Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
Somebody in New York nadded up for this:
Police to Check Bags on NYC SubwaysRandom my ass - check everyone's bags. And profile everyone 'till the cows come home.NEW YORK -- Police will begin random searches of bags and packages carried by people entering city subways, officials announced Thursday after a new series of bomb attacks in London.
Passengers carrying bags will be selected at random before they pass through turnstiles, and those who refuse to be searched won't be allowed to ride, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
"We just live in a world where, sadly, these kinds of security measures are necessary," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. "Are they intrusive? Yes, a little bit. But we are trying to find that right balance."
The announcement drew complaints from civil liberties advocates in a city where an estimated 4.5 million passengers ride the subway on an average weekday. The system has more than 468 subway stations _ most with multiple entrances _ and the flood of commuters hurrying in and out of stations during rush hour can be overwhelming.
Kelly stressed that officers posted at subway entrances would not engage in racial profiling, and that passengers are free to "turn around and leave." He also downplayed the possibility of bottlenecks at subway entrances.
Officials declined to specify how frequently the checks would occur. The inspections are scheduled to be in place by rush hour on Friday. Authorities said bus and commuter train passengers will also be checked.
And of course the ACLU is about to have a litter of kittens over this 'heinous infringement of civil liberties'; maybe the head of the ACLU should be made to view the carnage from two weeks ago in London...in person before he/she start spouting off about crap like this.
So, you fume about the government, complain about the laws in your state making you puke, and
Read more in 'Bout Time!
Rob@L&R said:
I said I was OK with the Patriot Act, NOT with our rights being eroded. It is only your opini
Read more in 'Bout Time!
The Other Mike S said:
Hey Rob, cut back on the caffine. What strawman are you talking about? You have said, very plai
Read more in 'Bout Time!
Rob@L&R said:
Then again, maybe you were right in the last sentence of your very first comment.
That is
Read more in 'Bout Time!
Rob@L&R said:
Now he brings out the strawman:
"He doesn't believe the Patriot Act is the single most de
Read more in 'Bout Time!
The Other Mike S said:
LOL, well thought out retort.
There is no element of paranoia involved. It's fact. Our
Read more in 'Bout Time!
Trackback Information for 'Bout Time!
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/102615Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ''Bout Time!'.
Comments on 'Bout Time!
Well, then Osama has now won. Lock, stock and barrel, so to speak.
Our constitution says nothing about a right to safety, but does say a good deal about a right to privacy and personal freedom. I guess the thinking goes, since privacy rights have already been shredded to hell by the Patriot act, road side sobriety checkpoints, etc., why not add another infringement.
Think about it: The only segment of our society that USED to be treated like this were our criminals. Now it's all of us.
We clamor for "security cameras". We plead with our government to "make us safe". It's sickening. People just don't get it. Our government CANNOT protect us from terrorist cells by tearing down our freedoms. The ONLY successful method is when we infiltrate the cells. Otherwise, if someone or some small group wants to blow your ass up, they can do it.
We're nothing but a bunch of whipped pussies.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 21, 2005 04:27 PM ||How about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Is that just bullshit? How is keeping my ass from getting blown up on the subway an infringement of my rights? How is getting a drunk driver off the road an infringement of my rights? If searching my bag and searching Mohammed's bag will keep both of us becoming fireworks, then I'll bite.
|| Posted by Cait, July 21, 2005 04:32 PM ||Cait, who is stopping you from pursuing happiness, et al? Your rights, very specifically explained in our Bill of Rights - I point you to the 4th, in particular - specifically say you cannot be searched unless there is probable cause or a warrant. Terrorists and drunks - both of which existed when this document was written - are not given as exceptions to our rules.
You are the exact type of American that Osama was targeting. Sadly, it is MOST Americans. You are not worried about our country and what is stands for. You're more worried that some "boogie man" around the corner that MAY get you.
Let's take your rationale to another similar situation. In Oakland and Richmond, CA, they have terrible murder statistics. Truly horrific. Real murders happening almost daily. If the government were going to protect their citizens, they should put checkpoints on every street corner. Clearly, more people are killed in those two cities from guns and knives than from drunk drivers. It's a no-brainer, right?
If you think it would be wrong, how is it any different from Roadside sobriety, or baggage searches?
If you think it should happen, learn your daily Islamic prayers.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 21, 2005 05:35 PM ||First, what the hell is "If you think it should happen, learn your daily Islamic prayers." supposed to mean?
Next, the Constitution also did not say that we couldn't search for drunks and terrorists. It says "unreasonable" search. Maybe, just maybe, it might be reasonable to search people with baggage, in light of recent events.
And, finally, "You are not worried about our country and what is [sic] stands for." is total bullshit. It won't stand for a friggin' thing if we let terrorism destroy it. That's when Osama has succeeded. I'm damned worried about this country and the destruction of what it stands for and the fact that there are people who think like you who will let it happen in the name of political correctness. And saying I'm not concerned really pisses me off. Just because I happen not to agree with you on this particular issue doesn't mean I'm not concerned about the welfare of the nation. What an asinine thing to say.
Additionally, the statement " You're more worried that some "boogie man" around the corner that MAY get you." is completely fallacious and condescending. I'm probably less afraid and have less reason to be afraid than your ass. In fact, I'm not at all sure that statement isn't sexist. So much for your political correctness. At least I'm not worried that having cops search people's cars means the end of life as we know it. Christ on a cracker, Mike, have you not figured out that these people want to kill us all? I don't mean they mildly dislike us. They intend to destroy everything we represent. And you don't think extraordinary measures are called for? Keep dreaming. Osama loves you.
|| Posted by Cait, July 21, 2005 08:58 PM ||So much bullshit, so little time.
First, what the hell is "If you think it should happen, learn your daily Islamic prayers." supposed to mean?
It's pretty straightforward: If you support changing the very basis of American ideals because "the boogie man" is out there in his various forms (drunk driver, terrorist, etc) you are letting them win. You want to cower in the corner and have The State take care of you. If you don't want our way of life, move somewhere else - maybe a place where all of your decisions are made for you, like an Islamic Theocracy. Just what Osama wants.
Next, the Constitution also did not say that we couldn't search for drunks and terrorists. It says "unreasonable" search. Maybe, just maybe, it might be reasonable to search people with baggage, in light of recent events.
Read the whole sentence from the 4th. It clearly states you cannot be searched without probable cause and/or a sworn warrant. It sets "the bar" for unreasonable at having probable cause.
And, finally, "You are not worried about our country and what is [sic] stands for." is total bullshit. It won't stand for a friggin' thing if we let terrorism destroy it.
So, you'd rather live in essentially a police state, but have near perfect safety, rather than a free state, period. Terrorism has already started destroying our country with the Patriot act. People like you are BEGGING Osama to win with your acquiescence to destroying our liberties.
and the fact that there are people who think like you who will let it happen in the name of political correctness.
I laughed so hard when I read that, Pepsi came shooting out of my nose! Man, you just don't get it, do you? In my eyes, if you are a middle eastern male between 18 and 45, and you're carrying a back pack into an airport, THAT is probable cause. You should be stopped and questioned. This random selection bullshit is a gross waste of time, and a violation of our rights.
I'm probably less afraid and have less reason to be afraid than your ass.
Your words clearly do NOT convey that. You willingly allow the police to search you without probable cause or a warrant. You seem pretty scared to me.
In fact, I'm not at all sure that statement isn't sexist.
Where the hell did you get that? I have no idea, and frankly couldn't give a rat's ass what your sex is. How is that even relevant?
Christ on a cracker, Mike, have you not figured out that these people want to kill us all? I don't mean they mildly dislike us. They intend to destroy everything we represent. And you don't think extraordinary measures are called for?
Ya know, it just dawned on me that you totally sidestepped my question about putting up checkpoints to quell murder. Do you know how many people are murdered in the US each year? Give or take 20,000. Every fucking year. Seven times the number killed on 9/11. So by September of this year, around 80,000 Americans will have been killed. Do we line the streets with cops? Do we stop every person that owns a gun or a knife because they are a potential murderer?
No, because we're fucking Americans, and we don't put up with that kind of shit. And we're not going to put up with it because some gimpy bastard hiding in a cave in the Middle East has a hard on for us.
Now buck up, grow a spine, or go move to Spain.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 21, 2005 11:25 PM ||OUR rights are not in the bill of rights. The government's PRIVILIGES are listed.
As for checking passengers: Waste of time. I can derail a train with a sledgehammer. Nothing anyone can do.
|| Posted by Yogimus, July 22, 2005 12:56 AM ||In my eyes, if you are a middle eastern male between 18 and 45, and you're carrying a back pack into an airport, THAT is probable cause. You should be stopped and questioned.
Now you're talking.
And we're not going to put up with it because some gimpy bastard hiding in a cave in the Middle East has a hard on for us.
I agree here, too.
I just don't agree with you about how to protect what we have left in this country. I simply do not consider random checkpoints (to see driver's license and proof of insurance)to be without probable cause, in the general sense. Now, even though I work with police, if I'm stopped and asked by the officer if he or she can search my car, the answer will be "No", just on general principles. And I have absolutely nothing to hide. I'm just not giving permission for a search without "probable cause" or a "warrant". There are a lot of things I consider infringement of my rights, not least of which is income tax, requiring insurance, car inspections, and registration, and lots of other governmental crap. But, somehow, checkpoints and baggage searches don't fly up my nose. As to searching Mo and Ali, well and good. But we have others, like Timothy McVeigh, who don't fit the physical profile.
|| Posted by Cait, July 22, 2005 06:03 AM ||As to searching Mo and Ali, well and good. But we have others, like Timothy McVeigh, who don't fit the physical profile.
And we've ALWAYS had them, yet somehow didn't need to shred the 4th Amendment. We don't need to shred it now.
With that sentence of yours, you are advocating the search of every man, woman and child because the MIGHT be a terrorist simply by living here in the US.
Innocent until proven guilty. No search without probable cause. These are cornerstones of our society. I won't give them up out of fear.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 22, 2005 11:51 AM ||I think we've always traded some freedoms in order to gain or retain others. I think the baggage search issue is one of those tradeoffs. If I'm going to draw a line in the sand, it won't be over baggage searches or checkpoints.
|| Posted by Cait, July 22, 2005 01:42 PM ||This random selection bullshit is a gross waste of time, and a violation of our rights.
agree with you there. Random searches means there's no probable cause; you're just picking out someone to search, just for the sake of searching someone. Clearly a violation of the 4th amendment.
However...
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 23, 2005 06:06 AM ||Terrorism has already started destroying our country with the Patriot act
You must have cracked your head on that slippery slope.
Rob, the Patriot Act is the single most destructive piece of legislation ever passed by our Congress. Take the time and read it some time. No warrant searches. No notification searches. No judicial review warrants.
It's positively Orwellian, in the worst sense of the word.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 23, 2005 10:45 AM ||I wonder if a cabby union was behind this somehow...
|| Posted by Yogimus, July 24, 2005 01:05 AM ||Rob, the Patriot Act is the single most destructive piece of legislation ever passed by our Congress. Take the time and read it some time. No warrant searches. No notification searches. No judicial review warrants.
Oye Mike - do we have to have this discussion again!?!
Short & sweet: you can propose all of the possible civil violations coming out of this, but there isn't one - not ONE - case of this happening since 2002.
The fact of the matter is that this is the society we currently live in - one that is susceptible to bomb attacks and should one happen, there will be metric TONS of accusations against the state and federal governements about why did you let this happen!?! much like the crap about why didn't the Air Force shoot down some of the highjacked planes on 9/11....
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, July 24, 2005 11:22 AM ||Oh, I see. Because there is the possibility that the Administration might take some heat over a bombing, let's just move ahead and trash our Constitution? I don't like that kind of logic.
Were do we stand if they rape the Constitution AND we get hit again? I'll tell you what happens. They come out and tell us how it is impossible to stop any small group of terrorists that are bent on blowing up a group of people. And you know what? They'd be right. It IS impossible. So why destroy our rights, and give Osama his win (making us alter our society) all in one fell swoop?
Because, as I said in my first reply, we're a bunch of whipped pussies.
If Bush were a real leader, he'd stand before our country and tell us that the odds are with the terrorists for a successful hit (hell, Rummy's done it a couple of times). We're too big, too free and too open to prevent it. But we're Americans, and we won't cower to anyone in this world. He'd tell us to be strong, proud, vigilant and unbending in our protection of our values and our heritage.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 24, 2005 10:35 PM ||Has the fact that you've written several rants about losing your rights and the Jack-Booted Smirkychimp McBusHitler Goon Squads(TM) haven't hauled you away (or anyone else) give you any indication that maybe, maybe, you're rights are still safe, even from the Constitution-Killing Patriot Act?
single most destructive piece of legislation ever passed by our Congress
Hardly.
Your hyperbole makes it impossible to take your argument seriously.
Since the Act passed in the Senate 98-1, you should be whining to your 2 senators, unless you live in Wisconsin (Feingold voted "nay") or Louisiana (Landreau didn't vote).
As far as your representative in the House, check http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml for how they voted. Odds are 7:1 it was "yea."
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 25, 2005 06:29 AM ||Oh Rob, I get it. When you don't have a cogent defense to an argument, you break out with the ad hom attacks, and toss in the , "We ain't got no stinkin' Nazi jack boots and black helicopters" tiraid. Hey, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about, right?
You want to allow the slow degradation of our rights in the name of safety. I don't.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I was looking up some information on different state's laws on gun ownership and registration. I start reading about California (where I live) and I nearly puked. Did you know that if you move to California and bring a personal handgun with you, you have to register that gun within 60 days? You are considered a "gun importer". Holy Fucking Shit.
We have become so used to accepting infringements upon our liberties that we don't even think about it now, at least not for long. Patriot Act. Eminent domain. Private gun ownership. Roadside sobriety checkpoints. States rights.
Keep your head in the sand if that's where you're comfortable. I won't.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 25, 2005 07:09 AM ||You're right, Other Mikey... I have no defense against the rants of a paranoid.
The question then becomes: Are you paranoid enough?
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 25, 2005 07:44 AM ||LOL, well thought out retort.
There is no element of paranoia involved. It's fact. Our rights are being eroded. People like you are OK with that. I'm not.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 25, 2005 09:59 AM ||Now he brings out the strawman:
"He doesn't believe the Patriot Act is the single most devastating piece of legislature in the entire history of mankind, which will destroy all HUMAN & CIVIL RIGHTS as we know them, so he must be in favor of taking ALL of our Constitutional rights away!"
Nice try.
I've NEVER said I was OK with the erosion of our civil rights.
Got that?
I just don't think that the Patriot Act is the Boogeyman you imagine it to be.
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 25, 2005 12:48 PM ||Then again, maybe you were right in the last sentence of your very first comment.
That is, if you think a piece of legislation that has never been used and therefore has never been subjected to judicial review frightens you so much, then you are the biggest whipped pussy of all.
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 25, 2005 01:25 PM ||Hey Rob, cut back on the caffine. What strawman are you talking about? You have said, very plainly, that you are OK with the Patriot Act. I have said it is a horrible piece of legislation.
If you want to be a pussy and take that from our government, that's fine. It's your choice. Just don't try and come off as some staunch defender of our rights. You're not. Not even close.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 25, 2005 03:06 PM ||I said I was OK with the Patriot Act, NOT with our rights being eroded. It is only your opinion that the two are linked, strawman.
So, you fume about the government, complain about the laws in your state making you puke, and still you sit there and TAKE IT but give me shit about it?
Wait! I live in a state, Virginia, in a county, Fairfax, where I can walk down the street with a (licensed) gun strapped to my hip and I don't need a permit to do so. If I apply for a permit, I can carry that weapon concealed.
If you wish to do so, but continue to live in a state that won't allow you to, that must mean that you are perfectly content with "taking it from the government" and are a hypocrite for saying that I do.
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 25, 2005 04:09 PM ||So, you fume about the government, complain about the laws in your state making you puke, and still you sit there and TAKE IT but give me shit about it?
What makes you think I'm "taking it"? I think we've bitched enough on Mikey's site, so if you'd like some specifics of what I have done, and am doing to change things, I'll be happy to reply.
In regards to staying in California, I'm essentially stuck here for the next 5 years. After that, I will most likely be moving to Nevada, for the very reasons sited.
If you've ever seen my blog, you'll see that I've given myself a deadline of 12 more years (started out as 15, 3 years ago) to do what I can to get America at least pointed back in the right direction (obviously, my opinion of the right direction), or I'll probably leave the country.
Otherwise, it's just America in name, not in spirit. And that's not America to me.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 25, 2005 06:21 PM ||