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
Terrorism Act = Patriot Act? Its funny, they don't sugar coat it like the US does.
After you are detained, you are taken to the ministry of love for evaluation.
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
Either you detain them and we get stories like this poping up, or you don't and once it is a actual bomber or something and people looking for someone to blame start asking "well he was clearly suspicious, he should have been stopped, detained, and questioned. Had that happend we wouldn not be dealing with one of the worse tragedies of our time." Sad but true.
just wonder if I wiped that copy of "The Anarchist's Cookbook" I downloaded in curiosity five years ago from usenet... not to mention the fact that my education and armed forces experience gives me the capability of designing and building timer devices... and of cooking up explosives...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I'm not one to immediately yell "constitutional rights!" anytime a peace officer attempts to do their job. I think under the recent circumstances it reasonable for a police officer to stop someone and ask them what their purpose is, and assuming its done in a non-discrimatory manner to ask to look through your concealed possessions.
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. I am unsure of the legal system available to those in the UK, but at the very least I would consult a barrister to confirm what you real rights are... many times police officers use their authority to intimindate people into compliance, even if their own behaviour is illegal.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
How can you blame the police for searching you? You were reading a Wikipedia article. You might as well have been using Linux and p2p to trade government secrets with Saddam bin Satan.
Seriously though, that's messed up. Were you reading the paper in a threatening manner? I can't see them doing that to people for *no reason* (sure, maybe for an *invalid* reason, but there's a difference...)
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
The presence of a slightly suspicious person shuts down a train for a few hours? It seems that an organized civil disobedience effort could keep the entire London tube system offfline indefinitely by wearing backpacks and using cell phones in carefully chosen stations and times. How long could that go on before someone realizes it's not preventing terrorism and it's more trouble than it's worth for everyone?
I'm about to hit 40 next January and when comparing my life now with how things felt in the 80s and 90s I realize how much the country I live in (U.S.) and the countries I was raised in (all over Europe) have changed in the last two decades. Just go to downtown London or any British city: cameras and microphones everywhere!! Do they prevent any terrorist attacks? OBVIOUSLY NOT! Any of us could come up with a plot and blow up some public building if we put our heads to it. What's a LOT more annoying than the remote chance of dying in a terrorist attack is the increasing curbing of civil liberties for the sake of 'public security'.
As Benjamin Franklin once argued: A nation that gives up freedom to gain security deserves neither.
... at least the author wasn't shot and killed.
I'd be scared to be wearing my mp3 player + headphones in the Underground. What if someone yelled "STOP!" and I didn't hear them?
On Thursday 7th July there were four bombers with backpacks.
On Thursday 21st July there were four attempted bombers with backpacks.
Are you really surprised that they were extra careful with people with backpacks on Thursday 28th July?
I do SERIOUSLY think the UK has gone too far. Taking DNA, fingerprints and more without serious reason (that was evident at the time of the 'arrest' in the story) is absurd, ridiculous and by all means totally out of proportion. If the arrest was valid and 'normal' in the UK the country is truly bonkers and out of whack. What will happen if the terrorism (not just the type done by the muslim fanatics) continues?
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
Oh. OK. So, not being executed is the gold standard of good treatment by police now? What if they beat him senseless in the process? Still OK because they didn't kill him? Broke a couple of bones, still all right? Permanently crippled someone, still A-OK because they're not dead?
The bottom line is a lot of police forces around the planet are turning into bands of thugs, and the reason they're getting away with it is exactly comments from people like "it's not so bad, they didn't kill him like the other bloke"
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.
I just simply can't believe the British government would so unabashingly remove a British citizen's rights so quickly under an "Act". The British have always done this - the whole is more important than the individual. That is *exactly* the type of action that led to the American Revolutionary War when the Crown tried to tighten down more than the people were willing to let them.
It is sad that Americans have now, slowly but surely, allowed a domestic government to do the very same things that we fought for independance from.
Maybe he doesn't look "ethnic" enough to be mistaken for a Muslim.
He never said what colour his skin is. Seems like he would have when describing his clothes.
Socialist Republic? Are you smoking crack? It's not a Republic for one thing (the whole thing of having a monarch and no written constitution is a bit of a giveaway).
/. seem to lean a little to the left", I doubt you would actually know whether someone's comments were left or right leaning.
As for socialist? Well, only compared to the US. It's a social democracy, with much less of the "social" side than mainland Europe. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrat for a good explanation. Yeah there's a welfare state, but it's not comprehensive, there are merely aspects of it present. Mostly European countries are social democracies - they aren't actually massively left wing on a global scale - being centerist really. Ireland and Britain more so than the others. You could say "centre-right" and "centre-left", but really compared to global extremes (US, Japan, China, Cuba), Europe is pretty middle-of-the-road politically.
What does "restrictive gun laws" have to do with the idea of a socialist Republic? It's perhaps an indicator of authoritarianism rather than liberalism (although on this particular topic, I would say "sanity rather than insanity"). But your comments make no logical sense.
So as regards your observation that "posts here in
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
We have a constitution. It's just not written down in one place, so it allows the government and people to act with a certain amount of reasonable flexibility, while still allowing either one to be put in their place if they fuck someone/something over.
Or maybe you could realize that most liberals don't hate America, they just want to make it better. You can't make things better unless you look at what's wrong. It also helps to look at what other countries are doing that is working better. Despite the success the Bush Administration and Fox News have had in turning 'liberal' into some sort of insult, most of them are pretty reasonable people.
Britain is in over-reaction mode, just as the US was after 9/11. Unfortunate, but not suprising. They may get a bit more carried away since they are lacking some of the guarantees our constitution provides, but that doesn't negate other things that they're doing well. Spazzing out as though it did is just silly.
This should just serve to illustrate how important our civil liberties are, especially in times of crisis. This is why the patriot act was and still is a mistake. Further, the U.S. government is never above criticism. That is our right and our duty as citizens. During wartime, the government should be held to higher standards, not lower ones.
Don't know why Mr. May had such a hard time of it. Sounds more like an abberation than a trend, and it's impossible to contruct a trend line from a single point of data.
Crow T. Trollbot
Most people are well aware of the difficulties of dealing with terrorism, and the UK is leaps and bounds ahead of it than the US is, so drop your pants and switch on Fox ;)
I can understand the mistaken arrest, but not the way they seem to think that the offended individual should simply accept an apology while the authorities keep all the false accusations on record and fail to return confiscated posessions.
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
The way to overcome this, of course, is to have a day when everyone agrees to wear backpacks to work. When all 25k rush hour commuters are carrying something, the searches will eventually stop.
As far as I could tell from the article, the police weren't exactly acting like bands of thugs. I think they they did over-react, and arrest this guy on very little evidence. But, it sounds like, they are just doing what they are expected to do, as handed down by the politicians.
Thing is, from the article, it seems to me like, at least at the start, it wasn't necessarily completely unreasonable for the police to stop the guy and check his things. Although, it does seem like they should have had a bit more cause than just that he didn't give them a smile going through the gate, and had a rucksack and jacket.
The point of unreasonableness came when they inspected his stuff, found NOTHING, and still arrested him. And then, going through his apartment, taking his stuff, building up this dossier and putting it in the national computer, all when he had done *nothing* wrong.
If the police stopped me in a subway or bus station, checked the contents of my bag and frisked me, sure I'd be a little upset about the treatment, but I'd get over it, realizing they're just trying to keep everyone (including me) safe. But to just carry on the way they did when they determined he wasn't a threat, seems truly unreasonable.
But that unreasonableness comes down from the politicians, it sounded like, from the Terrorism Act that was passed by them, not from the police themselves. Sounds to me like they were just doing what they were instructed to do from above.
Oh, and, I think the grandparent was being sarcastic, man. Not serious.
The following is a beautiful quote which i find as relevant today as more than half a century ago...
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." Quote by Martin Niemoller
Here, most of the educated folk realize the folly of the patriot act (voted in, even though most of the voters had not even read the document). My professors, collegues, bosses, all educated people know the damage acts like the patriot act can do and are yet silent.
As the article seems to imply, the day isnt that far away, when THEY come for YOU!
Staying one step ahead!
They took his BeBox? Inhumane they are!
Now, eventually you might find yourself in the position of having to defend yourself from foreign nationalists bent on paying you back for some of the supression, meddling, back-alley dealing, intimidation, bombing, killing, etc.. that you got you to the top of the food chain in the first place. Well, all those nukes you built won't help you there - unless you find a single country to drop a few onto. But that country you just invaded provides a great launching point for even 'more' meddling and 'democratization' - it'll cost you a fortune but you're hooked on oil and after all, the end justifies the means. We're the mighty and proud United States of America after all - the land of the free!
Damn, I'm so fucking pissed at this world - I could puke everytime I watch the news...
The reason Slashdot posters tend to lean a little to the left is because the average slashdot reader is educated and reasonably intelligent. They tend to seek out news for themselves without automatically accepting the news that the media spoon feeds them which just so happens to echo the corporate/political party line. I am not aiming this at republicans or democrats instead these are general statements. Becoming politically and socially conscious will expand your mind and tend to change your point of view.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
What did this guy do that was "clearly suspicious"?
If you had read the article, you'd see that the cops grabbed him because of him using a cell phone then pulling out a piece of paper and a lap top while he was wearing a jacket and a ruck sack.
This is what is known a "stupidity" because the next round of terrorist attacks will involve guys dressed in suits and carrying briefcases. That way, they will get past the idiots doing the "profiling" who don't have any idea how to profile correctly.
It is easier to get past a badly done profiling system than it is to get past a system of random checks.
If I were that guy, I'd do a quick test and wear the same outfit to a different station, do the same things BUT wear thick glasses and a yarmulke and see if he gets picked up again.
If he does, then the cops are being consistent (even if they're doing it wrong).
If he does not then the cops aren't providing ANY protection against ANY attack.
Were this mans rights violated? I did not see anything in the article that he wrote that would have violated American law. I do not know British Law. I also did not see anything that would have violated his basic human rights. Everything he owned was returned to him. He was not physically or mentally harmed or tortured. He underwent a little (in his mind a great deal of ) hassle, but he was not debilitated in any way. This comes down to the fact that he was acting suspiciously (at least under the given circumstances) and the police had a responsibility in the heightened state of awareness to follow up on that suspicion. They also have a right, and responsibility, to maintain records of their actions. The statements of the officers, as long as they are accurate and not purposely altered, are absolutely necessary to maintain an auditable account of the situation. He may be arrested again for something and find that those records insturmental in proving he has no prior record of wrongdoing. If they were maintained in his possession he would have a much harder time validating they are genuine. I think this case is a model of what should be done. Note he was not whisked away to some unknown location and denied legal counsel...in fact the article makes no mention of legal counsel being offered, requested, or denied. This is a fully acceptable and encouraging account of how a terrorist prevention system should work. The investigation was thorough, quick, and ultimately vindicating. He was let go in a reasonable time frame and the investigation was concluded. I am sorry for his inconvenience, but I think the officers were justified in their actions and were respectful of his rights.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Still, quite chilling. Among other things, they (apparently) searched his flat without getting a warrant from a judge, took DNA samples (among other things), kept the SIM card from his phone (has he gotten that one back?), and will keep records on him in their database, which probably will be shared with other nations' police agencies, too (thanks to Interpol), even though he's innocent.
Considering that all he did was wear a "suspicious" jacket, look at the stairs he was walking down and carry a rucksack, that's quite a lot. What if he had looked like someone from an Arab country and ran to catch a train, too? I wouldn't at all be surprised if some over-eager officer had decided to shoot him dead in that case.
What may be even worse is that nothing's actually gained this way. Sure, there was a terrorist attack on the tube this summer, but honestly, do you think that the terrorists are gonna attack it again now? I don't know, but if *I* was a terrorist, I'd target something else next - an amusement park, a sports arena, a shopping mall, but certainly *not* the tube again; it's obvious that that one's being watched much more closely now.
But that's just the point: a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Guarding the tube doesn't do *anything at all* as far as the overall threat is concerned - it merely makes it more likely that other targets will be selected.
What's more, this story makes it clear that the police are pretty much running around like the proverbial headless chickens - that they're acting completely irrationaly. And *that* is something that makes it all that easier for the real terrorists.
Do you feel safer now? I certainly don't. I feel less safe because of random idiotic police actions like this, and I also feel less safe because I know that those responsible are not looking at the big picture and resorting to ineffective measures - counter-effective ones, even, as stuff like this not only not makes things safer, but actually makes everything *less* safe.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
No, no, no. You're thinking of the "Terrorist act". Big difference.
See, the "Terrorist Act" is where they can search you without probable cause and arrest you if they think you look suspicious in the UK.
Then you have the "Patriot Act", that is completely different. That's where they can search you without probable cause and arrest you if they think you look suspicious in the US.
See? The differences are remarkable.
The ideal we're supporting is a willingness to live with danger in order to live free. That is what our country was based on.
i simply don't understand people who see more menace in western authorities than in terrorist's actions.
You don't understand?
It's because I am about a billion times more likely to be negatively affected by bad or rights-limiting policy than I am to be killed by a terrorist.
I'd rather take a 1:1,000,000,000 chance on not getting hit by a suicide bomber while living a nice life than take a 1:2 chance that I'll suffer at the hands of the government so that they can ensure (and really, they can't even do that) that I won't get hit by a terrorist.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Having said all that, the man shot at Stockwell was plainly murdered in cold blood, and I believe charges should be brought.
ObDisclosure: I'm a Londoner (born), grew up elsewhere, spent my 20s there until moving away after 9/11. (A month before 911 I was working next to the Nat West tower... and I frankly admit that the WMD stories were frightening me. Still do, as a matter of fact; it's only a matter of time before amateur WMD of some sort kills 5, 6 or 7 figure numbers of people somewhere in Europe or the USA.
PS final note - I was once jumped by the Special Patrol Group (wrong place/time), forced to lie on the ground with cuffs on, searched, briefly questioned and released. At the end they filled in a couple of forms & handed me reciepts, they explained that these were so that -they-, the police, could be identified if I wanted to complain about them; that the record of the stop & search would stay on file for six months, and would be destroyed after that. Assuming that this was accurate (which I think is probable) I think that's the way it should be. I now have a rather sensitive job; I'm not security cleared but others I work with are, and I may have to be formally vetted / sign the Official Secrets Act at some point. I don't expect the search incident to cause any problems with that. However, I've just realised I'd better post this anonymously...
Are you people really serious?
First of all, so what that the terrorists had backpacks? The next set could have bombs in the soles of their shoes (US Flight that had that happen after 9/11). So anyone with shoes is suspect? The terrorists could've had an egg salad sandwich. All egg salad purchases are suspect? This makes NO sense. How many people go through the Tube each day with a backpack? It can't be that few!
Similiarties do not constitute guilt, and should not constitute suspicion.
... and we've only heard one. Bear that in mind before you blame the police, or profiling, or whatever.
-everphilski-
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)
You really think the next bombing will be people carrying cellphones, laptops and rucksacks? No. The next bombing will be people who are completely outside the narrowminded profiling the police are using.
This actually makes the population less safe because police are focusing their attention on the wrong things and wasting precious resources chasing shadows. While they are busy jumping all over innocent bystanders, it will provide the real criminals the distraction they need.
Way to go!
so why some of you think it is more important to question the motivations of western authorities and not criticize terrorist's motivations instead is beyond me. do i trust the autorities with my freedoms? no. but i know they aren't the threat to me right now. i simply don't understand people who see more menace in western authorities than in terrorist's actions. and judging by who bears the brunt of the criticism after a terrorist action, you know exactly what i am talking about. how about criticizing the terrorists? i know, strange concept.
One must consider some statistics here. Now, I don't have any precise numbers here, so bear with me.
In the United States, how many major terrorist actions have taken place in the last ten years? I count two: the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, and the September 11th attacks in 2001. If you go back a couple more years, you get one more -- the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. How many people did these affect directly (being killed or injured, or having family killed or injured)? Let's be quite generous and say 10,000, ok?
That's out of 295,000,000 people. That works out to be about 0.003% of the total population.
Now, how many false arrests/detentions are there in the entire United States in a single year? Probably quite a bit more than 10,000 per year, I'd imagine.
Without knowing actual numbers of false arrests, I would hazard a Wild Ass Guess that my chances of being falsely arrested by the police are several orders of magnitude higher than of me being directly affected by a terrorist act.
The odds of a terrorist striking my relatively small town (a suburb of San Francisco and San Jose, California) is quite small, particularly when compared to my odds of being hassled by the police. The chances of me being hassled by the police are additionally raised by the fact that I own several firearms (of which they have records associated with me), and frequently travel to and from a variety of ranges in the Bay Area.
Thus, I am more worried about falsely being arrested or detained by the police than I am about a terrorist attack. I'm also far more worried about being struck by lightning or by being broadsided by a bus. I'm also very worried about the increasing amount of money, resources, and authority being given to law enforcement agencies/officers to deal with an incredibly unlikely threat...particularly when it takes them 15-20 minutes to show up to my house after my burglar alarm goes off. I'd rather the police show up promptly to a burglar alarm than have them spend billions trying to prepare for a statistically unlikely event that would only affect a very, very small percentage of Americans.
I was trying to post a message on topic. So I think the off-topic rating is unfair because I was wondering if it was the story. I'm seeing a lot of changes to the site besides the CSS changes that bother me. Oh, well I guess it's better than being modded troll.
I read the article and they really fucked this guy over. He will be stigmatized for the rest of his life, no matter what he looked like. How many others have they done this too?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
all of the "you can't give up freedom to gain security" idealists are just completely missing the whole point: terrorism is real,
The more pragmatic issue is that there's little evidence that this idea actually works in the first place. Even if things were as simple as the public transfering freedoms to the state made terrorim less likely, which self evidently is not the case. There is a very real possiblity that the "terrorists" would simply apply to join the police.
Profiling is a dirty word because people let the liberals make it so..
No, profiling is a dirty word because it is an asinine way to investigate criminal activity. Only an idiot would follow a profile once it has been established, and the ability of determined criminals to evade the profile is relatively simple. In this particular example, a terrorist now knows to make eye contact with the station police, stand in and blend with a crowd (don't go to the wall and drop your pack to search its contents), and act just like everyone else on the train platform. What exactly did the police gain from their profile other than an innocent man's DNA and fingerprints?
The reason profiling has such a bad history in the US is that too often minorities were charged and convicted of crimes based soley on the color of their skin and the perception of the white majority about what to expect from colored people. As noted above, the net result of that behavior is to convict the innocent and let the guilty go free.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
This guy is DAMNED lucky they didn't just sneak up and shoot him in the head. Face it, London is under martial law. The United States and Britain are increasingly emulating Germany as it was in the 1930's. Increasing restrictions on free speech, increased corporatization of public institutions and the news media. Decreasing restrictions on police behavior including outright murder of people going about their normal daily buisiness. Do not wear certain clothing, do not have any extra accroutement such as backpacks or breifcases or carried baggage of any type. Keep your hands in plain sight at all times while in public places.
Its going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The third reich was about privatising everything, the police, the prisons, the military etc. Reducing police to being enforcers for the corporations. It is only a matter of time before people are not only being arrested for "suspicious" activity, but prosecuted for it as well. Even though their actions are the normal everyday activities we all do. In that situation, the law becomes arbitrary and is used to target certain "unfreindly" people. (liberals, hippies, intellectuals etc., anyone who doesn't fit into an arbitrarily dictated "normality")
For years I've wanted to visit the country of my ancestors, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. I would not dare to set foot in those places now, with my hair being long, my backpack being large, and my attitude towards police states being what it is. I like my freedom to wander without fear of being murdered or detained because I don't behave within certain parameters dictated by the State.
Welcome to the Fourth Reich. Enjoy your stay, but dont let anyone see you doing it. But dont try to hide your activities either.
Stupid Humans.....
I'd rather take a 1:1,000,000,000 chance on not getting hit by a suicide bomber while living a nice life than take a 1:2 chance that I'll suffer at the hands of the government so that they can ensure (and really, they can't even do that) that I won't get hit by a terrorist.
Well said. Further, I'm far more worried about getting killed whilst crossing the road than being killed by a terrorist. And I say that as someone who stood eating pizza and watching a suspect package being destroyed outside Paddington a couple of years ago.
The average US civilian is more likely to be killed by someone in his/her own family than by a terrorist.
ANY US citizen is more likely to be killed in a car crash than by a terrorist.
But terrorism is the current boogyman that various governments are using to extend their control. Check out the "Red Scare" and Joe McCarthy to see what we went through before.
And anyone talking about how other people would say that the cops were wrong if they didn't stop a terrorist is and idiot who has no understanding of security or statistics.
Distinction without a difference. If a person's race is one of the factors used to determine whether a person is searched, detained, arrested, etc., then it's racial profiling. Beyond that, it's just a matter of degrees.
"Driving while black" is exactly the same thing you're describing. Police think that young black males are more likely to commit crimes than the average person. So they arrest, detain, harass, and pull over young black males more frequently. According to your reasoning, this makes perfect sense because statistically, you should be eyeing those who are most likely to commit crimes.
The reason we shouldn't be doing racial profiling are threefold:
1) Pragmatic: Racial profiling focuses the attention of authorities on people and stereotypes that hold for those people. It's generally more effective to be focused on actions.
2) Moral: Every person, regardless of their membership in various categories like race, age, or gender, deserves to be treated as an individual under the law. This holds true regardless of whether a given stereotype has any statistical basis.
3) Pragmatic/Moral: Mistreating entire groups for the actions of individuals simply alienates members of the group, possibly making them more willing to become criminals, terrorists, or whatever.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
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
I kept re-reading the article over and over again, but I couldn't find the part where the writer was beaten to a bloody pulp, shocked with a cattle prod, and where he had his fingernails pulled out with a pair of pliers. I'll go back and re-read it again because I'm sure it's there...somewhere.
After all, it would be just silly if everyone was so up in arms over the fact that someone was take aside, temporarily restrained, searched, and then allowed to proceed. He wasn't abused. No one beat a confession out of him. He wasn't shot.
I have been selected for a random search when boarding airplanes over the last two years. Each time I thank the screeners, and I am quite enthusiastic about being searched. When the search is done, I thank the screeners again, for I know they're doing something to protect me. They aren't trying to trample my rights, they're trying to keep me alive.
One thing conspicuously missing from the writer's "account" of the search was why he was handcuffed. This kind of thing does not happen to everyone who has a knapsack in the London Underground, but it does happen if you're belligerent when they ask to search you. Of course, if the writer was belligerent or combative towards the police, do you think he'd actually mention that fact? Of course not. That would get in the way of the agenda.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
(I was going to ask how this comment is insightful, or for that matter, balanced? Well-written, sure. Evidence of an educated mind? Certainly. Thankfully, it has plummeted from +5 to a reasonable +1.)
The reason "some of us think it is more important to question the motivations of western authorities" is this: western authorities are large and in charge, and groups such as Al Quaeda are pathetic by comparison. The threat of police state terrorism looms larger--and more plausibly--than any loose affiliation of Muslim extremists. If you don't see this, you have not been paying attention, to current events or to history.
Are we to change our way of life because of a single fat lip? For all the horror of 9/11, there hasn't been an attack on American soil since. And that's not because of a competent administration or the Patriot Act's draconian measures. It is because there are so few competent terrorists. It would be a gross overstatement to label the threat A PHANTOM MENACE, but I don't hear the media bleeting for a police crackdown on fast drivers, even though such drivers kill more Americans every year than terrorists ever have.
Your argument shows contempt for the words of America's founding fathers. You're going to have to flippantly dismiss Mr. Franklin one more time: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
I would argue the reason most slashdot posters are slightly left leaning are they are from major urban areas.
I don't agree that education is the sole determining factor. I believe the difference is rural vs urban.
I am a City Councilman in a small town in Idaho (population 5,000). My experiances in this office have colored my opinions about how people approach government. I experianced life in major urban areas only during my 6 years in the military. I am college educated. I am the child of college educated parents. My father was a social worker, my mother was a teacher.
My thesis is that urban populations are raised more dependent on government services. Water, roads, public transportation, schools, recreation, police, fire, social services and so on. When there is a problem, it is usually government related and they expect government to solve the problem. To a smaller extent, rural populations see less government in their daily lives. Local governments have leaner budgets and there is never enough money to go around. So rural people learn to look to themselves and their neighbors for solutions first.
I'm sure its more complicated than that, but that basic viewpoint is very strong. The personal belief that less government is better vs more government is better is very strong. Two people the same education and opposing viewpoints can look at the exact same incident and arrive at diametrically opposite opinions about what was the root cause of the problem and what would be the best solution. And in reality both may be exactly right. What is the proper solution to fix the problem in an urban environment vs what would fix it in a rural environment.
That is why I am an advocate of States rights and local governments. Federal solutions and programs tend to be monolithic and are compromises. They rarely, if ever, meet the needs of everyone. Local solutions tend to be better tailored for their communities. But again, my opinion is colored by my experiances. But I am open minded enough to admit that.
I think the direct cause is terrorists. Or, have you forgotten about the attacks? They are clearly winning because you've turned on your own country.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
"well he was clearly suspicious, he should have been stopped, detained, and questioned."
Except this guy wasn't suspicious. You're really trying to tell me that not looking at a cop, looking at the people that go on the train, reading a piece of paper, wearing a raincoat, and checking your cellphone for messages is "suspicious"? This is gotten to be insane. Even added up they amount to normal everyday behaviour. If the police think they're going to stop terrorism like this, they've gone completely bonkers.
Also, it's very easy to find something "suspicious" about someone after they've commited a crime. Before the bombing who would have thought wearing jackets that don't match the season is "suspicious"? Now apparently it is. Next it'll be something like wearing boots in the summer, being fat and having a thin face, or wearing unfashionable clothes.
The other thing you've completely missed is that he wasn't simply stopped, searched for anything suspicious and then let go. No, he was then arrested, put in jail, had his home searched, and will likely have a record of the incident that will forever cast false suspicions on him. This isn't a minor case of the police stopping someone and asking some questions.
AccountKiller
See, with a constitution you get cool stuff like the following:
Makes for tough guys, builds character and teaches you some respect for the gouverment, you pansy-ass whimp!
So, quit the whining and get youself a constitution you mince-pie eatin' sissy!
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Hmmmmm.... Governments violating the rights of its citizens. Police shooting/detaining/beating innocent people. People thats the point of being a terrorist. To spread terror. Only they have wised up over the years. Now all they have to do is do one or two suicide bombings a year and let the government finish the job of terrorising the citizens.
Thanks for pointing out my blatant idiocy... really should read before I post, my mistake.
So let me get this straight: You're saying that a) you think you can control humans and change their behavior, and b) you also think that it's a good idea for you to do so.
I don't think I need to add anything.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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.
I'm certainly not advocating that we just fire all the security guards from everything, or that ALL security impairs freedom. My argument is that when extra security DOES deminish freedom, we should err on the side of protecting our rights. Even if the current government wouldn't abuse its power, a future government might. The more power government has, the more it will attract people who would abuse that power. Protecting citizen's rights is what keeps our government honest. If you give the government the ability to violate peoples right, eventually someone will find their way into government and do it.
And every other person is carrying a fat backpack or suitcase. They all look out of place and/or suspiciously foreign.
Many carry curious electronic gismos and have difficulty with the english language. Some are obviously looking for high security Physics departments.
That's the problem with non-random targetting. It lacks context.
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.
Lucky bastard. If he had gotten on the train, they would have had to empty a magazine into his head.
...means nothing when the bombers are people like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.
The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
Actually if you have the Anarchist's Cookbook they will be relieved. It is a piece of crap, the author actually admits this, and you will have identified yourself as a threat only to yourself.
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.
This guy is an ex-writer for exe magazine, and he works for a respectable technology company now. Sure, there was a firearms hoax there, but my wife's company have had 3 bomb hoaxes in the last year. Does that mean she's a terrorist ?
/. geek.
Also, note what the police have said caused them to pursue the case... The fact that he had a shortwave received and an RS-232 breakout box.
This guy could have been almost any
We don't really need the London police's side of this story because we know their frame of mind around the time this action was taken. Around this time, they held an innocent man down on a tube train and put at least 5 bullets in his head and chest at point blank range. At the time they made all sorts of outrageous claims, many of which have found to be stretching the truth, and some of which have turned out to be outright lies.
I don't trust my police force any more, so I'm more inclined to believe the 'victim' of this tale.
How the terrorists won? Set off a few bombs, and we get a police state.
Don't complain too much, you voted them in.
The terrorist no longer need to target the tube, the police have taken over the job of scaring the general populace.
The police don't want to do this. But they'd rather do this than stand by as people get blown up. There were a lot of "indicators" here.
Personally, I'd rather live with the extremely minuscule chance of being blown up than have my civil liberties threatened as the article describes.
The sole point of a terrorist organisation is to create terror in a population, despite the fact that they are a threat to few if any members of it. After reading the article, it seems clear that the "War on Terrorism" is over, and that the terrorists have won.