Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Police Searches Of Bags In Subway Is Constitutional

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 05:00 PM
Original message
Police Searches Of Bags In Subway Is Constitutional


POSTED: 3:25 pm EST December 2, 2005
UPDATED: 4:18 pm EST December 2, 2005

NEW YORK -- Random police searches of the bags of riders in the nation's largest subway system to deter terrorism do not violate the Constitution and are a minimal intrusion of privacy, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman said in a 41-page ruling that the government's interest in preventing a terrorist bombing of the subway system is vitally important.

"The risk of a terrorist bombing of New York City's subway system is real and substantial," Berman said.

The Manhattan ruling came hours after Berman heard closing arguments in a lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of several subway riders.

http://www.wnbc.com/traffic/5453653/detail.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NorCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. The risk of subway bombing IS "real and substantial"
but do they really think random bag searches (motivated by racial profiling) is going to help? I don't think it will, but they're doing a good job of curbing civil liberties, dontcha think? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. This is what's happening in America.
I know there are those that think this is a good idea, but I am not one of them. I don't see how this will prevent any terrorist from carrying through with their plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realisticphish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. there is no "minimal" invasion of privacy
it is, or it isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. Lovely, he is a Clinton appointee
And people wonder why there is that perception of little difference between the 'Pugs and Dems. Case in point, you couldn't have a judge who dishonored the Constitution if even Bushco had appointed one, at least in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. It's hard to expect a mere judge to decide if this will help
or if it's just for show.

I mean, that may be what his job is here but, the position he's placed in, unless he's to decide from the start the government's acting in bad faith with no proof of such, is a difficult one.

I think he may be proven wrong with time... and may be overturned nonetheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Welcome to the *police state
formerly known as America...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-05 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. If you live in a police state where your house can be searched,
you shouldn't be to shocked if your bags are searched in a subway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC