all this monitoring talk, now NYPD to search bags on subways

Carnivore wrote: [quote=dailyheights]somebody needs to make a button out of that :idea: symbol. cafepress, anybody?

I want royalties for recognizing the true meaning and glory of that emoticon!

and then theres...

http://images.google.com/images?q=goatse icon&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&sa=N&tab=wi


:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Matt wrote: You still haven't shown where the Patriot Act has been used for "things that have nothing to do with terrorism".

well, the act grants the government broad powers to use wiretaps, electronic and computer eavesdropping and searches, and the authority to access a wide range of financial and other information in its investigations.... and they can do that to you or me without proving just cause...

...and as far as i know, you and i arent terrorists, so... do the math i suppose its not a tremendous concern if you trust our government to "do the right thing", yet unfortunately, theyve proved time and time again that theyre not always 100% at "doing the right thing".

critics of the act have claimed since its inception that it denies U.S. residents civil liberties. i gotta agree. it creeps me out a bit, to be honest.

a perfect example is the dude from jersey that got slammed for shining a laser pointer on a plane. im pretty sure he wasnt a terrorist, but he still was charged/convicted for something that no one would have thought twice about or cared much about before 2001.

rhodamine wrote: i think its the concept... today they search your bag, tomorrow, its BRAIN IMPLANTS FOR ALL so they can search your THOUGHTS! :shock:

conspiracy! conspiracy!!!!

:idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:

If and when it gets to that point, I'll be protesting vehemently with the rest of you. Just want to take it as it comes, not project the worst.

a perfect example is the dude from jersey that got slammed for shining a laser pointer on a plane. im pretty sure he wasnt a terrorist, but he still was charged/convicted for something that no one would have thought twice about or cared much about before 2001.

Maybe it got more attention post-9/11 sure, but its still a pretty dangerous thing to do. If I remember correctly, when you buy those things, they pretty much tell you that it can blind people. So I have little sympathy for a guy shining a device that can blind someone, at a planeload of people.

Matt wrote: Its On!

Just about every item in the patriot act was on Ashcroft's wishlist long before 9/11,

This may be true, but terrorism was a problem long before 9/11 too. What makes you think that Ashcroft (and the other neo-cons) didn't want to make the changes in the Patriot Act to prevent terrorist attacks, both pre- and post-9/11? You still haven't shown where the Patriot Act has been used for "things that have nothing to do with terrorism".

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 6, 2001, the Attorney General stated, in his prepared remarks,

“To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.”

This ominous statement (from the perspective of free speech) has been followed up by numerous instances of FBI investigations of domestic groups having nothing to do with terrorism simply for their criticism of the current administration. Does this rise to the level of "police state"? Probably not, but we haven't seen the likes of this type of "dirty trickery" in over 30 years.
There are reports of federal agents investigating:
1) an art museum that exhibited materials on American covert operations and government secrets
2) a student who displayed a poster critical of President Bush’s position on the death penalty
3)a San Francisco weightlifter who publicly criticized the
Administration
[Source:Axtman, “Political Dissent Can Bring Federal Agents to Door,” Christian Science Monitor, January 8, 2002.]
This is particularly chilling in light of the patriot act provision which allows the government to classify a domestic group as "terrorist" pretty much just by declaring it so.

The current administration is promoting "democracy" abroad while undermining it at home. They have shown themselves to be unworthy of our trust to not abuse their new authority. Remember the old maxim "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Considering the baseline from which these guys are starting, they should not be given any leeway for further corruption.

stacey wrote: In NYC it was ok for police to videotape you at any type of politcal rally and keep the tape and any other information they had about you on a "list". A group of lawyers (one that I work for) worked hard on what is now called the Handschu Act. Pre 9/11 the Act said that the police were not allowed to do this. After 9/11 the Judge ruled that it is okay. I have no problem with police being at rallys but to keep a list and/or photos and videos of peaceful demonstrators, who are not committing a crime is just wrong.

Believe me I used to be one of those flag-waving Take This Country or Leave it Type but quite a few things I have found out these past couple of years really has changed my view.

well said.

i tend to think that people who think they make an effort to live squeeky clean lives might feel like they have less to worry about or nothing to lose...

i myself sometimes prefer to walk the murky line between legalities... not that im committing any crimes, but i must admit to doing suspicious things, sometimes for the sake of boredom, art, expression, etc. even just to cross the street by jaywalking... you know?

id prefer to not have a criminal record because i rode in a critical mass or two on my bike (and didnt break any laws), or to be accused of "graffitt'ting" by two cops simply cause i have a sharpie in my pocket...

what i carry in my pockets/bags or do on my own time is my own business. if you catch me in the act, coincidentally, then ill fess up respectfully and pay my pennance.

but damned if im going to let the powers that be install the means to govern me by fear (that they might be watching somewhere, somehow, waiting for me to fuck up so they can swoop in), because frankly, i dont agree with every last nuance of what our government consdiers "law and order", terrorism notwithstanding, and sometimes i break those rules... as im sure many modern americans do.

im realy not trying to argue, just thought it might be nice to inject a little personal perspective into this 8)

Subject: Re: Politics of Fear

Eric wrote: Well, what's interesting is those who denounce the Bush administration for using the politics of fear while at the same time using politics of fear to oppose administration policy. Fear obviously sells in this day and age of special interest groups. I just think after a while it tends to dull the debate and make people disinterested.

I think for the most part people care most about how the policy will be implemented. How invasive will it feel? is probably a more operative word than How invasive is it? Will it appear intimidating or administrative?

It's not just about fear, it's about reality. I gave some very specific examples above of how the policy is already being misused. However, after you and Matt asked me for proof and specific examples, you ignored those examples and didn't address them in your response.

Regardless, "enemy combatant" status and Jose Padilla's time without charges or an attorney are far far far far far worse than somebody checking your bag. Yet we don't hear so much about this.

I agree 100% with that.

on a related note-if anyone is interested Haynes Johnson, author of The Age of Anxiety is scheduled to speak at the CUNY Graduate Center Oct 11.

Subject: Re: Politics of Fear

Carnivore wrote: [quote=Eric]Well, what's interesting is those who denounce the Bush administration for using the politics of fear while at the same time using politics of fear to oppose administration policy. Fear obviously sells in this day and age of special interest groups. I just think after a while it tends to dull the debate and make people disinterested.

I think for the most part people care most about how the policy will be implemented. How invasive will it feel? is probably a more operative word than How invasive is it? Will it appear intimidating or administrative?

It's not just about fear, it's about reality. I gave some very specific examples above of how the policy is already being misused. However, after you and Matt asked me for proof and specific examples, you ignored those examples and didn't address them in your response.

I didn't ask you for proof and/or specific examples. I wasn't even necessarily addressing you. That's why I didn't address them in a response.

As an aside, let's be honest, your examples were hardly "specific", it's not as though they had detailed factual and legal analysis. (Not as though I'm expecting that either, but on the same hand it's unfair to expect me (or Matt) to do the detailed factual and legal analysis to reject your examples...so let's agree to be somewhat on the surface here, eh?) The actions of the government may have indeed been reasonable or the word "investigate" may be a bit heavy-handed. I don't know.

My point is that to a large segment of people your numerous examples are mere isolated incidents. It's a system created by humans operated by humans. There will be incidents...whether or not statistically you can extrapolate to the entire system is a different story. I suppose if you're looking at this in absolute philosophical terms you might say that one incident is too many...but the general citizenry probably will not agree (or at a minimum be motivated enough to join in your outrage).

I am aware that the Patriot Act is being used in areas beyond terrorism. I think it's up for debate whether or not it was intended for those purposes or whether law enforcement or anybody in general will take the opportunity to interpret law in a favorable way that enables them to take action. My guess is probably a bit of both, but probably more the latter than the former.

My comments were more related to the reality of the probable implicit ratification of these new tactics and the likelihood they would be rejected by the general public.

Isa wrote: Never mind how it will "feel" but will it be effective? Can't a terrorist walk to the next station and get on? Or strap the bomb on to their body? Or otherwise conceal the explosives? Won't there be racial profiling regardless of what they say? And who is footing the bill for this?

Thanks Isa. These are my issues as well. I don't see how "random" bag checks are going to catch anyone who wants to do something of significance. Surely they'd be clever enough to get around that. I thinkthe searches are a bit of a show to make people feel safer. I'm not even sure that those who have chosen to implement them are actually hot to get into our bags and find the dime bag we forgot about from 3 months ago. I think they're more motivated by public perception.

I'm not against forgoing a bit of my liberties in the name of increased safety (I believe in seatbelt laws, etc.) but not for something ineffective.

I don't see how the bag searches could possibly be random unless the just pick every 5th person or something.

I'm all for the bomb-sniffing dogs though. Lets get more of them on the MTA.

Can anyone else suggest some safety impreovements that they think would work?

Isa wrote: Won't there be racial profiling regardless of what they say?

I am all for a some level of racial profiling in this case.

Matt wrote: I see a lot of political dissent on this board, has the FBI come knocking on your door?

Not yet, but with the spyware DH has installed on all of our hard drives, it won't be long now...

Also, if the FBI hadn't talked to these people, and one of them turned out to be a threat, everyone would be all over the FBI that they had been warned and yet did nothing.

Agreed. But the point is that the FBI now has the power to do very invasive investigations of citizens without probable cause and with little oversight. The potential for abuse is almost limitless.

Finally Carnivore, I wasn't ignoring you. Just needed to do some work today.

Fair enough. We've all got to pay the bills. I was actually referring to Eric's argument above.

Matt wrote:

Not yet, but with the spyware DH has installed on all of our hard drives, it won't be long now...

Well I heard they have the tin hats at red lipstick that keep the government from being able to spy on your internet habits.

They're on back-order. But as soon as they're back in stock, I'm getting 3 (you can't be too careful).

Isa wrote: [quote=Alex][quote=Isa] Won't there be racial profiling regardless of what they say?

I am all for a some level of racial profiling in this case.
Fair enough but I bet that most people who wear a turban or have dark skin are sick of it. Of course I don't know you so maybe you do wear a turban which is why I said "most". But how much of our freedom are we supposed to surrender in the name of supposed safety methods? It seems to be more of a gratuitous measure than anything else. Is this not a violation of our 4th ammendment rights?
"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."
It's technically not because you're allowed to refuse the search. By consenting to the search, you're waiving your 4th Ammendment rights.

nypd says you have the right to refuse but you will not be allowed to ride the train (at that stop)...so that will just delay the bomber until he/she walks to the next stop, 5 blocks away. oh and they have listed some of the stations...genius!