Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYers to NYPD: 'I Do Not Consent to Being Searched'
The Village Voice ^ | July 21st, 200 | by Chisun Lee

Posted on 07/22/2005 11:06:07 AM PDT by BigFinn


Spend $16.99 so you can wear this to your grave

Reacting to the NYPD's announcement Thursday afternoon that police would randomly—but routinely—search the bags of commuters, one concerned New Yorker quickly created a way for civil libertarians to make their views black-and-white. In a few outraged moments, local immigrant rights activist Tony Lu designed t-shirts bearing the text, "i do not consent to being searched." The minimalist protest-wear can be purchased here, in various styles and sizes. (Lu will not get a cut. The shirts' manufacture, sale, and shipment, will be handled by the online retailer. Lu encourages budget-conscious New Yorkers to make their own and wear them everywhere.)

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had announced the legally obvious—that New Yorkers are free to decline a search and "turn around and leave." But Lu, who is a lawyer at Urban Justice Center, warned that even well-intentioned cops could interpret people's natural nervousness or anger as "reasonable suspicion." The possibility of unjustified interrogation and even arrest is real, Lu said.

Although police promised they would not engage in racial profiling, Lu said that, as with all street-level policing, people of color and poor immigrants would be particularly vulnerable, especially if encounters lead to arrests.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: baaaaa; libertarianfools; nonprofiling; nothintohidehere; nyc; nypd; sheeple; stupidliberals; tshirt; villagevoiceisarag; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-642 next last
To: TAquinas

Oops, I meant to write that I am NOT saying that grannies and drug users SHOULD be targeted. I left out the word "not" in my previous post and that completely screwed up the meaning of my post.


551 posted on 07/22/2005 4:17:07 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: TAquinas
Why is it that you Paleocons love to brag about the "holy mother Church" yet reject immigrants that your pastors seem to love, as they actually fill the pews?

BTW: Better an Indian doctor or Colombian banker (I know many) than the white trash shanty Irish/Russian welfare cases that I lived around in Brooklyn. White people aint all that, I'm afraid, just certain types of White people.

The US is NOT and has NEVER been an extension of "Europe." You are thinking of Argentina.

552 posted on 07/22/2005 4:19:35 PM PDT by Clemenza (JJesus CChrist MMade SSeattle UUnder PProtest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: TAquinas
If we followed that tip of yours, the world will come to a crawl, nay, civilization itself would halt. How how does this help catching the bad guys?

The guy said "I would do anything be safer".

Most post was in response to this claim. This WOULD make him safer. It's a fact. An irrefutable fact.

If he doesn't implement this, then he lied. He would not, indeed, do anything to be safer.

Is it absurd? Yes. That was the point.

553 posted on 07/22/2005 4:23:35 PM PDT by Stu Cohen (Press '1' for English)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

"I am saying that grannies and drug users SHOULD be targeted for random searches - I'm saying that is what WILL be done."

SHOULD, or you mean SHOULD NOT?

From the prior posts, I think you meant to say they shouldn't.


554 posted on 07/22/2005 4:24:16 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences: Tom Tancredo for President 2008/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

Got it. :)


555 posted on 07/22/2005 4:25:12 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences: Tom Tancredo for President 2008/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

My father also thinks we should allow immigrants other than Europeans (with some exceptions), but I also disagree with him. He's a minority of one. LOL! The Catholic prelate may not be such a small minority, but still a minority it is.

Smile. God loves you too.


556 posted on 07/22/2005 4:29:23 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences: Tom Tancredo for President 2008/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
The problem with this measure is that is both futile and infringes on constitutional freedoms.

It may well be futile but I doubt you'll find many courts agreeing that it is unconstitutional. The 4th Amendment is one of thos amendments that lends itself to "interpretation". One mans reasonable is another mans "unreasonable search".

A city that requires bags to be searched as a condition for using public transportation during times of war would almost certainly win their case in court. A city that requires every homeowner to allow police to search theri property would almost certainly lose their case in court.

Reasonable vs unreasonable is all very subjective.

557 posted on 07/22/2005 4:30:20 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: TAquinas

;-) Say hi to Tom Fleming for me.


558 posted on 07/22/2005 4:31:24 PM PDT by Clemenza (JJesus CChrist MMade SSeattle UUnder PProtest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: TAquinas

I am not an open borders person.

I was just using that as an analogy - suppose we had no immigration issue with mexico - no one was coming here from mexico. then what would border security be for? national security. what are the odds of stopping a small terrorist team from crossing, short of building the Berlin wall across 1000s of miles? very low odds. so does that mean we should have no border security, because the odds of catching a bad guy is low? of course not.


559 posted on 07/22/2005 4:46:50 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

LOL!

Does he too have his name carved on the stair stones facing the field? You know what I mean?


560 posted on 07/22/2005 4:50:28 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences: Tom Tancredo for President 2008/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: TAquinas
Yep.

I haven't visited the Rockford Institute since 1998, when I was a grad student at U of Chicago. I used to be a Paleocon, then I grew up.

561 posted on 07/22/2005 4:51:58 PM PDT by Clemenza (JJesus CChrist MMade SSeattle UUnder PProtest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

then any type of law enforcement, taken as an attempt to prevent an act from occuring, rather then investigate it after it has occurred, violates the constitution.

do I have a constitutional right to fly on a plane anonymously? why are they asking for ID and examining the lists of passenger names? the searching of trucks entering NYC tunnels - that violates the 4th amendment too, so we must do away with that I guess.

what can we do domestically to provide some deterrent? between the left and the libertarians, we might as well just surrender domestically.


562 posted on 07/22/2005 4:57:53 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: Stu Cohen
Everyone is free to consent or not consent. They may check the bag without your consent, but not granting your consent is not defiance. It is doing what you think is right. And we should all do what we think is right. And not abiding by a law that violates the Bill of Rights is actually an OBLIGATION that all patriotic Americans have. Yes, I realize that it is impractical, and "not the way things work" ... but it's presicely our passivity to the deterioration of the Consitution that has gotten us to this point. Now since we've made 4/5th of the journey to totalitarianism people just say "we might as well go the rest of the way", but I don't begrudge the small number of people who try to preserve what the military is fighting for. Freedom.

Excellent Post! This has been an excellent thread.

563 posted on 07/22/2005 5:01:30 PM PDT by zeugma (Democrats and muslims are varelse...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

"I was just using that as an analogy - suppose we had no immigration issue with mexico - no one was coming here from mexico. then what would border security be for?"

What do you mean by "no immigration issue with mexico?"

But anyway, this is not the case - we do have immigration issues with Mexico and the rest of the third world who's allowed to pour their unwanted, undesirable elements into our country. Legal immigration is a bigger issue than illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a short-term problem, hopefully, while legal immigration is a critical long-term, state-sanctioned issue. Illegal immigrants shoul be deported to their respective countries and should not have been allowed to enter through our lax borders. Legal immigration laws must be changed to what they were prior to the paasge of the '65 Immigration Act.


564 posted on 07/22/2005 5:03:54 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences: Tom Tancredo for President 2008/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: TAquinas

"Diversity is tyranny. "

No....

Diversity is perversity. ;)


565 posted on 07/22/2005 5:06:38 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: TAquinas

I said SUPPOSE. Suppose the purpose of border security with mexico had nothing to do with illegal immigration - suppose Mexico was an economic shangri-la and no one was crossing into the US. what then would be the purpose of border security with Mexico? national security. so if we apply the same "odds maker" theory, we wouldn't need any of it, since the chances of catching a terrorist crossing is small.


566 posted on 07/22/2005 5:09:23 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

I was going to ask you what you wanted to be when you grew up. Lol!

You seem to have had your growing up process reversed. It usually goes from theory (infancy) to law (adult). You seem to have gone from law to infancy. Am not saying you're an infant. I'm only using terms that come to my deranged mind as I type here.

Be good and don't ever change (except on immigration issues and ideology, of course). And, when are you going to change that name to a masculine gender? You're a man, right?


567 posted on 07/22/2005 5:10:38 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences: Tom Tancredo for President 2008/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: BigFinn

Search 125 Broad Street, 18th floor. NYC. Chances are good there will be anti US/pro Islamic terrorism info tucked away somewhere.


568 posted on 07/22/2005 5:11:23 PM PDT by Cougar66 (The biggest trick the liberal media ever played was convincing the world it didn't exist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TAquinas

I am named after the GREATEST cinematic Capo of all time, one Peter Clemenza. You want to "go the mattress with me?" Oh, "Leave the gun, take the cannoli."


569 posted on 07/22/2005 5:13:16 PM PDT by Clemenza (JJesus CChrist MMade SSeattle UUnder PProtest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

"Diversity is perversity. ;)"

OK. About combining the two slogans to: "Diversity is forced perversity"?


570 posted on 07/22/2005 5:14:02 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences: Tom Tancredo for President 2008/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

"The war on drugs has already eroded most of our freedoms"?

Most of 'em? I'm looking around trying to find the ones I lost - Damnee, can't find one! - Yer teasing me, yer gotta be a doper! right? come on now, tell the truth! You sneeky you!


571 posted on 07/22/2005 5:17:15 PM PDT by Eighth Square
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Your supposition is irrelevant if them Mexicans are still allowed to migrate to the States legally. To habeus corpus OR not to habeus corpus. That is the question.

Hey, a little Latin doesn't hurt. I think I used the expression correctly, didn't I? ;)


572 posted on 07/22/2005 5:18:28 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences: Tom Tancredo for President 2008/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Ok. Thought you were using Clemenza as a first name.

Maranzano is my mentor and consanquine (sp?). Related to Bonanno, Provenzano and Di Benedetto.

Clemenza must have been on the other camp of the Castellamarese War, 'cause the name doesnt ring a ny bells.

Are you sure you spelled them cannolli correctly?


573 posted on 07/22/2005 5:24:18 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences: Tom Tancredo for President 2008/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Disregard my prior post. Just noticed the "cinematic".

You were talking fantasy land, while I was pouring my guts out.


574 posted on 07/22/2005 5:26:26 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences: Tom Tancredo for President 2008/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
They are truely varelse.

Boy, that one sent me Googling.

We're going to eventually have to kill every freaking one of them if we're going to survive.

I disagree.

I believe the Islamists in general can be quarantined, and we (could have?) can annihilate the core group of Jihadists in such a manner as to discourage future problems from these varelse.

But, of course, the ill conceived Bush "hearts and minds" Iraq campaign is counter productive and has set us back years, tears, and fortune.

575 posted on 07/22/2005 5:28:51 PM PDT by iconoclast (If you only read ONE book this year, make sure it's Colonel David Hunt's !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
while thousands of my Marine Corps brothers & sisters are putting their asses on the line to fight for YOUR FREEDOM, the least you can do while you're sitting safely behind your computers is support the cause and if that means extra security at bus terminals and subways and an extra inconvenience to passengers; THEN SMILE & DEAL WITH IT!

And all so tragically unnecessary had Bush and his minions been focused on OUR national security and not retreated from Pakistan!

576 posted on 07/22/2005 5:32:50 PM PDT by iconoclast (If you only read ONE book this year, make sure it's Colonel David Hunt's !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: American_Centurion
I'd be ecstatic if someone could provide me with a more precise word.

Class.

577 posted on 07/22/2005 5:39:59 PM PDT by iconoclast (If you only read ONE book this year, make sure it's Colonel David Hunt's !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
future problems from these varelse.

I hope it's a pejorative. What does it mean?

578 posted on 07/22/2005 5:41:53 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences: Tom Tancredo for President 2008/2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
I haven't visited the Rockford Institute since 1998, when I was a grad student at U of Chicago. I used to be a Paleocon, then I grew up.

No one that went to grad school in 1998 is a grownup. ;-)

579 posted on 07/22/2005 5:46:59 PM PDT by iconoclast (If you only read ONE book this year, make sure it's Colonel David Hunt's !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: TAquinas
future problems from these varelse.

I hope it's a pejorative. What does it mean?

You should be asking zeugma!

I didn't memorize the definition, but yeah I'd say it's pejorative. Something akin to outer space aliens.

580 posted on 07/22/2005 5:59:15 PM PDT by iconoclast (If you only read ONE book this year, make sure it's Colonel David Hunt's !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

I think I prefer the cameras over manhandling.


581 posted on 07/22/2005 6:17:07 PM PDT by johnb838 (Dominus Vobiscum; Saeculum saeculorum; Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

I think I prefer the cameras over manhandling.


582 posted on 07/22/2005 6:18:51 PM PDT by johnb838 (Dominus Vobiscum; Saeculum saeculorum; Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

The border argument is not an apt comparison at all. We have authorized checkpoints and established procedures for entering the country legally. Thus we can conclude that ALL other entries are illegal. And while we can't seal the borders, we do indeed have the technology and other resources to put one hell of a dent in the influx.

Moving beyond the borders (pun not intended), the obvious common-sense solution is profiling. There's not one solitary thing about it that's evil. It's just one more example of sacrificing national security for the sake of nothing more than idiotic political correctness shoved down our throats by a small minority of the population. Reality is that if you focus on the problem group, the odds of preventing something rise dramatically. Since our current authorities are absolutely unwilling to do that, however, I don't know that I have any solutions. We're trying to run a race with an eighty-pound bag of concrete strapped on our back.

The random searches will in practice be even worse, of course, since they will probably be handled like the random searches on airline boarding. Not only can likely targets not be afforded greater scrutiny, they're actually afforded LESS by rules that say no more than two Middle-Eastern males can be subjected to secondary screening. It's insanity on display.

MM


583 posted on 07/22/2005 7:18:44 PM PDT by MississippiMan (Americans should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
They are truely varelse.

Boy, that one sent me Googling.

Sorry about that. Well, actually I'm not. I think it's a great term, though I think you get the best feel for it after reading "Ender's Game" and "Speaker for the Dead". Both are excellent novels BTW, if you're into science fiction at all.

I believe the Islamists in general can be quarantined, and we (could have?) can annihilate the core group of Jihadists in such a manner as to discourage future problems from these varelse.

For those who haven't done the Googling, I'd like to expand a bit on the term "varelse", and the other terms that are related to it. I think this will more fully enable a more fruitful discussion on why I think they are varelse.

In the book, Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card put forward a series of classifications for what is in the book, alien races, but is adaptable to our single planet as well.

There are four different classifications of people. Remember that with each of these terms, they are mutual. if group A and B are Framling to each other, the A considers B to be Framling, and B considers A to be Framling.

Perhaps they are Ramen, and the lunatic fringe among them can be weeded out so that they may find some way to exist with. I am not entirely sure. Muslims seem to have been on this violent course for centuries now. The modern world appears to be an anathema to them, and their ideology seems, to me anyway, to be too easily twisted into a murderous one. The folks who blew up the London subway stations were British. From what I understand, they grew up there, yet their rage at those different from themselves was such that death and carnage was the only way they felt they could adequately express themselves.

I hope to G-d I'm wrong about that, because if I'm not, this next century may be even bloodier than the last, and that's saying a lot.

584 posted on 07/22/2005 8:12:14 PM PDT by zeugma (Democrats and muslims are varelse...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: TAquinas
I hope it's a pejorative. What does it mean?

See post 584. I elaborate at some length. :-)

585 posted on 07/22/2005 8:14:25 PM PDT by zeugma (Democrats and muslims are varelse...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

You are trying to say that the city of New York owns nightclubs?????


586 posted on 07/22/2005 9:14:11 PM PDT by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: gdani

They are not overseeing the security. The feds are.


587 posted on 07/22/2005 9:14:50 PM PDT by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

"As a New Yorker, I consent to anything that will make me safer"

I don't think these measures are enough.

I think the police should go to every neighborhood in New York and randomly search every fifth house.

After all, if you have nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right?

Ed


588 posted on 07/22/2005 9:31:10 PM PDT by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sabramerican

"On what is supposed to be a Conservative Constitutional website, the denizens are laughing at the assertion of the most basic of Constitutional rights."

I don't think Freep is like that, much, anymore.

Or maybe I'm reading the wrong threads!

Seems like most of the posts I see are apologists for the loss of our freedoms...

Ed


589 posted on 07/22/2005 9:34:58 PM PDT by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: beltfed308; kellynla

It seems to me what we are fighting for is not freedom, but a police state.

Since we have nothing to hide, I guess we can all just walk through the streets butt naked.


590 posted on 07/22/2005 9:37:37 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert (Texas Cowboy...you da man!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

"...here you are, in a conservative forum, no less, advocating pitching them all away, entirely"

The Freepers that don't mind losing their 4th Amendment rights might see it differently if the cops were developers taking the passenger's backpacks for Economic Development under Kelo vs. New London!

Ed


591 posted on 07/22/2005 9:39:30 PM PDT by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

I'm not a liberal, and I would never consent to being randomly searched on the subway!

It's scary how disrespectful of the Constitution so many people have become.

The idea that innocenet people should lose their rights to protect the many is simply an extension of New York's belief that guns are evil, and should be banned...that the 2nd Amendment has less validity than stopping the 1% of gun owners that use their gun's in a criminal matter.

I think it's but a matter of time before most Freepers will applaud the seizure of guns across America, because it's better to lose some rights than be hurt by terrorists.

Ed


592 posted on 07/22/2005 9:46:12 PM PDT by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I'll tell you what's unreasonable about it. It's unreasonable to have these security measures put in place by a "police force" that operates according to its own rules and regulations, and operates outside many of the laws that ordinary citizens are required to obey.

I don't know a thing about NYPD or most other east coast PD's, I am a retired west coast cop, and I must admit we did things a bit different out here.

Thanks for the history lesson on law enforcement, since I have written a few papers on the subject myself, you were lecturing the choir.

I prefer doing something to stop terrorism rather than just throwing open the doors and telling them to go for it. These guys cannot be appeased, they want our heads (literally). But one day everyone will wake up to that fact, but maybe it will be too late and then what constitution will anyone be referring to?

Rather than nitpick each other, we all need to get together and stop this stuff pretty darn quick. Good writing dude, I'm sure it enlightened folks.

593 posted on 07/22/2005 9:48:16 PM PDT by Tactical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
If I have a reasonable suspicious that a crime (terrorism) may be committed and I see someone acting suspicious in the vacinity, I can shake them down for my own safety as well as the general publics safety. I'd rather see them use the term searching people that are acting suspicious.

But hey remove the cops if you like, it's not my subway. I don't ride on it. Still I hate to see people get hurt because someone decided to argue over terminology.

594 posted on 07/22/2005 9:52:07 PM PDT by Tactical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
You apparently didn't read what I wrote. It is the RANDOM searches that are the problem.

Either search EVERYBODY or search all those who fit the profile/description. See my post #49.

I think what has everyone panties in a bunch is plain old fashion poor choice of wording, by using the word "RANDOM".

I for one, am for searching with probable cause any suspicious persons. Call it instinct, profiling or whatever you like, it's obvious a certain few in a well recognized group of people have been established as terrorists. I haven't seen many old ladies with shopping bags blow things up, but there have been a few guys from middle eastern backgrounds. So we should shake them down.

Heck I don't mind getting my stuff searched. Just hope the guy next to me isn't carrying an explosive and sets it off in the search line.

Look everyone, this is a no win situation for the cops. They want to help stop this stuff, but if we are just going to argue back and forth, then guess who wins? Yup the terrorists.

595 posted on 07/22/2005 10:00:29 PM PDT by Tactical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

What does the stadium security do when you're legally carrying?

Do you inform them, first, or do they just discover it and ask to see your CCW?

Ed


596 posted on 07/22/2005 10:01:04 PM PDT by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

"You think it's unreasonable for the police to search backpacks of subway riders?"

Would you think it unreasonable to search every backpack of people walking down the sidewalk?

I'm not asking just rhetorically, I'm really curious, at what point do you think it is unreasonable?

And if you think it's okay to search everyone walking down the sidewalk, what about searching everyone's car, whenever they enter a metropolitan area?

After all, a car bomb will do more danger than a backpack bomb...

Ed


597 posted on 07/22/2005 10:06:20 PM PDT by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

"There is no photography allowed on the MTA line"

What about people who can draw life-like pictures of the subway?

Seems like the only real solution is to paint all the windows black and blindfold all the riders, so they can't see their surroundings...

Ed


598 posted on 07/22/2005 10:11:07 PM PDT by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: LifeOrGoods?

I have no idea what these officers are being told .. but if anybody in NYC is paying attention and is taking a clue from the UK and profiling - we'll end up safer in the end.

Somebody needs to tell the ACLU to pound sand. These people, for the most part, are not American citizens - and therefore have no "rights" afforded to them.


599 posted on 07/22/2005 10:24:38 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: Sir_Ed

People are not being searched - only backpacks.

So .. I hope you enjoy being blown to bits.

But .. this whole thing is an offensive play .. in other words, if these bombers believe they will not be able to get into the tunnels, perhaps they will decide it's not worth the try.


600 posted on 07/22/2005 10:27:22 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-642 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson