I decide you're wrong.
The MTA is a state actor (as of course is the NYPD); a private office building is not.
Is that a difficult concept?
So it's okay for private buildings to look after the safety of the people who work within them, but it's not okay for the NYPD to look out for the safety of New York's citizens.
Got it.
Also, I'll be sure to let those who would strap C4 to their chests aware of the difference between public and private property.
"No bombings here, Ahmed. This is a private building."
Female suicide bombers get to be the leader of the other 71 virgins. (Apparently Allah can make you a virgin again. All you gotta do is blow up.)
$5 on "hypocritical chickenshits", Bob.
The NYCLU is scared of right-wingers doing violence - which is a perfectly reasonable fear that would justify cavity searches if they wanted to give them.
The NYPD is not specifically concerned with right-wing violence, so they are wrong.
(Semi-serious aside - while a private entity certainly has a right to be hypocritical - if they seek to persuade, shouldn't they demonstrate that they can be secure under the rules they insist on for everyone else?)
There's just one problem with this wingnut post. The bag searches in the lobby are carried out by the building management, not the NYCLU. It is a private firm not affiliated with the NYCLU that made that decision.
Also, if everyone going into the building is searched, then it is more fair than the NYPD prgram, because then everyone entering the building can expect a lower level of privacy. In the case of the NYPD program, it doesn't even screen 1% of passengers during rush hour, so most people can expect to retain their right to full privacy in the subway system. In consitutional law, it is always best to go with an all-or-nothing policy. Either everyone is searched (courthouse, airport), or no one should be searched.
Commenting by HaloScan
