Plum Crazy

I agree it isn't a perfect plan..there are only about a billion places where some would-be terrorist could plant a bomb. Personally, I'd like to see more heavily armed police with bomb-sniffing dogs on patrol, but that too wouldn't do it. So....what is the right to do?

I guess nobody has an answer to my question. So, lets just sit around and bitch about it anyway?

Randy, I have a pretty low tolerance for people implying that somehow I'm supposed to discuss issues with them on my blog according to their schedule. It is the weekend, and, just perhaps, there are other things I'd rather be doing. In fact, not just perhaps. Definitely. I'm currently eating lunch at home, so I'm checking the blog.

Now, having said that, if you're going to institute a random search program, you need to make the search mandatory. If not, it is nothing but show. As I said, it inconveniences law-abiding citizens, who will submit to the searches, but allows those who would commit crimes the ability to just leave and go elsewhere. The probability of being subjected to a random search is pretty low to begin with. The probability of being subjected to random searches at two separate facilities within a short amount of time is so low as to not be effective. Why give up freedom for something that won't even be effective in preventing another terrorist attack?

If we're going to institute mandatory searches, we should decide that as a society, we want to give up that much freedom for additional security. If that is what the majority of New Yorkers want, so be it. I've seen nothing that indicates that is the case and plenty to indicate the opposite. If the majority of New Yorkers are willing to run the risk, so be that. It's not as if we don't do equally or even more risky things every single day. Getting into a car is at least equally as risky. Lots of people do it anyway.

If a specific individual is not willing to run the risk of being subjected to a terrorist attack on mass transit, he/she has the right to not ride the subway. Take a taxi instead. The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack would be greatly diminished. However, the chances of being killed in a car accident are greatly increased. Do your own risk calculus. Let the majority decide for the majority.

I too am busy on the weekend (inlaws are visiting)and yet I am able to spare a few minutes...and considering there are others who visit this blog at all times of the day, I felt I wasn't asking for very much considering the topic. If you somehow felt I was singling you out....what can I say?

I think the thought of being subjected to random searches is no big deal. I have nothing to hide (legal or illegal),and the chances of being singled out are unlikely. The plus side-if you could call it that- is that the searches and police presense would provide some sort of deterant. After all the talk of giving up rights etc.....I ask again: What should they do instead?

Your priorities are yours. Mine are mine. As I said, there were other things I wanted to do instead this weekend. I don't flatter myself that anyone in a position to make or even significantly influence these kinds of policy decisions is reading this blog, so the discussions about any topics here are pretty much only for the benefit of the 10 or so people who visit regularly. If this were a very widely read blog, then a greater sense of responsibility towards the importance of a topic might be in order. But it really isn't. The very vast majority of my hits come from search engines.

I certainly felt like you were singling me out, since no one else here had "bitched" about it. If anyone else had, then your comment could more reasonably have been construed to include other people. Since they hadn't, well, what can I say? [Actually, a lot more, as I attempt to cover all the bases.]

If, on the off chance, you were referring to Chaz's post on his blog, his problem with the searches was more that they were not going to profile, which cut down on the probability of success. He also already had provided his alternative - profile. And none of my other regular readers with blogs had posted about it one way or the other, so an assumption that they were bitching about it at all would be presumptuous. With those facts in hand, I don't think I was being egotistical in assuming your comment was mostly directed at me. Had you left off at "So nobody has an answer to my question...", it would have been egotistical. The presence of the "bitch about it anyway" portion, though, narrows the field quite considerably.

Incidentally, if you were assuming that Jon and I agree on the issue, you were wrong. We don't. He has no problem with the proposed plan. We also don't agree on any number of political issues. For the sake of family harmony, though, we often don't challenge each other. But there would be no reason for him to post an alternative, because you and he are in agreement.

How about you clarify something. Are you talking about random searches you have the right to walk away from or random mandatory searches? Because if you're talking about random searches you have the right to walk away from, as this plan allows for, then I have already explained my objection to them twice. I can't see how they provide any meaningful deterrent, and I can see no good reason to subject law-abiding citizens to searches that provide no meaningful deterrent. If you think they would provide a meaningful deterrent, then we plain old disagree on how effective this measure is. Without resorting to actual statistics on the effectiveness of random voluntary searches, which I don't have, we're not going to resolve that. If you have them, bring them forth. I would certainly be convinced of the meaningfulness of the deterrent in the face of good stats. But in that case, see below.

If you're talking about mandatory searches, then that is a different matter. I do think that would provide a more meaningful deterrent. [Assuming, of course, the suicide bomber didn't just detonate the bomb outside the turnstiles.] However, like most other New Yorkers, I don't want to be subjected to that. We've weighed the risks and decided we're willing to live with them as is. That is the alternative I was presenting in my last comment; the "what should they do instead". Sometimes the alternative can be simply "do nothing more." At least not to the public at large. Focusing on intelligence and infiltration of the sleeper cells would be, IMO, the most effective domestic measure. Obviously, though, the intelligence agencies are not going to disclose how much of that is going on. I hope a lot.

Of course, having said that I think mandatory searches would provide a meaningful deterrent, I mean only to a terrorist attack on the subway. I don't doubt that the terrorists would simply shift their targets to a venue where searches would be practically impossible. Somewhere like Times Square. I'm not, therefore, convinced that the overall risk of terrorism would diminish. If, however, the goal is narrow, like greater protection of the subway system, then, yes, I do think that mandatory searches would provide a deterrent.

BTW, they already have police presence in the subways. Sometimes undercover police, but police nonetheless.

Lesley,

I'm with you, no slavish devotion to an avocation, blog when it's fun, discuss when it's fun. Hike your own hike, do your own thing.... (jeez I feel like I'm writing a soft drink ad).