|
|
| Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! (521751) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 12:39:08 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Nov 23 12:23:08 2007. The problem with measuring success in terms of terrorism is that if it does not happen you do not know if it was because of the program or because there would have been no attacks even if the program was not in place.That's true, in that - mercifully! - we don't have a ton of data on which to go on. Still, we do know, e.g., how the surge of hijackings in the 1970s was stopped: everyone searched, air marshals, and even diplomacy with Cuba to not accept hijackers. So while comparison to the no-action alternative is very hard, I think that you could certainly have impartial experts come in and analyze various alternatives. As such, the Courts gave great latitude to the NYPD after it showed that this was probably the least intrusive search policy that would otherwise have passed constitutional muster It isn't, to be sure, very intrusive, all things considered, but it's also quite ineffective too. Consider, e.g., that terrorists could and do operate in teams, and one advance team can head down to scope out some station, and then call up or text message their bomber team the all-clear to proceed. So I think that intrusiveness has to be allowed insofar as a program is doing some useful work, up to a point. Picking the least intrusive search that doesn't do enough to stop attacks isn't very useful, although I fear it is politically convenient. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|