"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Thursday, August 04, 2005

NYCLU WANTS THE JIHADOTERRORISTS TO ATTACK NY SUBWAYS

YUP: the NYCLU is suing the NYPD to make them stop random searches. There can be The ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION is that this Leftist organization wants New Yorkers to suffer a subway attack just like the ones on London.

Why do I make this charge?!

Well, they oppose both PROFILING (so police can logically target searches), and they RANDOM SEARCHES. What option does that leave? Only one: NO SEARCHES. And therefore no deterrence. (UPDATE: this -- "no deterrence" -- actually overstates my case; there can be additional some deterrence without resorting searches: bomb-sniffing dogs (thanks to a commenter for pointing this out). CCTV will NOT deter anything; it just makes apprehending the perp' more likely. London proves this. Nevertheless, I stick by my charge: if the NYCLU were to succeed it would make us less safe. This makes them scum in my book.)

As the wise man once said - and as I have often repeated: "They're not anti-war; they are on the other side!"

UPDATE: A few Leftie commenters have suggested that either the NYPD should search everyone or no one. I think that they prove my point: rather than take a few measured and logical civil-defense measures in a time of war, when the threat is VERY serious, the Left would leave us defenseless but "constitutionally pure." For to search nobody is foolish, and to search everyone IMPOSSIBLE. So you see, it is exactly like I said it was: the NYCLU/ACLU/Left take deliberate actions which make us less safe than we might otherwise be. This aids and abets the enemy. Which is treasonous. Par for the course for the Left: they've been treasonous since the late 1960's. FDR, Truman and JFK - who would certainly be called neocons today - must be rolling in their graves!

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Actually, it leaves two options: Search everyone or search no one.

Anonymous said...

Random searches are retarded, especially when you can deny them. All you'd have to do is deny them the search, then go to a different station or even different part of the same station. Chances are you won't be targeted twice and all they can do is deny you entry for not allowing the search. This searching does NOTHING to assist in keeping NYers safe. To blame the situation on the NYCLU is disingenuous.

Anonymous said...

Yeah! The 4th amendment is for pussies!

Anonymous said...

More on the stupidity of random searches: due to manpower issues, the NYPD can only really focus on a few stations, say, the major ones, Times Square, Penn Station, etc. No would-be-bomber would go through such a checkpoint! They'd just take a subway from uptown, or Queens or the Bronx, and ride until they had a crowded car. ALL THAT RANDOM SEARCHING DOES IS MAKE PEOPLE "FEEL BETTER." Screw that, man: if you just want someone to make you feel better, call your mom. If you want to be safer, tighten controls on bomb-making materials. Duh.

Ok, so, if you *really* like un-Constitutional searches anyway, since NO SEARCHES won't catch anyone, and RANDOM SEARCHES won't catch anyone either (see above, and previous post), then let's SEARCH EVERYONE.

What will that require?

Some 4.5 million people ride the MTA daily, entering via one of the 468 stations. ( http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/facts/ffsubway.htm ) Now, assuming an average of two entrances per station (probably more, but we'll be optimistic and lowball it), and say four policemen to even make an attempt at 1) searching everyone, without 2) taking all day, that's 4 x 2 x 468 = roughly 3700 policemen. Certainly you'd need more, especially at the many busy stations.

There are currently about 39,000 cops in NYC ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/misc/pdfaq2.html#41 ). I don't know about scheduling, but probably 1/3 or 1/4 are on duty at any given time, so 10-15,000. WOULD YOU REALLY WANT 1 IN 4 POLICEMEN ON DUTY DOING SEARCHES OF OLD LADY'S PURSES??? boy, that'd be an effective use of resources.

I suppose we could always just hire a few thousand more cops, but I'm betting you wouldn't want your taxes raised to pay for it....

Look, just use your head, be logical. You simply cannot stop a determined attacker. There are two things to do: 1) stop giving people a reason to attack us, and 2) restrict access to explosive materials and guns.

Anonymous said...

Alternatives include posting of explosive sniffing dogs, greater general police presence, continuously monitored closed circuit TVs, mandatory random searches (rather than voluntary random searches), behavioral profiling searches, mechanical bomb 'sniffers' -- frankly, your clear ignorance of even cursory security tactics makes me quite relieved that you are not in charge of security. It also sounds like you have barely a tourist's knowledge of the subway system, if that. The random searchs are of very dubious value in their current implementation. I would prefer police officers handed out "Just say no to terrorism" buttons rather than delaying my sprint for the 42nd Street Shuttle. It is amusing to notice the trend that folks from major terrorist targets like College Station, TX and Mount Juliet, TN write livid letters to the editor in support of searches in NY. New Yorkers who use the subway and know how absurdly ineffective the searches are, don't really care that much. I let the police do their jobs of course, but my opinion of the politicos driving this waste of time is not very high. I would rather Congress quits inspecting air travelers' socks and put a few cents into reasonable and noninvasive public transit security.

Reliapundit said...

to jhw539;

(1) i have lived in nyc for 25 years. grew up on the island and frequently visited. so i know nyc subways. therefore your "insight" ("It also sounds like you have barely a tourist's knowledge of the subway system, if that.": is just plain WRONG.

(2) I like some of the other security measures you mention - most take much more time to deploy and cost much more MONEY than searches based on a profile (which should include many factors including ethnicity).

But I would l.ike to see ALL of them used: dogs, robots, and cctv.
I thinbk my fellow new yorkers' lives are worth it, and i belive we shoud take all precautions to prevent the ENEMY from winning.

(3)I repeat: I am not from Mt Juliet or Tennessee; (I was IN FACT BORN IN MANHATTAN!); your repeated comments on this tack are nothing more than rank regionalism bordering on bigotry - not surprising coming from a Leftist (after all, Leftists favor racist quotas and race-based "affirmative action. And Howeird Dean makes similar;y ant-Red State comments ALL THE TIME. They are stupid when he makes them,. and stupid when you make them. AND BY THE WAY: I AM A REGOISTERED DEMOCRAT, and have been for thirty years!).

(4) Your desire to roll-back aitrport security speaks volumes, too.

People like you are aiding and abetting the enemy. You give them succor and you hinder our defensive measures.

ALSO: you guys NEVER seem to criticize your France or Britain - who have fewer rights than we do and have more "police state" tactics than we do, too. Even after the Patriot Act, the USA is the most liberated democracy in the world.

If you don't like it, move. I'd rather folks like you were'nt wrond. We'd all be safer!

Anonymous said...

1. If you have knowledge of the subway system, how can you seriously think these sparse random searches are effective? Honestly, at some stations you can just say "No, I don't want to be searched" and walk two blocks to where there are no searches. What is the point? They look fine on TV, but on the ground it's a waste of time.

2. The enemy cannot win, they can only hurt us. Honestly, their record currently is Terrorists: Two buildings, Good Guys: Two countries. What could bring down the US is fanatics on either the left or right cocking up a government system that has worked for over two centuries.

3. You have more years in the city that I then - do you honestly think the random searchs as applied work? I just don't get it. My comments aren't anti-red state, they come from my engineer's background and are in response to people with no knowledge of the actual situation pushing through political solutions that look good on FoxNews but are utterly ineffective.

(4) You ignorance of airport security effectiveness also speaks volumes. It has never worked, it is ineffective now, and is receiving 60 TIMES the homeland security funding of mass transit. I hope I don't spoil the fight by agreeing with you, but more money and real measures certainly are needed.

I'm glad you get a warm fuzzy from putting your shoes through the scanner, but having been involved in airport threat assessment, that's all you're getting.

Criticizing France is a lazy man's game, and I only critique Britain when I have a chance to hit the family over there.

This is where I live, I don't like ineffective knee-jerk responses that do nothing but make the ignorant feel safe, and I'm not going anywhere soon (well, I'm hoping to get a week away in Warsaw, IN sometime this year, but I'll be back to NY soon enough). I hope you don't either.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Reliapundit said...

i will delete anyone who calls me a liar. just did.

Anonymous said...

i will delete anyone who calls me a liar. just did.
Just as a sidenote, I appreciate that you're up for arguing with folks who think you're wrong on some points. Strong opinions don't mean closed minds - on either side.

Reliapundit said...

thanks j - may I call you that? heh - please feel free to make sharp critiques of any of my opinions. you made some good points. mostly. some were weak.

i do favor searches - random and targeted, and unpredictable as far as location. keep the enemy off balance is PART of a good defense.'

just because we cannot ever be 100% safe deosn't mean we shouldn't do anything - even if it measn some minor infringement of our rights/privacy.

as far as my mentioning other nations - i just think lefties need to be reminded that we are far from the least free democracy in the west, and the others seem okay (there are not concentration camps in GB or France) -- so i think the fear of big brither is over-stated, and smaller than the REAL threat from jiohadoterrorism.

and... the aim of the jihadote rrorist is to get us to change our policies. they think that if they make the costs for continuing our polices too great that we will appease them. like chamberlain did hitler.

this view on their part is not unfounded: from reagan to clinto - even to W until 9/11-- the USA did bupkuss, and this ponly encouraged thyem.

this war will last a few generations. we will win.

but it will take SACRIFICE: of blood, treasure, and a few rights will be infringed ion minor ways, too.

the lefties like the aclu/nyclu-types do not care if the enemy wins or if their policies change.

there is TREMENDOUS overlap between the folks who financially support the aclu/nyclu and groups that are anti-American/anti-West/anti-capitalism/anti-free trade.

these folks are closer in spirit to the joihadists than they are to the GOP, hence the BusHitler/AshKKKroift insanities.

I consider the anti-random seach/anti-target5d/profiled search stance of the ACLU to be just as insane.

and it ONLY serves to aid tyhe enemy.

Anonymous said...

Someone who has an opinion that is different than yours is not a traitor, nor do they give aid and comfort to the enemy, nor do they hate this country. Those are things said to stop debate. Cowardly when you think about it. Some people believe very strongly in privacy. Get over, and move to another more oppressive country if you don't like it (to paraphrase another post).

Reliapundit said...

people who differ than me or whose opinions differ from mine are NOT traitors.

people whose actions aid the enmy ARE.

hindering the nation's defense helps the enemy. that's aiding and abetting. that's treason. period.

limiting to scope and foucs of civil defense/NYPD defensive actions during a war -- in ways that make it easier amd more likely for the enemy to succeed -- is treasonous.

and it places ny'ers at greater risk.

by increasing the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack.

which I fell thew ACLU/NYCLU/Left wants - because they want the enemy to win; they want the US to lose in Iraq.

they want a reprise of Vietnam, and they would do to the emrging democracy of Iraq what tyhey did to the emerging democrtacy of South Vietnam.

The michealmoore-type Lefties who have called the terrorists/insurgents

"the moral equivalent of the minutemen"

are TRAITORS who want US casualties to get so bad that we might elect an American Zapotero = a socialist appeaser.

and my calling a spade a spade doesn't end debate (as you claimed) - this is proved by the fact that you commented.

and I responded.

Reliapundit said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Let's get back to the point.

I favor random searches, but I sympathize with those who object to them on constitutional grounds. The constitution and the body of case law are clear: the 4th Ammendment expressly forbids search without cause. I'm willing, however, to let this go given the current circumstances. It's an infringement on my rights, certainly, but a minor and reversible one outweighed by the public benefit. (Such is not the case with the USA Patriot Act, but that's a subject for another time.)

Most 'slippery-slope' arguments about the danger of curtailing civil liberties in wartime are little more than sensationalist overreaction. But overly zealous defense of one's rights and freedoms is an offense hardly so severe as to warrant this degree of opprobrium; and your frantic accusations of traitorous intent are craven and hysterical, hardly evincing a pragmatic concern for safety.

There are many who think it is noble and just to place above all else the ideal of liberty, upon which this nation was founded, to place it even above concern for one's own life. The founding fathers had a name for people like this, they called them patriots.

Reliapundit said...

stavrogin:

nice commment.

i am not frantic about my accusation against the nyclu/aclu.

i was born into a commie family (my aprents were card carrying memebers) and raised in the left by folks who supported the aclu/nyclu and wer against the Viuetnam war and for unilateral disarmament, and against Reagan.

they were wrong. about thew whole shebang.

on top of that, the fact of the matter is that the ACLU was foudned by commies - real card carrying members of real communist party cells - in order to assit the socialist revolution.

it's still true of most of the folks in the nyclu/aclu - i know them PERSONALLY!

andn i will probably do another lengthy post on true communism/true'islam/ and the true left that will prove that the left has been a fofth column for the enemies of both the USA and liberty.

ironic ain't it? the aclu is anti-liberty. why? becaseu it is run by lefties who belive that it's okay to lose personal liberty to a benevolent wealth-redistributing nannystate, but not to lose a little liberty in order to defend the Free World against marxism or islamism.

michael moore, jimmy carter, john kerry, and their fellow travellers are traitors: they have always opposed American military strength and the projection of american power.

they are traitors to america.

as for the "slippery slope" argument, you're right, it's phony. we got real problems now that nbeed addressing NOW; we don;t need to be worrying too much about where this all might lead down the road.

we gotta first make sure we GET down the road.

as the wise man once said: the constitution is NOT a suicide pact.

I hate it when I hear Lefties say: "well, then the terrorists have already won." They usually say it when there is some sort of practical counter-measure we can take to increase our safety from the jihadoterrorists which requires a modicum of libertairian restraint, like: National ID Cards; or profiling; or actually enforcing our laws and guarding our borders. Today on WOLF BLITZER's LATE EDITION on CNN John MIller (LA's terrorism czar) said it with regard to National ID cards; he said (paraphrasing): "... the cop in my likes the idea, but the democrat in me doesn't because, well, then the terrorists have already won. "


I THINK: when the jihadoterrorists kill us -- when they succeed in committing genocide against us and scaring us, and forcing us to change our policies and to appease them and their aims -- that THEN AND ONLY THEN HAVE THEY WON. IOW: when they win, they've WON. Until then, we need to take every counter-measure necessary to make their lives harder and their mission more difficult UNTIL WE HAVE UTTERLY DEFEATED THEM!


Jeff at PROTEIN WISDOM has another critique which utilizes the Leftist rationalization, "well, then the terrorists have already won." It's a sarcastic defence of Jimmy Carter's latest outburst; here it is (hat tip INSTAPUNDIT):
As to whether or not Carter’s comments provide rhetorical cover for the terrorists—of course not! Carter is simply voicing his dissent, and if a former US president can’t openly criticize his government—publicly, overseas, during wartime, and on the basis of a narrative of events that an investigative panel has already concluded simply does not represent the facts on the ground—well, then the terrorists have already won.

Indeed. Heh.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Typical right bait-tactic. Either you agree with your government and those in power or you are a terrorist.
This trash get's old.
I have a feeling when Democrats are in power you will be whistling a different tune.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but I' finding it difficult to formulate a response to your largely undirected rant against all things left of Attila the Hun. You seem to have made little if any effort to address the substantive point of my post, instead focusing on a caveat and filling in the rest from what I can only assume is a transcript of the Sean Hannity radio show that's been accidentally put through the washing machine.

Since you don't seem to dig on polite subtlety, I'll be more blunt: there's a difference between advocating practical safety measures and feverishly declaring that anything less than total capitulation to expediency is treason.

It's true that history does not look favorably upon the appeasers, but nor do future generations lionize the paranoid alarmists, those who cry out for any measure, no matter how onerous, how offensive to justice and dignity, so that they may feel just a little bit more safe and snug in their beds. The terrorists win when terror wins: when irrational fear and paranoid accusation replace calm reason and open discourse, when freedom is discarded as an untenable liability.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but I' finding it difficult to formulate a response to your largely undirected rant against all things left of Attila the Hun. You seem to have made little if any effort to address the substantive point of my post, instead focusing on a caveat and filling in the rest from what I can only assume is a transcript of the Sean Hannity radio show that's been accidentally put through the washing machine.

Since you don't seem to dig on polite subtlety, I'll be more blunt: there's a difference between advocating practical safety measures and feverishly declaring that anything less than total capitulation to expediency is treason.

It's true that history does not look favorably upon the appeasers, but nor do future generations lionize the paranoid alarmists, those who cry out for any measure, no matter how onerous, how offensive to justice and dignity, so that they may feel just a little bit more safe and snug in their beds. The terrorists win when terror wins: when irrational fear and paranoid accusation replace calm reason and open discourse, when freedom is discarded as an untenable liability.

Reliapundit said...

stavrogin;

(1) you wrote:

"all things left of Attila the Hun."

This is ridiculous hyerbole.

(2) you wrote:

"... feverishly declaring that anything less than total capitulation to expediency is treason. "

this is more of the same. i simply say that the nyclu is running interference for our enemy and that thius is treasonous. it is. if they were doing this for nazis in 1942 then you'd agree - i hope...

(3) you also wrote;

"nor do future generations lionize the paranoid alarmists, those who cry out for any measure, no matter how onerous, how offensive to justice and dignity, so that they may feel just a little bit more safe and snug in their beds. The terrorists win when terror wins: when irrational fear and paranoid accusation replace calm reason and open discourse, when freedom is discarded as an untenable liability. "

i am not a paranoid alarmist; the attacks in london proove this.

i do not cry out for "any measure. no matter how onerous..." i think profiling is sensible/rational/logical measured and NOT onerous. most people do.

70% in Britain.

the nyclu and aclu are suing OUR government in order to prevent OUR government from taming reasonable measures for OUR safety.

this is treasonous.

they would like the "inurgents" to win, and wouold like them to teach BusHitler/AshKKoft/Halliburton a lesson - and THEY ARE NUTS. Not me.

google aclu's history andn the personal history of their founder. he was a commie who explicitly dounded the aclu to further marxist takeover of the USA. his words.

yopu sdhould take folks like him and zawahiri at their word. they mean what they say.

as do I. The aclu and nyclu are traitors.

Anonymous said...

The enemy can't win? Two buildings vs two countries? You do know this whole affair is about generating commerce. Moving money from here to there. You want to know who the enemy is? Take a look at who is getting fat on war.

Reliapundit said...

i LOVE the last comment; it proves just how WACKY the Left is! "THIS WHOLE AFFAIR IS ABOUT GENERATING COMMERCE." Sheesh. Or should I say: KOOL-AID!

BusHitlerHALLIBURTONAshKKKroft started the war to make money; deliberately killing 3000 on 9/11, but didn't/couldn't/wouldn't shoot Joe Wilson!? (AS IN: "No;" W said... as he twirled his virtual mustache... "that would be too easy; let's use our jedi mind-control to get two reporteres to call us on other matters and then just confirm the rumors about wilson's wife that everyone already knops! YEAH, that'll realy stop WIlson in his tracks! The publicity will scare him!"

Sheesh. The Left is hallucinating and ranting while in the death throes of cognitive dissonance...

This doesn't say a lot about Salon readers... didn't know they were so Left-wing or so nutty. Pity.

And these NUTS have taken control of the Democrat Party. Pity.

There is still hope; maybe the adults will return one day.

The Raven said...

Stavrogin's comment deserves serious consideration. And the point of this particular blog entry requires a critical examination.

We seem to be more than willing to forward our troops in defense of our country, but what, exactly, are we asking of our citizens in general? If you have a son or daughter in the military, the answer is self-evident. But if you don't, how are you, or I, or anyone else supposed to contribute to the War on Terror?

I'm ready to contribute. One way is by insisting on my civil liberties even in cases when they may add to a marginal increase in my lack of safety. For example, NYC's random bag searches shred our Fourth Amendment protections and cast the suspicion of terrorist activity onto every American citizen. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live like that. CCTV cameras everywhere? ID cards? Screw that. Giving up liberty and privacy for some modicum of unrealized "safety" is odious and unworthy of any American.

Of course, things could change. We actually might experience a subway bombing. In that event, we very well might have to institute some kind of measure to address the threat. But - until those attacks occur, reductions in liberty and removal of Constitutional protections are overbroad and unnecessary.

People like the author of this blog are chomping at the bit to walk all over our rights as citizens in some vague hope of thwarting a terrorist attack. Yet, as we are all extremely aware, there is no defense against terrorism. A wrench, a tube of Krazy Glue, a pack of matches, in the right place at the right time can cause tremendous carnage. What protects us more than anything else is a display of courage and resilience. Not craven acts of paranoia and the implementation of Police-State restrictions. That, more than anything else, makes us look weak.

I'm proud to be an American and I'd rather die living as a free and independent individual than be subject to random searches, endless demands for my ID, non-stop investigations of my reading habits and associative activities. I'm ready to fight for my freedom, and willing to endure danger to live free. It's the height of cowardice to permit our goverment to trample all over us and view all of us as enemies until proven "safe."

Reliapundit said...

raven - thanks for commenting.

i disagree, though with much you wrote.

you wrote:

"One way is by insisting on my civil liberties even in cases when they may add to a marginal increase in my lack of safety. "

the problem is this is NOT just about your safety, but OURS.

you wrote:

"... than be subject to random searches, endless demands for my ID, non-stop investigations of my reading habits and associative activities..."

this is pure paranoia; nothing now being done is remotely close to the nmightmare you describe,. it's a straw-man argument.

the threat is real.

we need to take precautionary measures. some may diminishn our liberty a bit. we should only do so with great care.

but bush has so far advicated FAR LESS EXTREME measures than those done by washington, adams, lincoln and fdr - all of whom restricted freedoms more than bush in dire circumstances.

we must be vigilant ijn protecting puir liberty, but we muist be cognizant of the FACT that we arer at war, and war demands that we sacrifice - A YOU POINTED OUT SO WELL.

so far we amreiocans have not given up any major liberty. the library thing is a stupid canard.

in my opinion.

anyhow... please drop by again, and comment.