[Texas_Conservative2]

I knew this was coming.

[kellynla]

I think its about time for the IRS to audit the ACLU...
hmmmmmm...

[Hadean]

Do they have a better idea?




Didn't think so.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm curious to see how this whole thing shakes out in New York.

I'm on the NYCLU's side on this one, but probably for much different reasons. It seems to me that law enforcement officials in New York have two options: search everyone, or search nobody. I'd like to see how the latter approach would work if it were implemented for six months.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

can we sue for aclu for risking our safety?

[trebb]

Simple solution, have them either come up with something that will really work, or to assume full responsibility if a successful attack occurs because of their PC "sensibilities".

[Labyrinthos]

The suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, will claim that the two-week old policy violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures, while doing almost nothing to shield the city from terrorism.

I do agree with the ACLU in that the searches as currently performed do absolutely nothing to shield us from terrorism. But from a Constitutional standpoint, I do not see how the random searches are any different than "roving road blocks," where cops randomly pull over drivers without any probable cause in the hopes nailing a drunk driver. Much to my disgust, the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld roving road blocks and I don't see how the random mass transit searches are any different.

[solitas]

The suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, will claim that the two-week old policy violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures, while doing almost nothing to shield the city from terrorism.

This two-week-old policy probably COULD have stopped Colin Ferguson from specifically killing five Whites and one Asian on the Long Island RR back in '93 - but, oops, yeah - we don't want to talk about ALSO helping to stop more-prevalent DOMESTIC CRIME when we can just sit back and b!tch about international terrorism… Silly me.

[tkathy]

Why not have speparate trains for the searched and the unsearched? I know which one I would ride in.

[Labyrinthos]

BTW, if you want to have some fun, go to the ACLU's NYC website and fill out the questionnaire regarding your experiences with the random searches. When you get to the question that asks "Do you know why you were searched?" give the ACLU a piece of your mind. I told then that I was searched because of "politically correct leftest a-holes like you who have done everything they can to prevent LEO from focusing upon the people most likely to want to kill us, and they ain't 65 year old grandmothers from Harlem, Hassidic Jews from Crown Heights, queers from Greenwich Village, or even self-hating liberal Caucasians from the upper west side."

Here's the link: http://www.nyclu.org/

[PeskyOne]

If they don't want to make the subways safe, let them try walking or driving their own cars in the city.

[desherwood7]

No Suprise.

[aculeus]

The two reasons no lawyer objects to searches of airline passengers:

1. Lawyers fly on airplanes.

2. Lawyers' mothers fly on airplanes.

[andy58-in-nh]

Do you wonder what the police might find if they searched the NYCLU's office?

[ZULU]

We should suspend Constitutional protections in America long enough to round up every last member, supporter and attorney for the ACLU and march them off to the Aleutians for permanent internment - no hope of parole or contact with the outside world.

Better yet, we should air-drop them all into Mecca during the "Stoning the Devil" ritual.

[hattend]

Does the NYCLU get to be sued out of existence by family members and surviving victims when a suicide bomber goes off in the New York subway?