2. It's fear-mongering. It's like putting the National Guard on the streets again, except not quite so dramatic, so it's more insidious. I don't like this sort of manipulative behaviour from my mom, damned if I'm going to like it from the fucking cops.
3. This sort of bandaid treatment is even worse than just the fearmongernig. It will prevent the Powers that Be from coming up with real solutions. Just what we need. Because of this silly placebo, we'll be in more danger.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:27 am (UTC)So they should keep up the good work they've been doing prior to this idea, and not add anything new. I can't think of anything they could actually do to stop a terrorist attack if they didn't hear about it in advance already.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:31 am (UTC)Although the last paragraph worries me, about how you can't tell Indian from Pakistani and so forth.... instead of saying, you can't tell good from bad by race. It doesn't mention checking Caucasians at all, so maybe I wouldn't even be at risk for the checks *sighs*
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:36 am (UTC)Oh, and my lothario has had comments made on his condoms when they set off the metal detectors. I think the comment he got was "Good for you" as he was allowed to continue. But not everyone wants their condoms found or commented on, and I suspect had he been female the experience would have been less pleasant.
Airport security is starting to get better at not being hideously abusive or invasive as they've spent a lot of time working to improve problems. Especially after the reports of them molesting pre-teen girls. But at first, just after 9/11/2001 they had to bring in lots of people to get this up and running and they weren't well trained. Any massive increase in security means having lots of people who don't have a lot of experience in how to be courteous and respectful when they're checking other people having power over other people. And that's just nasty.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:41 am (UTC)Yes, this means a risk of some of us getting killed. We've always had this risk and no matter what we do, we will always have this risk. You can't make life risk-free. And it's worth some increased risk to actually be allowed to live your life.
b) Not pick unnecessary fights with other countries. Try to be good world neighbors. Maybe people will hate us less if we're not torturing and killing their children.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 04:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 05:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:53 pm (UTC)I wonder if Boston will ever take up a measure like this. I hope not, but I guess it's possible. They're already trying to encourage us to spy on each other.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 02:54 pm (UTC)