Random Bag Searches on the Horizon

So, will I get a refund of my fare if I choose not to have my bags searched and already have an unlimited MetroCard?

Seriously, when you stop and think common sense, this really doesn't do anything for anybody. It will not make me feel good because:

• they are not going to be doing thorough checks of everyone they stop. I doubt they will search through every little pocket and space in everyone's bag.
• someone that wants to bomb somewhere will know how they can get away with it. obviously, if bags are being checked..then they will do something else with it. what's next, we have to take off our shoes to enter the train?

I am happy that they are trying to do something to prevent an attack but I don't think this is the answer.

When you get down to it though, this is a sad world we live in right now.

NJT Rider wrote:We have to live and adjust to these changes.

Well that's what they wanted, and that's what they got unfortunately.

It's time for the government to start getting their act together to protect us. Get out of Iraq, there's no reason to be there now. Find Bin Laden instead.

Fortunately we can still fall back on the old safeguard that is the cost of implementing these pointless security proceedures. After a few weeks or months of nothing happening and non-terrorism related crime going unaddressed or overtime costs exploding these pointless exercises in futility will be abandonned just like they were in Boston.

Some things you can do in the meanwhile tho:

• Always carry a big bag stuffed with newspaper (preferably soiled) on the subway/train so the cops can waste their time searching it.
• Try refusing to be searched and see what happens...see how many manhours you can waste.
• Make sure you always vote to cut funding to law enfocement. If they have enough money to waste on stuff like this they clearly could survive some belt tightening.

You're right, it does revolve around money. Before the 2nd bombing, the MTA already said that they couldn't afford to keep the cops on the trains all the time for too much longer.

Now THAT was a good idea (keeping more police on the trains and in the stations). When are the people making decisions going to wise up and keep things like this in place all the time. There should be cops on the train all the time no matter what.

There is always an argument about money. It's ashame the MTA and NYPD apparently can't work together. You can see what a bad thing this is...the CIA not working with the FBI prior to 9/11....the NYPD not working with the FDNY during 9/11. They are all part of our government, they are supposed to work with each other not against each other.

pgengler wrote:As to a point of difference between airlines and railroads (such as NJT, Amtrak, or the LIRR), the airlines are privately owned, and as much as I hate the "rights" corporations have, they can basically do whatever they want to your luggage and you have little recourse.

Ummm. The last few times I've flown by airline, my luggage was searched by folks displaying a uniform patch that said "TSA." Last I looked, TSA was a federal government agency.

I was watching on the news the bag searches they were doing in NYC today. It seems that a bunch of the police haven't been through proper random bag search training and are risking personal injury to themselves.

Hahaha, I was wondering how big this thread was going to get by the time I got around to reading it....

Im all for it, I think it should be done, and continued to be done on a permament basis.

There has been very clear evidence that bombs in backpacks are a threat to transit systems. Are we gonna stand here and let trains and busses get blown up adn people's lives lost becuase we didn't want to "impede on someone's personal rights?" The bombings and the way they were done and the devices used are probable causes IMO. Thats all, that simple.

The government's job is to protect the lives of its citizens - IMO, my life, is more important than someone's "civil rights" - and Im sure that if the same people who were against these searches were on a train, and it blew up by a backpack bomb, I BET they would think, as they are waiting at the pearly gates, at least for a half a sec, wow, boy, I wonder if the backpack searches could have prevented this.... Ive said that before, and I know lots of people, don't particularlly agree with that, but tough - selfish, maybe, yea, but I sort of like living - and ill be more than happy to have my bag searched in the slim chance that it might prevent people's lives from being lost

Id also much rather see the NJTPD doing something, rather than holding up the walls in trainstations with their one foot.....like they've been more often than not

Another benefit of this, I believe is that it would cut down on other potental and real problems on the trains and busses, maybe cutting down on the drug trafficking and people carrying weapons on the trains, and attacks on frontline transit workers and passengers.

Maybe we are fighting the "last" war, but its also the "flavor of the week" if you will, to the terrorists. Its a MAJOR threat to our lives, because it works, and people's lives have been taken in this method. Just because the bombs in the backpacks didn't work the other day, doesn't mean they won't try again....

If the TSA were doing the searches would anyone have problems with it? It would be no different than at the airports, IMO.

As a side note, refusing to be searched will mean you are off the NJT system - there is a specific speal we have to read now, I just can't think of hte actual wording of it right now. But thats what will happen, in a nutshell. And I doubt it will matter if your ticket was collected or not........

And if its on the train en route, when the police do their searches, as Im assuming they will be, the train will be held at the next possible station and you will be removed. So now, you would have delayed everyone else on that train, along with other trains, so you will get lots of "manhours" of all the pepole on the train wasted...

Im sure they would all love the point proven by doing that..........

Ken W2KB wrote:The last few times I've flown by airline, my luggage was searched by folks displaying a uniform patch that said "TSA." Last I looked, TSA was a federal government agency.

Right, and I think I covered that (I know I meant to). TSA does the searches, and with them being a government agency, I've got problems with it. However, before 9/11, screening was done by privately hired screeners, which I also don't like. In both cases, it seems that the majority, our elected representatives, and most judges disagree with me.

Some of us approve of the idea, some of us don't. We all agree that by no means is it a perfect solution. However, it is something.

I haven't heard ANYONE who disagrees come up with any other plan to make the system safer.

Do they have walkthrough bombsniffers (do they exist)? If so, I'd say implement them. But then I know that those types of devices are extremely expensive.

In NJ, at least, the legal framework has already been established with random drunk driver checkpoints. The police supervisor must establish a protocol (every third driver, every fifth, all drivers) which may be combined with another protocol (plus all vehicles with a visible violation like a headlight not functioning). The protocol must be written and given to the officers.

The officers are required to count, and stop only vehicles meeting that description. CBS said the MTA police were stopping pax for checks "based on a formula they asked us not to describe" which sounds about the same.

What you can't do is add "those rough looking black guys" or "this Arab" to the random scan. That varies from the Israeli model, where racial profiling is part of the mix.

Where NY is inviting trouble is arresting people for illegal possession of unrelated items (drug equip, housebreaking tools, etc) as the result of a transport screening.

SCB2525 wrote:Do they have walkthrough bombsniffers (do they exist)? If so, I'd say implement them. But then I know that those types of devices are extremely expensive.

Bomb-sniffing dogs. Currently being petted by customers using the Staten Island Ferry.

JT, since people are allowed to decline being searched, how is this policy going to find one single terrorist? It might find weapons, since some people are so out of it they don't remember they have a knife or gun in their backpack, but a bomber won't forget he has a bomb.

As far as explosive detection goes, the WSJ had an interesting article last week. It said, suppose we have a machine that could instantly detect explosives. We put it in a public place. When the alarm sounds, people start running away or throwing themselves to the ground. The article says that would increase casualties, because the shrapnel and blast would have a greater range. With no warning, the people standing next to the bomb would absorb the blast and shrapnel. They would be killed, but the total casualties would be less--like if a soldier throws himself on a grenade, he will be killed but those with him will be saved.
All this is to say, protecting against terrorist attacks is futile. We have to prevent them from happening by changing the way we act in the world.

Bomb sniffing dogs are a great idea that would detect most bombs whether in a backpack or not.

I don't know how many of you have heard about this yet, but the NY Times is reporting that "Britian Says Man Killed by Police Had No Tie to Bombings." Yes, he ran from police, but does that mean that the police were justified in shooting to kill? A big part of the argument in favor of more searches is that "I have a right to live;" if all it takes to get shot in the transit system is a level suspicious activity (who knows, maybe all it takes is declining/refusing to submit to a search and then demanding to be able to ride, which as I've stated, should be allowed), then don't those innocent people also have a "right to live?"

I know this is a bit off-topic, but it does raise questions about what level of suspicion justifies drastic action by law enforcement. Should declining a search be grounds for detaining someone? Should they be presumed to be in the process of attempting some horrible act just because they might like their privacy?

EDIT: I've set up an e-mail discussion list, if anyone wants to talk about this somewhere other than here, or if this topic is locked. Signup page is here and the e-mail address is [email protected].