« Memory Lapses on General Westmoreland | Main | Toronto Bans Beauty »
July 21, 2005
Political Correctness Trumps Security in NYC
The New York Times reports that, in the wake of today's attempted second wave of public transit attacks in London, New York City will begin checking bags on a random basis at subway and commuter railway stations, and on buses and ferries.
New York takes the threat of another terrorist attack quite seriously — but unfortunately nowhere near as seriously as it takes political correctness.
"No racial profiling will be allowed," announced Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. "It's against our policies."
NYC's subways alone carry 4.5 million passengers on an average weekday. For every unshaven Middle Easterner clutching a Koran and wearing an "I Love Osama" t-shirt that the police search, they need to do the same to about 10,000 nuns, schoolgirls, and stockbrokers to convince the ACLU they aren't indulging in sensible behavior by targeting the people who are targeting us. In the extremely unlikely event that a Muslim-looking person gets stopped and happens to have a nail bomb in his backpack, all he has to do is refuse to be searched. The cops will send him on to the next subway station to try his luck again.
But no matter how many advantages you give to the terrorists who are trying to maim and kill us, the ACLU will never quite be satisfied.
"Random police searches of people without any suspicion of wrongdoing are contrary to our most basic constitutional values," screeched Christopher Dunn, associate legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union.
So Mr. Dunn, are you saying that the searches shouldn't be random? That we should start focusing on the sort of people who are likely to be terrorists? No? Didn't think so.
Boston tried random baggage checks at rail stations during the Democrats' convention in 2004. The ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee objected to the point of going to court over it. Passengers were selected based on random numbers using clicker-counts of riders, so that no one could accuse authorities of picking on likely terrorists. Since Arabs were in no way singled out, why was the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee involved? Perhaps they were concerned about the thin chance that this strategy would actually thwart a terrorist attack, thus preventing a young Arab from celebrating his cultural heritage by blowing some innocent women and children to bits, and thereby contributing to the rich tapestry of diversity.
Eventually we are going to have to chose between the bizarre anti-religion known as political correctness and simple survival. I wish I had more faith that we will chose wisely.
Hat tip: Little Green Footballs.
Cross-posted at The Wide Awakes.
Posted by Van Helsing at July 21, 2005 8:05 PM
Comments
in-bleeping-sane. Simply insane. I had an argument with the Significant OtherHunter this evening on the topic of Random Searches in NY Subways and then it finally dawned on me that we really agreed, I was just ASSUMING that the RANDOM searches were of RANDOM folks who seemed, well, REASONABLE to search, which is what she was thinking. She, however, was smarter (and better read) than I.
The only benefit of random is that indeed, it would be a deterrant to some extent. But, c'mon! The terrorists are going to employ little old ladies? 8-o
Sorry, it's late, I've been working all night, and I'm getting silly.
Posted by: The MaryHunter at July 21, 2005 11:18 PM
OK OK ... nice to meet you Muhammad .. Oh, yeah, and you, too, Omar - and hey nice backpack! ...
Oh, hey, Sally, can you step aside for a moment? We really need to talk ...
RWR
Posted by: RightWingRocker at July 22, 2005 4:37 AM
Yeah, catering the victimization fantasies of ethnic minorities is so much more important than, oh, keeping people of all races and ethnicities from being blown to pieces.
Posted by: V the K at July 22, 2005 9:07 AM
One of the ways terrorism ( or any radical movement, for that matter) is fueled is by luring those in a particular culture that feel disconnected or unaccepted. Profiling only helps to further widen the chasm, lending credence to the recruiters' spiel.
I understand the concerns, but, where does it end? Should we round up any middle-eastern looking people into mosques and interrogate them? Just as the war in Iraq and other locations is accepted by many as at least a start toward change, maybe we should look at what we can do to help assimilate these people, so we don't have the situation Europe has, with the muslims as a culture living on the fringes, succeptible to the next ideologue?
By the way Maryhunter, random searches of muslims is the same as profiling.
Posted by: Rob B. at July 22, 2005 9:40 AM
I haven't seen an "Osama" t-shirt on any of the pictures of bombing suspects in London.
One of the latest pics shows a guy wearing a "New York" shirt I believe.
And the first wave of attackers were born in Britain.
Seems if you want to be a terrorist, you have to blend in. So random is much more effective. You never know if you'll be targeted or not.
Remember the bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 was believed to have been carried on by an all American looking girl -- duped into doing it.
Posted by: Randy Case at July 22, 2005 2:51 PM
It's pretty hard to deny that most suicide bombers look like suicide bombers: Middle Eastern men in their 20s. Whether someone is born in Britain or not is irrelevant to their ethnicity, obviously.
Posted by: Van Helsing at July 22, 2005 3:13 PM
Van Helsing! (gasp!) Are you suggesting that people of Arab or other Middle Eastern are the ones who are perpetrating these terrorist acts?
May the gods/goddesses of P.C. have mercy on you, sir! ;)
Posted by: Jonathan at July 22, 2005 5:02 PM
I was going to comment but I believe xoverboard says it as best as it can be said.
As a former New Yorker, I've been meaning to address NYC Mayor Bloomberg's latest "anti-terrorism" initiative to start randomly searching the bags of commuters.
Forget even the fact that I'm a former New Yorker, but merely as a current rational carbon-based life form I'll vouch that it's absolutely useless. The policy specifically states that you are allowed to refuse to consent to a random search, which will merely forbid you from entering the subway station. Which means that any actual terrorist with a backpack full of Anthrax can refuse to open up, and simply walk up the street to the next station, one by one until they finally beat the odds and get in. Then he/she can get on a subway and blow up anyone they want.
So for stopping terrorists, the policy is flat-out nonsensical. Its true purpose is somewhat obvious: with the possible exception of my home state of New Jersey, New York City is the racial profiling capital of the United States of America, courtesy of the legacy left by a megalomaniac named Rudy who went to bed a civil rights nightmare one evening and woke up a national hero. It's an excuse for Michael Bloomberg to look tough on terror and simultaneously appease the sensibilities of white tourists in the middle of an election year- "Oh, there's nothing to fear, honey. See? That nice police man is making sure those negroes aren't carrying weapons." Twenty bucks says the first lawsuit against this thing comes before Labor Day.
I'm too lazy to get the actual figures right now, but I seem to recall that there's around 50,000 police officers in New York City. I also seem to recall there's something like- what, seven, eight million people living in it? If you took even a tenth of those, plus commuters from New Jersey, you couldn't search a siginficant percentage of bags to begin with if you had the entire police force on duty at the hundred or so stations in the city.
There are actual ways to reduce crime and terror in New York subways- they involve hiring more cops and toll booth workers and updating MTA infrastructure similar to how they have it here in Washington DC- cleaner terminals, updated equipment, cameras, and humans at every station. Unfortunately, that would require actually managing the city's budget. Oh well, it's not like New York has a mayor who allegedly worked with finances or anything.
Posted by: The Bastard at July 23, 2005 2:57 AM
As I have often said, if blue-eyed, thirty-something Mormons were terror-bombing people, I'd understand it if cops gave me a hard look when I went to use public transportation.
Of course, my religion and culture would never tolerate suicide bombing ... unlike some others I can think of.
Posted by: V the K at July 23, 2005 5:50 AM
The end to political correctness as it relates to the War on Terrorism will be driven by the people, up to the politicans, the groups on the left, and the MSM. The Muslims in London are now beginning to sense that being watched very closely by the average citizen using mass transit and in the general public. If the situation in London continues, the average law-abiding citizens will not tolerate young Arab looking men getting on mass transit with backpacks and heavy clothing, exhibiting abberant behavior in public, and having the Muslim community not denouncing the actions of certain individuals . There will be a reaction to these radical clerics at these sewer-grade Mosques preaching hate and violence to the young cesspool dwellers in the name of Islam. The British people will call for restrictions as to who will be allowed in thier country, and thier actions after arrive in the country. The PC'ers will holler and howl all the way to the bombing scenes and funerals. Eventually, these things will be implemented in this country, the average American will demand it if we are struck by violence as in London. I know it will piss people off, but this is war, a global War on Terrorism, and we had better start reacting now. By the way, shoot to kill, didn't think the British had the balls to do that. HIP-HIP..HOORAY.
Posted by: Eneils Bailey at July 23, 2005 7:30 AM

