Josh makes valid criticisms of the subway searches
in New York City, but he glibly overlooks the serious dangers of the new
policy. First, civil libertarians can’t be “relied on to object to just
about anything,” as Josh crassly states. It is very clear what they
object to: violations of civil liberties and constitutionally
guaranteed rights. Josh calls the security concerns of the Daily News
more “astute,” but he does not address the real constitutional issues
that are raised. Josh thinks he’s so fuckin’ smart.
Anyway. Josh is correct in highlighting how
utterly ineffective and wasteful the new subway search policy is. In
some ways it seems completely nonsensical. If someone goes down to a
subway planning to attack and a cop asks to search his bag, why would he
consent? He would leave and go to a different station. If the police
are searching every 10th person, his chances of being stopped
twice are either 1/20 or 1/100, depending on what they told me in math,
which I forget.
Unless he is appears to be Muslim and the police
profile him, in which case the odds change. In that case, his civil
liberties are violated and Muslims in New York City become second-class
citizens who are constantly under suspicion. A policy of racial
profiling reeks of racism and the unintended consequences of inviting
more hatred and violence upon us.
Given the ineffectiveness of bag searching, the
potential for racial profile is huge. As is the potential for this
policy to set a precedent for expanded police powers and further
incursions on our 4th Amendment rights, which have been under
attack at protests (especially at the DNC and RNC) in which police have
tried searching people despite having no valid suspicion of criminal
activity. Civil liberties have been under attack since Bush was
inaugurated and they have been in a state of crisis with the passage of
the PATRIOT Act and other post-9/11 legislation. Yet we are ignoring
this blank check written to the NYPD that allows them to harass millions
of New Yorkers who have only the subway as a means of transportation.
At the very least, questions need to be raised.
But where has the media been? The New York Times ran articles about how
people are fine with the searches, based on meaningless street
interviews. In Clyde Haberman’s hard-hitting “NYC” column on July 26th,
he celebrates the benefits of the searches as fewer people will carry
bulky bags on to the subway, thus alleviating the “misery” of fellow
passengers. Next week, Haberman’s column will discuss how lucky
Zimbabwean residents who have had their homes razed by Mugabe are
because they don’t have to do housework.
Security concerns are of course important. But,
since 9/11, the “concerns” are mostly a sham, a manipulation of the
public consciousness aimed at complacency that allows illegal wars,
unjust economic policy, and the stripping of civil liberties. False
perceptions of safety are not worth the ridiculous cost. If that’s what
we want, the MTA can start handing out blankets to nervous passengers.
We need to focus on the real “concerns” and the dangerous precedents
being set before those concerns become an even more disastrous reality.