A thought on the subway terrorists

Whatever · July 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-22-05 AT 08:59AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Today, here in New York, the police started spot checking packages and bags on the mass transit system. It is commonplace now to have your bags searched and/or have picture identity in order to access an office building, the library, a museum, a school etc., etc. Only heaven knows how many buildings now have security cameras focused on the street and sidewalks. Are cameras in stores really there just to catch shoplifters. All of these are necessary. But, it makes me feel as if the terrorists are winning (even if they never attack anyone again--which is unlikely). The fact is that Big Brother is everywhere and unless you choose never to leave your home, there is no such thing as privacy. I will continue to do all the things I always did (including taking the subway to work). But, right now, I am saddened by what I have lost.

HRinNH · July 2005

I totally agree. When we travel, I don't mind taking my shoes off and having them search my bags too because if they do it to everyone, I'll be safer on the plane. We were too lazy too long.

Try to fly out of Lebanon or another country over there. I saw on a tv report that travelers have to show up a minimum of 3 hours early and be asked a barrage of questions by more than one official and be searched thoroughly.

Cheryl C.

LivindonSouth · July 2005

A man was interviewed on one of the early shows this morning in New York. Here is what he said, "I would rather my civil rights be violated that be blown apart by a bomb." Fair point.

Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

HRLASS · July 2005

When we were in Charles DeGaulle airport about 5 years ago I was really surprised that the walkways were patrolled by military in fatigues carrying rifles. And picking people up and taking them off at gunpoint. That was before 9/11. Europe has been in this mode for a long time and are still tightening up. We are far behind and have already paid a heavy price for it.

For me, the cameras in stores and alleys make me feel more secure. I don't feel watched, but I am glad that those cameras are recording the movements of innocent people and criminal elements up to no good.

LisaMN2 · July 2005

You know England probably has the most experienced anti-terrorism forces in the western world. Spain, France and Germany all have direct experience with terrorist attacks within the last twenty years and have strengthened their anti-terrorism measures accordingly.

Are they safe? Are you safer now than you did pre 9/11? Or do you just feel safer?

LivindonSouth · July 2005

Safer? Don't know. But I feel really good about them popping off five rounds straight into the head of the supposed terrorist this morning. He was wearing a winter coat in a subway area and ran when they told him to halt. Cheers and bravo. This kind of decisive action is probably why Gillian3 moved from England to California.

Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

Gillian3 · July 2005

I didn't move from England to California. My parents moved me first to Ithaca, NY then Jacksonville, Fl. I moved myself from there first to Missouri, then Colorado and finally California.

safety · July 2005

When I'm at home I feel safer because I have weapons of protection for myself and family and yes I have more of them now than before 9/11.

TN HR · July 2005

I feel safe because no terrorist is going to keep me from enjoying life and living in fear each and every day. I have faced death, been shot at by enemy combatants, had RPG's explode around me in Mogadishu, Somalia. I even had a Somali fire some sort of crude explosive device in a concrete building point blank at me. Luckily one of my squad members nailed him with a 9mm. When it's my time to go, it's my time to go. Truth be told, I'm more afraid of things like drunk drivers and illegals with questionable CDL's running hazmat loads than I am of terrorism.

LivindonSouth · July 2005

Once S.A.V.E. gets in full swing, you won't have drunk and illegal drivers to worry about.

Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

dchr9203 · July 2005

Whatever,

I know what you mean. Even though I do appreciate the security measures and am glad for them, there is still a part of me that is saddened for our loss of "innocence" for lack of a better word. That day when we could walk into a subway or onto an airplane or into an international building and not wonder in the back of our mind if it would be the same day some fanatic decided to target it and blow it up.

LisaMN2 · July 2005

I'm afraid we're deluding ourselves into a false sense of safety. If the reaction to a terrorist attack brings out a willingness to dispense with our civil liberties what will America look like after the next terrorist attack? Which civil liberty will be the next to go? free speech? unfettered travel? presumption of innocence? protection from search and seizure? trial by our peers?

And you know there will be another attack, no matter how many security cameras, armed guards, random searches, and confiscated nail scissors we have.

Whatever · July 2005

Actually, I think some of those civil liberties are gone already (think of all the people being held at Gitmo without a trial because they are assumed to be guilty).
Do I feel safer..in a strange way, yes. The crime rate in NYC is way down and will probably go lower due to the high police presence. But, there is still crime. And, surely, there will be another attack.
I'm saddened (and a little angry at myself) by the fact that I have accepted so much of Big Brother society in my life. Maybe it is the post-trauma of 9/11 (I don't know). But certainly that event has changed me and my thinking (and I'm not entirely sure it is for the best).

TN HR · July 2005

"Once S.A.V.E. gets in full swing, you won't have drunk and illegal drivers to worry about."

That's right! I forgot about SAVE! I think it's already working! Judging by the quality of data in the system, the habitual drunks are already off the roads and in charge of database management for SAVE.

Soon, the illegal NOMADS will have janitorial jobs in the SAVE White House Annex Building. I heard President Bush has already sent pOrK color sample cards for wallcoverings and carpet. His office will be un-officially referred to as the Pig Pen.

LivindonSouth · July 2005

Nobody at Gitmo is assumed guilty of anything. We have not got time to even consider their guilt. They are potential terrorists and we cannot afford to let them loose in the world. There is simply to much potential that they will again appear in the radar. The approach is to detain them indefinitely, regardless of their civil liberties. The potential that they will kill and maim is simply too great. Can you not see that?

You civil libertarians seem to think it's all about saving trees, protecting owls, not stepping on anybody's toes, not asking questions, not searching packages, not carefully watching questionable characters, ultimately, not protecting ourselves. Your outlook is maddening.

Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

HRLASS · July 2005

I think alot of innocent people have been incarcerated with the others at Gitmo. Can I see the potential that they're all going to kill and maim? No. Get them lawyers, give them trials, make our government prove a case. This position that the govm't has to hold them but it's too confidential to tell anyone why, including the accused, doesn't fly with me and some of the federal courts are finally starting to lose patience too. U.S. tactics are starting to sound too much like those we have derided in other countries. I'm not proud of that association as an American.

I have a problem with "W" mouthing off about creating wonderful democracies in all these foreign countries and showing them how great a democracy can be by immediately violating all U.S. constitutional rights and bill of rights protections for both American citizens and foreigners; those supposedly fundamental to the workings of a democracy. He's been going over civil liberties with a steam roller and while I have occasionally had issues with the ACLU, when you drill through, their legitimate point can generally be found.

Now, blast away Don! How many adjectives will you find for me from this?

LivindonSouth · July 2005

No adjectives. Only youth.

Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

LisaMN2 · July 2005

No one is disputing the need to keep people who would harm us out of the population.

But, these people should have some status, are they POWs of the "war on terror"? Are they prisoners of a police action? I've never heard or seen a description of what the status of a "detainee" is. Their position should have some clarity as we have had ample time to think about it.

Our current policy has created an opportunity for internal dissent and an additional selling point for terrorist recruiters by failing to legitmize the imprisonment of these people.

On a more practical note, how many millions of dollars are we spending to simply maintain these people in limbo. Are we just going to keep them until the war on terror ends? And then what? Let them go? move them into the regular prison population? turn them over to whatever government is in place in their countries of origin? kill them?

This decision was short sighted.

LivindonSouth · July 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-25-05 AT 02:01PM (CST)[/font][br][br]If you've listened to or read any news at all, you know that since they seem to represent no particular government or military at all, they do not meet the definition of prisioner of war and are characterized as detainees. Such are the decisions of those in charge when people of opposing views are engaged in activities which kill each other (wars). There are so many more productive, supportive types of things we could be doing other than groveling about the status of a bunch of potential throat-slitters caged away in Cuba.

And rather than serve as a recruitment ad for terrorists, as you suggest, one opinion is that it will send a clear signal that 'America will throw your ass in a cage at Gitmo at the slightest suggestion that you are a terrorist and your family and the virgins of your country will not know of you for years to come'.

As Robert E. Lee once said, "We have made a great mistake of appointing the very worst generals to lead our efforts at war and have appointed the very best generals among us to work at the newspapers, writing editorials and telling us what we are doing wrong." In other words, it's easy for editorialists and other sage writers to perform the task of Monday Morning Quarterback or second guesser of those in charge.

When you're trying to clear the deck of rats, it's not the best expenditure of time and energy to worry about the rats splattered against the rail or those who seem not to be able to swim once introduced to the water. The objective, after all, is to clear the deck of rats.

Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

LisaMN2 · July 2005

That's one of the many wonders of America, that I get to be a Monday morning quarterback whenever I want to.

And one of the other wonders of America is that "those in charge" have to have the confidence of the majority of the voters to stay "in charge".
x:D

LivindonSouth · July 2005

Really. Do we then seem to be on the very verge of hearing from a representative of the left that the gentleman in charge indeed had the confidence of the majority of the voters to stay in charge? I think this may be a first. x:D

Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

LisaMN2 · July 2005

Are you saying that if I disagree with a policy of the current administration I must be a representative of the left? x:-/

It is possible that I have no polictical axe to grind at all.....

LivindonSouth · July 2005

You're right. My apology. I was confused for a second there. I thought the following comment was yours although it is not. It's from 'a true believer'.

"I have a problem with "W" mouthing off about creating wonderful democracies in all these foreign countries and showing them how great a democracy can be by immediately violating all U.S. constitutional rights and bill of rights protections for both American citizens and foreigners; those supposedly fundamental to the workings of a democracy. He's been going over civil liberties with a steam roller and while I have occasionally had issues with the ACLU, when you drill through, their legitimate point can generally be found."

Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

LivindonSouth · July 2005

I'm listening to a man from the ACLU on television right now, Friday night at 8:30. He is bemoaning the fact that we might start or have started searching backpacks and bags carried onto subways. He claims that proves the terrorists have won. (?) Let me see if I have this right. Men with bags of explosives are boarding subways, trains, other forms of transportation. OK. Bags conceal bombs. So, if we start taking a look in the bags of men getting onto trains, subways and other forms of transportation, hoping to see if they have a bomb, we are giving in to terrorists and violating rights? OK. Then, let's not do that. Let's open up all our forms of transportation to anybody who might carry a bomb in a bag on board and let them detonate it. Then we untangle all the metal and shovel up the body parts and do a lot of DNA stuff to give bags of bloody bones to families so they can pretend they are burying their loved one. But, we dare not look into the bags people carry onto the subway because someone may feel offended, discriminated against, profiled, violated or (my God!) detained momentarily. I think I see. Where do I sign up to be a member of the ACLU?

Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

owenlady · July 2005

Gitmo, bag searches, ACLU.

I could go on and on, but I kinda think your rights end whether you are an American or non-American, when they reach the point that you want to hurt and kill me and mine.

I am glad we have random searches. I don't even mind if we become unpolitically correct and do some profiling. If you are in a population that has been identified as wanting to destroy me - then you are indeed already profiled. You stop them and we will unprofile you.

I am positive that my 77 year old mom doesn't want to destroy anyone in America and probably doesn't need to ever be searched - but if you are young and middle Eastern I am not sure and I vote for searching you!

Whatever · July 2005

Even if we never have another attack in this country, so many of our liberties have been taken away in order to protect us from the terrorists.
The fact that this has to be done means that the terrorist have won a battle (not the war, but the battle).

LivindonSouth · July 2005

Just so's this ole dumbass boy from the South who lost the war knows, can you please list several liberties that YOU have lost or have had taken away from you since 9-11. I don't need a mantra, just your list. You may begin........

Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

Whatever · July 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-25-05 AT 11:27AM (CST)[/font][br][br]My right to go where I want without being searched or having my possessions searched is fundamental under Amendment IV of the constitution. Amendments V and VI do not apply to me at this point, but who knows what the future will hold.

I am concerned that we are rapidly headed down a slippery slope where the constitution is ignored. The last time a President flagrantly ignored the constitution, Mr. Nixon was impeached.

LivindonSouth · July 2005

"My right to go where I want without being searched or having my possessions searched is fundamental under Amendment IV of the constitution."

Well, if you've been to a college football game in the Southeastern Conference or quite a few others in the past ten or so years or have ventured into the bowels of any airport in the past 15, you probably had both your constitution and your sensibilities violated and trampled. And if you've visited a prison or county lockup anywhere in this country in the past 30 or so, you again were violated. And all of this seemed to go right on despite your T-Shirt proclaiming Amendment IV guarantees. Venues, both public and private have a right to check your person and your belongings for contraband whether that be a flask of scotch, a marijuana cigarette or a half pound of plastic explosives.

As you may have seen in the news in the past several days, most progressive societies have safety checks way ahead of ours in terms of armed military in airports and subway systems. It's time we caught up.

It's awfully disingenuous to claim that you (or any of you) are so terribly inconvenienced by rational approaches to safety as to cause major discomfort.

Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

Gillian3 · July 2005

I'm sure that you can sign up on-line. If you are a member maybe that will give you a little extra and they might help you sometime when you think that your rights are being abridged. The ACLU is for protecting rights. They fought for, and won, the right of our Nazi's to march in Skokie, remember? I expect that they fought for the rights of US citizens of Japanese and German descent who were interned during WW 2. I expect that they will fight for the rights of Middle easterners who are detained for nothing more than being Middle Eastern. There is nothing wrong with taking steps to increase security, but surely there is a way to do that without trampling on the innocent - no matter the ethnic background.

Geno · July 2005

vacuus ineo............

[url]http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1fa4fec8-fc79-11d9-8386-00000e2511c8.html[/url]

[url]http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1190065,00.html[/url]

Geno

A thought on the subway terrorists

Comments