Slashdot Mirror
London Tube Dangerous for Technophiles?
TsukiKage writes "Traveling on the London Tube is dangerous these days, it seems - and not because of terrorists. Quick as ever to try and protect against the attack that has just happened, zealous police will detain you at the drop of a hat." From the article: "The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift on to the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back. I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside my jacket and begin to read. The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me ... They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act."
The MBTA in Bostonhas instituted a search policy on the commuter rail and subway. They say the station I come into in the morning (North Station) has about 25000 people come in during rush hours in the AM, making it impracticel tosearch everyone. Ithink "random" searches are never random -- people gettargetted.
The ACLU has a detailed page describing how to deal with a search request. One of the primary differences in the US and UK is clearly illustrated -- I don't mean this as a slam on the UK, merely pointing out a difference. In the US every ctizen is supposed to be immune from unreasonable search. Of course the definition of reasonable is opem to debate. But it's only by people pushing against crazy things like these train searches that we are able to defend indivual freedoms.
With the recent supreme court ruling in the Hiibel case it's more important than ever that citzens defend the right that are given to them. I hope other Bostonians will print out a copy of the ACLU's advice page ann keep it with them when they travel on the T. If you are an American and live in a place that has unreasonable searches, contact your local ACLU and see what they advise.
Regretting that you can't do something in the war on terror? Here's your opportunity. Defend civil liberties at home.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
This is also published on the victim's website. Also on there is a description of the suicide bomber profile the police use - which many geeks will also fit.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I assume you're talking about Tony Martin?
UK law is quite clear - you can use reasonable force in the cause of self-defense. You can't, as he did, lie in wait for a burglar then shoot him in the back as he runs away from you. There is no self-defense case there.
It's not really surprising that assault with a firearm carries a higher penalty than a failed attempt at burglary.
Phil
I guess today is a passable day to die.
Might seem like a quibble but it isn't: In the U.S., you do not have "constitutional rights." Instead, the government has, or is supposed to have, a limited set of constitutionally authorized powers. Anything outside that limited set of powers is illegal and illegitimate. Every other right and freedom belongs to you, and is not for the government to determine.
At least that is how the Founders created this nation. In practice, the government has become a cancer on the nation.
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
The TPA is supposed to have safeguards, preventing wanton abuse by the police - otherwise they'd just call everyone a terrorist and sort out who was what over the week they get before having to present some evidence. The police can't just arrest anyone they happen to feel like. Well, they can, they're just going to get bollicked by the courts if they try, as happened in the aforementioned case.
This is no different from in the US, where anyone can physically be arrested by the police and subject to whatever searches the police feel like. The Constitution is just paper, it can't physically intervene. All a person can do is plead their case in court and hope for a sensible judge. (More than a few convictions in the US have been overturned on appeal, because the Miranda rights were violated - deomonstrating that it can take several rounds before anyone pays attention.)
It's also important to note we don't know ALL of the facts of the case. For all we know, British Intelligence may have tipped the police off that an attack was likely on that route, sometime soon. In which case, you're dealing with an entirely different scenario to one where the police were acting spontaneously, without due cause. All we can do, at this point, is guess as to the motives involved and the information the police had posessed. (I shall refrain from drawing inferences about the demonic nature of anti-terror squads that posess.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Dude.... you realize the article is about an incident in the UK, right? Take a deep breath, please.
No one had to work to sell it. Congress fell over itself to pass it. Feingold was the only senator to vote against it. There was a bit more resistance in the house, but still passed with ease. As for the public, we just wanted to see "something" done. Remember, at the time of it's passage, we were still shocked that a NYC landmark went down with 6000 people in it (later revised to 3000).
Thankfully, much of the bill has a sunset. If you ask me, all bills should have a sunset. It forces us to renew the debate and see if the bill is still popular. It would also help us get some of the dumber laws off the books.
As of 8 September (over a month after his arrest), some of David's possessions had not been returned. I don't know whether they have yet - he doesn't say.
The investigation was thorough, quick, and ultimately vindicating.
Maybe you have built up tolerance of bureaucracy, but I don't call 9.5hrs from arrest to release "quick", especially seeing as he didn't get to call his worried girlfriend until 3hrs later, and get a drink of water until 4hrs later. Further, he hasn't yet received a letter officially stating that he's off the hook.
I'm kind of on the inside so have seen the orders pertaining to these powers. Nothing repeated below is restricted from the public domain in anyway by GPMS.
The officers do not need any reason, other than they are conducting a search for "terrorist" activities. The area defined in Section 43/44 powers becomes a stop and search zone. There does not have to be any ground for suspicion against the individual(s) searched, just that the powers are applied to the area because the area is at risk. If sufficient manpower was available *everyone* could be searched under Section 43/44 so long as a current order is in place. Your local Constabulary will be able to tell you if one applies in your area, and most publish notices on their web sites too (for "London" you will need to look at the Metropolitain, City of London, and British Transport Police sites).
Here's what Section 43/44 says:
43. - (1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.
(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.
(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.
44. - (1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-
(a) the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
(4) An authorisation may be given-
(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the Cit
Well...
Here he is wearing sunglasses at an anti-war protest in 2001.
And here he is again at the same protest.
Here he is with the past editors of .EXE magazine
and here he is weilding a very large knife in an obviously threatening manner.
Does he look dangerous enough to stop? You be the judge.
And yet, with CCTV footage we've caught the people who tried to blow up more trains on July 21, and probably gained more intelligence about the whole operation because of that.
After the fact. The fact that the second attack failed was purely a result of the bombers' ineptitude, and had nothing to do with interception by the police.
nuke the moon
...means nothing when the bombers are people like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.
The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
I'm not sure what the US/UK terrorrism policy is about. It may be sincere attempts to prevent it, it may be in part attempts to instill fear and through it control the population.
What I do know is that in any case it helps create an awful fear-laden atmosphere that makes everybody jittery, and for sure causes things like this (see below) or others like random killings of law-abiding turban-wearing or olive-skinned people.
Plus, just do the math. How much does it cost to set-up and blow a car-bomb or a suicide bomber? How much does it cost to try and prevent it? Probably at least 100 times more, and the prevention is most likely to fail at some point. Meanwhile, billions of dollars that could be helping people are badly spent, we cant bring nail cutters into airplanes, etc.
Can't we do it some other way? Try peace for a change. How hard is it to just show other people we don't hate them and that they have no reason to hate us? Can we spend a little bit on that as a means to prevent terrorrism?
About Jean Charles, the Brazilian shot dead:
From the BBC:
"22 JULY
Police shoot dead a man dead at Stockwell Tube station in south London. They say he was challenged and refused to obey an order.
Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said the shooting was "directly linked" to the ongoing London bombs inquiry.
Police say it is not yet clear if the man was one of four suspects involved in the failed 21 July attacks.
They say he was under observation because he had emerged from a house that was being watched.
He was followed by surveillance officers to Stockwell station, where his clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions, police say.
(...)
17 AUGUST
Leaked documents contradict previous accounts of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Appearing to be from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) inquiry into the shooting and leaked to ITV News, they suggest the Brazilian was restrained before being shot eight times.
ITV images show Mr de Menezes lying dead in a Tube train
They contradict eyewitness reports suggesting Mr Menezes jumped a barrier at Stockwell Tube station and was wearing a padded jacket that could have concealed a bomb.
They suggest he was wearing a denim jacket and walked into the station, picked up a free newspaper and walked through ticket barriers. It is suggested he only started to run when he saw a train arriving and was sitting down when he was shot.
(...)
"
For more see Google News
/* TAANSTAFL */
Sorry, hit submit rather than preview, the previous post was missing the final comment. Everything is repeated here for convenience.
... However, the en-mass encirclement of a single person (unnecessary use of intimidation/force), and the incarceration (handcuffs!) of a citizen w/o any evidence of a criminal act is preposterous ...
...". Actually handcuffing the person would not be part of normal procedure, a violent history, intoxication, or some overt act would be needed. That said my training is 10+ years out of date.
I was trained (Reserve Peace Officer, California) that "swarming" a person is legally justified via safety, both the person being interviewed and the officer's. Similiarly searching a person to be interviewed is legally justified via safety. In fact I was trained to begin the instructions for the search with the phrase "For your safety and mine
Now I was not trained to deal with suicide bombers but it would seem a natural extention of past policies and law that handcuffing a person being interviewed and/or breifly detained regarding suicide bombing would be appropriate. The safety of the officers conducting the interview being the legal justification. It seems necessary to prevent a bomber from reaching for a detonator switch.
FWIW, handcuffing is not incarceration, it is not even arrest. It is retraint to facilitate safety, a judgement call where reasonableness varies wildly with the situation. It can be used during interviews and brief detensions before deciding to place someone under arrest and taking them to the station. It is merely uncommon to use handcuffs during interviews.