New York Post

 

Some New Yorkers praised random bag checks as a necessary evil, while others denounced the move as an ominous invasion of privacy ? but straphangers submitted to the searches without protest at subway stations yesterday.

 

"I think it's a good idea," said Mark Spaulding, 26, whose bag was inspected as he entered the subway at Union Square station. "We're not used to this as U.S. citizens, but it's our reality now."

 

At Union Square, Rockefeller Center and the Staten Island Ferry terminals, teams of cops began searching backpacks and other large bags yesterday, just hours after Mayor Bloomberg announced the new security checks, which police had said would start in earnest today.

 

"Cool! Let them search," said Johnny Eggz, 31, of Staten Island. "We're at war. What are you going to do ? cry about being searched or cry about being blown up?"

 

Another regular rider, Harvey Mark, 50, said, "It's a good sign. It makes everyone safer now that the police are out. But I would have started this after 9/11."

 

New Yorkers will be the first rail riders in the country to undergo constant random bag checks. Bostonians submitted to temporary checks during the Democratic National Convention last year, and authorities still patrol subway platforms with bomb-sniffing dogs.

 

Washington, D.C., recently proposed a random inspection plan for its subways, but that idea is on ice while officials there observe the Big Apple's efforts.

 

Plenty of New York straphangers worried about the plan yesterday, saying it would have a chilling effect on civil rights, and could lead to racial profiling.

 

"Random searches by cops can get out of control because it's up to their discretion," said Dayqwan Graham, 33, of The Bronx. "If they have valid reasons, I'm all for it, but if it's out of a cop's curiosity, I'm against it."

 

Dawn Ammons, 45, of Brooklyn fretted that "searches might prevent certain situations, but it's a hassle. Something like this could lead to instant racial profiling of Arabs and even blacks."

 

The plan is plain unnecessary, said Jeb Boniakowski, 25.

 

"I don't feel safer," he said. "I have more of a chance of being hit by a car than being blown up in the subway."

 

Then there were those who reluctantly, even sadly, accepted the idea.

 

"It takes away personal liberty, but under these circumstances the police aren't left with much of a choice," said John Klados, 50. "I can't think of another alternative."

 

Artist Karen Schwenkmeyer, 70, said, "Even though there's a lot of paranoia in the city, the searches make me feel safer ? but I hope they could think of something better to keep us safe."

 

One New Yorker found a fashionable way to voice his concerns. Tony Lu has designed T-shirts bearing the phrase, "I do not consent to being searched."

I have no problem whatsoever with getting searched.

Random searchs are the most annoying thing in the world, and a huge invasion of privacy. If there was someone with a bomb, the chances of them being the one selected to be randomly search aren't favorable.

I think that at least for awhile, random searches are warranted.

 

I can't imagine the costs of installing metal detectors or screeners in every subway and train station in the entire country.

 

Unfortunately, if British intelligence can fail to stop two terrorist attacks in the same place in a span of two weeks, I doubt our guys can do much better. MI5 and MI6 are known to be the best intelligence services worldwide.

 

For those that aren't familiar with the intelligence community, MI5 is Britain's domestic intelligence branch, and MI6 is the better-known foreign intelligence department.

I can't imagine the costs of installing metal detectors or screeners in every subway and train station in the entire country.

869890[/snapback]

Metal detectors and screeners can be used to check every person. How many will random searches check? Probably only about 1 in 25 at the most.

I can't imagine the costs of installing metal detectors or screeners in every subway and train station in the entire country.

869890[/snapback]

Metal detectors and screeners can be used to check every person. How many will random searches check? Probably only about 1 in 25 at the most.

869891[/snapback]

Of course they can be used, but the costs would be enormous. We can't afford it right now. Plus, it would take years to implement completely.

According to the police chief, it'll be about 1 in 10 but there is no set interval.

i have no problem with being searched either, it's just unfortunate b/c this is part of what the terrorist want, to make us scared and change our way of life, our liberties

 

this may ruffle some feathers but i think that all middle eastern people should be checked. When the enemy (i'm not saying the enemy is all middle easterners or Islamics, i realize it's only the radical fundementalist) is a defined group of people that can be easily identifyed, i think it is warranted to check someone who fits the profile of possibly being an enemy. If they have a bomb in their bag they are indeed the enemy, if they dont, then they are a friendly american citizen.

 

i know a lot of you wont like this and will yell at me, but it is a perfectly logical and acceptable way to protect the country

Some writers have advocated racially-profiling searches in the past, but I think that's a bad idea. Not all terrorism is caused by people who look Middle-Eastern. We don't want to let the next Unibomber or Oklahoma City Bomber get away with crimes, while we force a type of racism on Middle-Eastern looking citizens.

Some writers have advocated racially-profiling searches in the past, but I think that's a bad idea. Not all terrorism is caused by people who look Middle-Eastern. We don't want to let the next Unibomber or Oklahoma City Bomber get away with crimes, while we force a type of racism on Middle-Eastern looking citizens.

869925[/snapback]

It's not so much about it not all being caused by Middle Easterner, as it about Middle Eastern terrorists catching on and using some insane white person to do their dirty work.

I can't imagine the costs of installing metal detectors or screeners in every subway and train station in the entire country.

869890[/snapback]

Metal detectors and screeners can be used to check every person. How many will random searches check? Probably only about 1 in 25 at the most.

869891[/snapback]

Of course they can be used, but the costs would be enormous. We can't afford it right now. Plus, it would take years to implement completely.

869894[/snapback]

 

I heard somewhere the government will be spending a billion dollars a year for the next few years on this issue.

 

Like you said it's extremely expensive.

I can't imagine the costs of installing metal detectors or screeners in every subway and train station in the entire country.

869890[/snapback]

Metal detectors and screeners can be used to check every person. How many will random searches check? Probably only about 1 in 25 at the most.

869891[/snapback]

Every Arab or Arab-looking person for about 5 years.

Some writers have advocated racially-profiling searches in the past, but I think that's a bad idea. Not all terrorism is caused by people who look Middle-Eastern. We don't want to let the next Unibomber or Oklahoma City Bomber get away with crimes, while we force a type of racism on Middle-Eastern looking citizens.

869925[/snapback]

i don't think anyone has advocated pure racially-profiled searches. that's retarded for precisely the reason you outlined.

 

i'd imagine these searches will pick up the vast majority of "brown" people and some random percentage of non-brown folk. that's the smartest way to do it, imo.

I can't imagine the costs of installing metal detectors or screeners in every subway and train station in the entire country.

869890[/snapback]

Metal detectors and screeners can be used to check every person. How many will random searches check? Probably only about 1 in 25 at the most.

869891[/snapback]

Every Arab or Arab-looking person for about 5 years.

869984[/snapback]

 

And when they say, "why are you only doing this to my people?" We should have a big wall with all the 911 highjackers photos on it and tell him, "LOOK OVER THERE!" And he'll say, "Oh, nevermind I see."

Some writers have advocated racially-profiling searches in the past, but I think that's a bad idea. Not all terrorism is caused by people who look Middle-Eastern. We don't want to let the next Unibomber or Oklahoma City Bomber get away with crimes, while we force a type of racism on Middle-Eastern looking citizens.

869925[/snapback]

i don't think anyone has advocated pure racially-profiled searches. that's retarded for precisely the reason you outlined.

 

i'd imagine these searches will pick up the vast majority of "brown" people and some random percentage of non-brown folk. that's the smartest way to do it, imo.

870025[/snapback]

I have seen at least one book written about using racial profiling in order to "Win the War on Terror".

I can't imagine the costs of installing metal detectors or screeners in every subway and train station in the entire country.

869890[/snapback]

Metal detectors and screeners can be used to check every person. How many will random searches check? Probably only about 1 in 25 at the most.

869891[/snapback]

Every Arab or Arab-looking person for about 5 years.

869984[/snapback]

 

And when they say, "why are you only doing this to my people?" We should have a big wall with all the 911 highjackers photos on it and tell him, "LOOK OVER THERE!" And he'll say, "Oh, nevermind I see."

870046[/snapback]

Youre an idiot.

Some writers have advocated racially-profiling searches in the past, but I think that's a bad idea. Not all terrorism is caused by people who look Middle-Eastern. We don't want to let the next Unibomber or Oklahoma City Bomber get away with crimes, while we force a type of racism on Middle-Eastern looking citizens.

869925[/snapback]

It's not so much about it not all being caused by Middle Easterner, as it about Middle Eastern terrorists catching on and using some insane white person to do their dirty work.

869960[/snapback]

Bingo. Its utterly foolish to adverstise the weakness in searches. Theyve had women, asians, blacks and others do their work for them in the past. Tell them what youll do, and theyll find a way around it.

 

IMO, the best approach is to have bomb sniffing dogs at as many entry points as possible. These arent small bombs. Im taking the DC subway every morning this summer and it would be utterly impossible to do searches and find people. Even if you wanted to do Arab people, there are just WAY WAY too many brown people who take the system everyday. Throw in black people too. But a bomb sniffing dog can be very effective since these guys are using high tech bombs, not low tech ones. And bomb sniffers can usually find em.

I can't imagine the costs of installing metal detectors or screeners in every subway and train station in the entire country.

869890[/snapback]

Metal detectors and screeners can be used to check every person. How many will random searches check? Probably only about 1 in 25 at the most.

869891[/snapback]

Every Arab or Arab-looking person for about 5 years.

869984[/snapback]

 

And when they say, "why are you only doing this to my people?" We should have a big wall with all the 911 highjackers photos on it and tell him, "LOOK OVER THERE!" And he'll say, "Oh, nevermind I see."

870046[/snapback]

True, but I'm sure plenty of Indians, mulattos, Hispanics, etc. will be thrown in the mix as well. It's an annoyance. Having everyone go through medal detectors would be so much easier and equitable.

Some writers have advocated racially-profiling searches in the past, but I think that's a bad idea. Not all terrorism is caused by people who look Middle-Eastern. We don't want to let the next Unibomber or Oklahoma City Bomber get away with crimes, while we force a type of racism on Middle-Eastern looking citizens.

869925[/snapback]

i don't think anyone has advocated pure racially-profiled searches. that's retarded for precisely the reason you outlined.

 

i'd imagine these searches will pick up the vast majority of "brown" people and some random percentage of non-brown folk. that's the smartest way to do it, imo.

870025[/snapback]

 

exactly

Random searchs are the most annoying thing in the world, and a huge invasion of privacy. If there was someone with a bomb, the chances of them being the one selected to be randomly search aren't favorable.

869889[/snapback]

It's not about catching the one with the bomb, searches are used as a deterrent to minimize the chance of people trying to carry in the bomb... and if they happen to catch someone in the process, then neato.

I'm 100% against this.

 

The police or whomever it may be has no business looking through my s*** unless I behave incredibly suspicious. There are other ways to go about this without violating innocent people's privacy, like using bomb sniffing dogs.

i have no problem with being searched either, it's just unfortunate b/c this is part of what the terrorist want, to make us scared and change our way of life, our liberties

 

this may ruffle some feathers but i think that all middle eastern people should be checked. When the enemy (i'm not saying the enemy is all middle easterners or Islamics, i realize it's only the radical fundementalist) is a defined group of people that can be easily identifyed, i think it is warranted to check someone who fits the profile of possibly being an enemy. If they have a bomb in their bag they are indeed the enemy, if they dont, then they are a friendly american citizen.

 

i know a lot of you wont like this and will yell at me, but it is a perfectly logical and acceptable way to protect the country

869911[/snapback]

Though logical, it would be an act of racism. But what I do is try to put myself in their shoes. If I were to go to a country full of purple people and they have a problem with white terrorists running around blowing things up, I wouldn't be surprised or offended if I get searched. I'd think to myself how unfortunate it is that SOME people from my race feel it is necessary to blow up purple people and how they aren't considering how it will affect others of my race. Being searched isn't too bad unless they start checking our genitals and some airports do that. I think that is definitely going way too far. I don't mind unzipping a bag for security purposes, but when they start making you take off your clothes, that is weird.

 

Also, this may seem weird, but I don't think that airport searches in the US are truly random. I remember while I was standing in line for my ticket, someone was staring at me and then they radioed someone. I feel like they look for people who look suspicious or something. If you look around the airport before the entrance to the terminals, you will notice people just standing around and staring at people. They don't seem like people waiting for their family either. They just have a serious look to them that makes me think they are the "secret shopper" kind of security.