The ultimate goal of this policy is to disrupt terrorists operations. The terrorists have to careful plan and time their operations to acheive maximum effectiveness. If the terrorists do not know where the police will be checking bags, at which stations on which days, they cannot plan their operations.

They will be more likely to opt for an easier, less trafficked and populous target.

We already know from intelligence intercepts that random searches of vehicles and increased security disrupted potential operations on bridges and/ or tunnels.

The NYPD are applying similair logic to the subway system.

You can't be perfect, but this will likely prove to be just enough of a hassle as to disrupt terrorists plans.

"There's no way I'm letting anyone search my bag when I get on the subway"

Then you don't get on the subway. Kinda simple, really. There's always the bus, I suppose.

Agreed. I'm no raging libertarian, and I think we need to be serious about the threat, but this just smacks of desperation, a last-minute example of "doing something to look like we know what we're doing."

However, I expect that even if this goes away soon, something else will come along and replace this. I just hope it's more thought out.

I will say that CCTV in NYC & D.C. looks like it's going to be a no-brainer. We're all going to have to get used to being on camera 24/7.

Just think of it as a big reality show, only without Joe Rogan, or bug-eating. Well, okay, without Joe Rogan.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Don't ask me to find the studies, but I doubt they would employ random searches unless there is something to back up their effectiveness. It may not be a perfect solution, but it may not be a useless one either.

Admit it, Karol, you're holding out for strip searches. :p

I'd like to hear some info on this guy they shot this morning.

The guy who was shot was apparently wearing a winter coat in summer and witnesses say wires were sticking out of it.

I agree with the uselessness of the bag searches. Unfortunately many of us don't have the option of refusing a bag search. I'm not about to walk an extra 10 blocks to catch the train at another stop, just so I can get to work on time and hassle free. I guesss I'll have to start carrying my drugs in my pockets from now on.

Yeah, this is totally window dressing, but unfortunately for the wizards who came up with this, it just manages to piss EVERYONE off.

I'm all for race-BASED profiling, as long as it's not the SOLE criterion. I mean, there's no need to stop a seven-year-old Arab girl, or bother the 70-year-old imam who lives around the corner from me. But, I mean, can we PLEASE give an extra look to that sliver of the population that is "young, Middle-Eastern, and male?"

Or will that just be age profiling and sex profiling as well? Whatever. The NYPD doesn't need to be wasting its time looking through the hard candies in the yentas' handbags. They're just tryin' to get to Zabars. Let 'em go.

There's always the bus, I suppose.

Exactly. It's not like suicide bombers have a preference for subway riders. They want to kill bus riders just the same. And if we start checking bags on busses, you can be sure they'll start blowing up supermarkets.

It's not that I'm a libertarian, it's that this plan is ridiculous and won't actually accomplish anything. It's a feel good cover, people will feel safer when some bags are checked. But it won't actually make us safer.

i couldn't agree with you more karol. i've officially started riding my vespa to work rather than be searched.

i figure that blowing up the bridges i ride across will only come after the supermarket plot gets foiled...

True enough, the city is doing something just to be doing something. The chances of this preventing a suicide attack are preposterously small.

The bus bit was a joke. They're doing the same on buses.

You have no constitutional right to mass transit. To ride it, you follow the rules of the transportation system. Such as, you pay a fare, or the police arrest you for hopping the turnstyle. This is just another rule. I don't like it, I buy a bicycle, save money, and get exercise.

I dunno. My bags are searched so often in so many places I really don't notice it anymore.

We now have a new rule for taking mass transit. Submit to a peek into your bag, or you don't ride.

If the NYPD implements a peek policy for people walking the street, I'll back up your outrage then. For now, though, I'm cool with this. Until all the complainers come up with a better idea for disrupting potential bomb plots on mass transit.

Random searches have been used by law enforcement forever. I do believe they have a certain level of effectiveness. I would also combine it with probable cause searches with profiling as a factor to be considered.

You say they will just move on to another target, but not all targets are equal. Blow up mass transit screws things up. Blow up a market, I will go to the 7-11. Blowing up a bridge takes engineers, massive explosives, possibly divers, boats, etc. It ain't gonna happen.

Sean, I'm not looking at this from the point of view of constitutionality. I know it's constitutional. I just think it's dumb.

Right, LL, but in this case your target can stay the same, just a few blocks over.

These terrorist do not want to get caught. They do not want to fail in their mission. Unlike other types of terrorist the Islamo-Jihadist has actual spiritual fear of failure. They will not get tier 72 virgins and paradise if they fail their mission and get captured. Because of this they are extremely cautious and can get spooked out of their mission by the presense of police and searches.

"I just think it's dumb."
Indeed, a profound analysis.
"There's no way I'm letting anyone search my bag when I get on the subway."
You are probably the biggest walking contradiction I've ever encountered. Just as I suspected, it's okay for other people to lose their rights in this "war on terrorism," but when it comes down to YOU actually having to give up something, you aren't willing to cooperate. You don't make any fucking sense. Instead of knocking the idea, why don't you provide some solutions! Hypocrite!

Karol: "There's no way I'm letting anyone search my bag when I get on the subway. It's a fundamental right to be able to walk around your city without being stopped and inspected"

Karol, a few minutes later: "I'm not looking at this from the point of view of constitutionality."

Let's not split hairs, but you claimed that the searches were violating some "fundamental right", phrasing that a normal person would associate with constitutionality or legality.

No one is saying the system is perfect. However, the NYPD has kept this city attack free for almost four years now. A feat that would have earned Mega-Millions type odds had someone floated the idea on September 12th, 2001. Give the boys in blue the benefit of the doubt that they've earned with their successful prosecution of the WoT here in NYC. These proven professionals have looked at the real and immediate threats we face, and have come up with the best solutions they can.

Again, please offer a suggestion as to how the NYPD can implement a better solution if this one is so terrible. In light of constructive criticism, complaints have a very whiny tinge to them.

PS - I believe that, while there is an "offical" no profiling policy, the officers, suffering in the 100+ degree subway stations, are keeping their objective eyes open for "real" trouble.

What do you have to hide, Karol?! !?!>....

in a seriousness, some rights must be given up to preserve freedom.

This shouldn't be one of them, because i'm willing to bet a terrorist doesn't care if he gets caught and secondly recognizes that his chances of being nabbed are slimmed to none, if this is conducted in the way i understand it.

All it's going to do is freak people out.

And PS - I'm still waiting for a group of young, urban middle-eastern of males to step up and speak strongly against terrorism, and make a statement about racial profiling or something.

Pro: Terrorist gets searched or gets freaked out by seeing people searched.

Con: Possible new crowded area to detonate -- the line of people getting searched.

People, I suggest you commute like I do. Bicycle and water taxi. The only way to travel!

I don't have anything to hide. I just am usually running late and I would rather say no to a search and walk a few blocks to another station toward my destination.

Again, please offer a suggestion as to how the NYPD can implement a better solution if this one is so terrible. In light of constructive criticism, complaints have a very whiny tinge to them.

For one thing, they should be profiling. It shouldn't be JUST racial, but that should certainly be a factor. They should take into account behavior, look of the person etc. The first time a redheaded chick flies planes into buildings I will be 100% on board with being profiled. But stopping me, just so the Arab dude in front of me doesn't feel bad is ridiculous.

Another solution is to increase the number of bomb sniffing dogs. Again, most suicide bombers don't carry their bombs in a bag. They have it on their body. So, a dog will be able to detect what a bag search can not.

It just seems like a wild waste of time and resources. When I wrote that it wasn't about the constitutionality, I meant that wasn't the central focus of my argument. I don't want band-aid solutions, that was one of my main reasons for supporting the war in Iraq which I feel addresses 'root causes'.

Paul, you're right that a police presence may ward off attacks. Searching random bags, though, is neither here nor there.

As per what Sean said, random searches have a very small (probably miniscule) deterrent effect. It's much the same as the random lottery searches of bags at customs that a lot of countries use. The tiny chance of getting searched will have a very slight deterrent effect and will also make attacks slightly more logistically difficult to pull off. Your saying that they can just go the next station doesn't prove anything other than the fact that policy isn't perfect, which we already knew. It will have a small but non-zero effect.

I have an idea! Let's have Karol as the sniffing bitch to patrol the subways. I'm sure she would pick out just the right people!

"The first time a redheaded chick flies planes into buildings I will be 100% on board with being profiled. But stopping me, just so the Arab dude in front of me doesn't feel bad is ridiculous."
Boy, Timothy McVeigh sure looked like an Arab to me! The Nazis also looked like Arabs to me! Karol, I wish you could step outside of yourself in order to see how biased you are about this issue. Terror is terror. Period. You might want to start by looking up the word in dictionary. All humans are capable of atrocious acts.

If you have one terrorist going onto one train, the current NYPD policy would be useless. There is no way to stop a single suicide bomber getting on the subway. That is not, however, the NYPD's intent. Why you folks state that as a failing of this policy is unclear. This policy doesn't stop airline highjackers either, but then again, that's not it's intent.

Al Qaeda's signature is fast becoming co-ordinated attacks in various locations at the same time. This requires a great deal of planning and co-ordination. Having cops at random subway stops every day, and at random times, will screw up such planning to the point it is not worth pursuing.

So, co-odrinated attacks of densely trafficked areas in the mass transit system is less likely to be an option than it was before this procedure was implemented.

No one's saying a co-ordinated bombing attack against the mass transit system can't be accomplished. No one is saying the NYPD's solution is perfect. It will, however, greatly complicate and drecrease the likelihood of it happening. That's all we can hope for until better ideas (other than "more racial profiling") surface.

BetteratFL350,
Hey, here's an idea. While everyone else here attempts to have a reasonable debate, you can go somewhere and grow the fuck up rather than coming in here, calling people names in the futile hope of luring readers to your own blog. I'm sure you think your deep reading of a few magazine articles and some green party Web sites gives you profound insights that none of us here, left or right, have heard before, but really, you're just sounding like a college freshman who's taken a multi-culti course and is trying to upset mummy and daddy.
So how about you go somewhere, fill up that vast empty space between your ears (you claim to know what a dictionary is... that's a good start), then come back and try to have an adult discussion.

And Karol,
Hate to say it, but it does seem like you're whining more about inconvenience than anything. Will it work? I don't know. But it's better than nothing. And I'm with Sean on the "right to walk around" thing. Walk around all you want, but you do have to play by MTA rules to board their trains.
Agree with you, obviously, on the profiling thing.

"Until all the complainers come up with a better idea for disrupting potential bomb plots on mass transit."

A better idea is very, very easy:

1) Limit it to anti-terror searches. If they find a joint in the bag look the other way. If this is a an all encompassing police tool to harrass little old jewish ladies about whether the content on their iPod violates copyright law, then it goes too far. As much of a civil libertarian as I am, I would consent to a reasonable request for a bag search as long as it is specifically to stop or disrupt bombings and other terror attempts.

2) None of this random bullshit. Police discretion sure. But it should be based on what is actually likely to disrupt terrorist attempts, not on harrassing everyone to an absurd degree.

3) It is a stop gap measure. What we really need are more security funding, an increase in the size of the NYPD, the presense of bomb sniffing dogs on the transit system, and less restrained uprooting of the networks that are providing logistical, tactical, financial, and ideological support for these attacks. This is a case where more money actually will make a difference.

4) The ultimate terror disruption method is simple. The instant there are attacks again in NYC or DC or wherever, we consider it an act of war by those nations that are most responsible for the growth of terror worldwide and have done the least to uproot it. We stop forgetting that we are stronger than our enemies and we show them again what the consequence is for fucking with us. But this time without us tying our own hands behind our backs while bitching and apologizing amongst ourselves.

As for playing by the MTA rules, do you forget that the MTA belongs to us? The State belongs to us? The taxpayers OWN the MTA. It isn't a priviledge we are being offered to ride the mass transit in our own city, any more than it is a priviledge to have the police abide by constitutional limits. Yes, far left lunatic reactionaries take it all too far... and only when it suits their interests. But what happened to all the Republicans and Conservatives who stand up against an overreach of State power? You have to be willfully blind to see only two choices here.
It doesn't have to be either we have searches where anything the police find makes the person subject to arrest vs. police are so restricted that a bomber can walk up to an officer, hand them a treatise on the "crimes of America", and then traipse over to a bus and blow it up unbothered.

There is a very clear, very simple way of implementing terror disrupting searches without it crossing the line into police and state whim trumping citizen rights and common ownership of the products and services of our own government. Limit the searches to terror disruption, unless something absolutely blatant like a bloody severed head, a gun (terrorists could decide to shoot up the trains instead after all), or a kilo or two of coke are found. This absolutely cannot be an excuse to expand general policing tools to void the 4th amendment.

Ken, you're so clever!! Don't you wish I would just go away? I need you guys for a project though, so I'm going to stick around for a little longer.
"few magazine articles and some green party Web sites"
Yes, you've gotten to the bottom of it!

"1) Limit it to anti-terror searches. If they find a joint in the bag look the other way."

As soon as someone as the NYPD finds a 10 lb block of cocaine in someon's bag and arrests them for it during these searches, I'll file an amicus brief. As soon as I learn to spell "amicus" without dictionary.com

However, the cop could lose his job for "looking the other way". They can seize the drugs, but I don't think arrest should be warranted.

"2) None of this random bullshit. Police discretion sure."

A public statement of policy and a different private implementation is fine with me.

"3) It is a stop gap measure. What we really need are more security funding..."

Not gonna happen. Check out the upcoming city budgets for the next few years. Unless we cut down on medicaid and public employee pensions and benefits, we cannot increase terror funding.

"4) The ultimate terror disruption method is simple. The instant there are attacks again in NYC or DC or wherever, we consider it an act of war by those nations that are most responsible for the growth of terror worldwide..."

Good luck with that one. Never mind that it doesn't stop terrorists from committing terror now...

"few magazine articles and some green party Web sites"

That's seriously giving him too much credit.

I have a feeling that all of this 'no racial profiling' banter is being emphasized to play nice with MoveOn and the like but I highly doubt that the NYPD will stop and search me instead of an Arab male in their 20's standing right behind me. I don't know how the NYPD is trained for this sort of thing, but I can bet that they take cues from terrorist experts, from Israel most likely, to be most efficient when singling out suspicious people.

I don't know how the NYPD is trained for this sort of thing, but I can bet that they take cues from terrorist experts, from Israel most likely, to be most efficient when singling out suspicious people.

Paul, can you confirm/deny?

" I don't know how the NYPD is trained for this sort of thing, but I can bet that they take cues from terrorist experts, from Israel most likely, to be most efficient when singling out suspicious people."

As I've been saying, I'm sure there is a policy for the public, and a policy for the police, and I'll remain blissfully unconcerned about the discrepancy between the two.

As I pointed out at Ace's blog, Karol, it's simply not true that behavior will play no role.

Sean,

I don't doubt that as soon as someone is arrested for something non terror related because of these searches the policy will be taken to court and probably struck down. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be more logical or effective to simply tailor these searches to being an anti-terror tool in the first place. Just as the Patriot Act shouldn't be used to investigate copyright infringement, these searches shouldn't be an excuse to expand police powers beyond what has been held as generally constitutional other than as a targeted anti-terror security measure.

As for security funding, welcome to politics. The budget doesn't work as is, so we fight like hell to change it. Yes, Medicaid and pensions and the rest need to eat up less of the budget, but anti-terror security is a bigger concern to me and many other New Yorkers. Bloomberg and Kelly and others should be taking this opportunity to come forward with a specific plan to boost security investment and the size of the force, along with a specific request for security funds from Congress to make it happen. In the wake of repeated bombings and attempts in London, the Madrid bombings, the constant bombings in Israel, and the bombings throughout the rest of the world, it is time to make this funding concern front and center. It will be easier to make happen if people like you aren't saying it ain't gonna happen.

As for war being the best solution, the military and non-military responses to Sept 11th have eroded terror capability significantly. The people that want to kill us are human. If we keep killing them, their replacements are not inexhaustable, and will be increasingly less experienced and worse trained in the ways of terror. The threat to the transit system here isn't from some isolated amateur killing a handful of people once a decade. We are fighting an organized threat that can only be fought by hammering it's sources.

Uprooting terror networks and the nations that breed them has made a difference. There is just a lot more work still to be done.

P.S.: I tend to read the city and state budgets as a hobby. I'm not exactly uninformed here, so don't assume my suggestions are coming out of thin air. Increasing funding for security will take work, but just because something takes hard work doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.

I tend to read the city and state budgets as a hobby. I'm not exactly uninformed here, so don't assume my suggestions are coming out of thin air.

May we assume you're weird? :-)

There really isn't that much to train in finding suspicious terrorist type people. Bulky clothes, long coats in the Summer...odd behavior. If a cop starts questioning someone the cop will use the same skills the cop has always used to solve normal crimes.

The NYPD has been misusing funds designated for anti-terrorism. An example is Operation Atlas. The Federal Gov't is paying for NYPD overtime for Atlas which is supposed to put NYPD presence at sensitive locations and likely targets. Instead the NYPD sends cops out on Atlas to write summonses. They are basically using what's supposed to be an anti-terrorism program to issue more tickets and raise money for the city.

May we assume you're weird? :-)

Abolutely. :)

You guys are all negative. Searches are effective for a variety of reasons. You are looking at it for stopping an attack, but this process is more training and preparations than an actual response to a real immenent attack.

There are financial considerations. How much does this cost - to sustain over time. How many people are needed? Will this deployment take away cops from other things? What will be the response from the public? ACLU? All of this needs to happen now, before we get to a situationb where we are bombed and this goes into effect for real.

London was the first suicide bomber outide of israel in a major western country. In a city resembling NYC a lot. We need to be doing something. And we'll share our knowledge with the brits and more.

What do you guys want? What do you propose. I can't believe those on the Right are finally all complain and no solution.

And finally, forget the semantics of racial profiling. This is to appease the press and the ACLU green hats. You don't think our awesome NYPD won't choose correctly based upon knowledge in their heads? So let Bloomberg describe this as whatever. But trust our cops are doing their best to choose the right people to search.

After all, these are not TSA mionimum wage workers. They are NYC's finest.

That's all good Scott. All I want is for it to be terror specific. Not a police dragnet for every little illegal thing.

It is a stop gap measure. What we really need are more security funding, an increase in the size of the NYPD, the presense of bomb sniffing dogs on the transit system, and less restrained uprooting of the networks that are providing logistical, tactical, financial, and ideological support for these attacks. This is a case where more money actually will make a difference.

Bingo. Thinking on a larger scale (ie. nationally), I would be willing to forgo those nice tax cuts to put that money into Homeland Security.

You'll have a real "pickle", then, with the John Roberts "french fry" fiasco!

The terrible things they make people do when they ride public transportation and demand to be safe....gosh!

We don't need to forgo those tax cuts to do this. The tax cuts help economically, they just don't solve everything. Energy costs and security concerns are the big drags on the growth that is otherwise made possible by those tax cuts. What we need is to keep the tax cuts, get a real national energy policy, increase security funding (and accountability for the way it is spent), and to demand fiscal sanity from Congress.

That means making Social Security solvent and having it give a better return on investment, reducing the rate of expansion of health costs (specifically Medicaid/Medicare), and taking the bottle away from our sauced up free spending members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

This is a joke. Some of the people posting here really aren't thinking it through. How can it possibly have a "deterrent effect"? Say a bomber is stopped for a search. He understandably refuses. They tell him to take a walk. Do you really think he's deterred? He's still free and not under arrest. He hates Americans with a passion and may even be willing to die. A few blocks to the next station or even a couple of miles isn't going to matter to somebody like that. Maybe he has an accomplice with a car who can drive him from station to station. He'll just keep trying at until he gets in. And when he's in, he can go anywhere in the system he wants. On the infinitesimal chance he's asked for a search again on a subway train, he can refuse again, and he's asked to leave the system. Big deal. Again, he won't be arrested. Do you think a jihadist has never heard of unlimited Metrocards? He'll be back in before you know it.

betteratFL350,

Michael Moore called and said he lost his Chairman Mao Strap-on Kung Fu Fistulator™ in your dimpled, doughy ass last night. He requested that you return it to him upon your next bowel movement/blog post.

Carry on.

ps I am not joking - I really think you are a fucking idiot.

I was wrong. Old Man is right. These searches don't work, even if they are limited to terror deterence as I was wanting earlier.

After walking through the searches tonight, I can say that they are a total waste and publicity stunt. They don't stop or deter anything at all. It is extremely easy to get around them and they don't even achieve a deterent effect. Would be much better to just have the increased police presense and that's it. The only good thing to come from the searches is that people will be interacting with the police more, which does actually help overall. But I really think there are much better ways to do this.

Enough of the bandaids. Let's get serious here about security.