Jul 22 2005
Not This Time Michelle
I usually agree with Michelle Malkin just about all the time. Maybe not down to every detail, but in general. Today she came out with a classic example of ‘ perfect’ being the evil to ‘good’.
Here’s my column for the NY Post on the city’s futile random bag search policy. Excerpt:
WHAT’S the point? In the wake of the latest terrorist attacks in London, Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD announced plans to conduct random searches of packages and backpacks carried by subway riders.
“Random,” of course, is a synonym for blind. And we all know what it means when you put blind bureaucrats in charge of homeland security: Grannies and toddlers, prepare to be on heightened grope alert.
Reassuring al Qaeda operatives everywhere, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly pledged that his officers would not engage in “racial profiling.” He also emphasized that passengers would be free to “turn around and leave” instead of consenting to a search.
Combined with New York City’s inane sanctuary policy, which provides safe haven for illegal aliens, these new security-in-name-only measures prove that political correctness still trumps public safety
Michelle, you should know better than to over simplify and do the worst-case scenario exaggeration game. And using references of entry into the US pre 9-11 seems a bit of a stretch.
First off, searching is better than not searching. A random scattergun approach will hit something eventually. The more tries, the better the odds you will find something. These are all well known mathematical realities. So even with your extreme examples, the odds are better to stop someone if you try as opposed to if you don’t try.
Also, while profiling may not be a policy, security forces out checking people profile in their minds all the time as they sift through the sea of faces and people and begin to identify potential suspects. So give up the carnard about a policy that has no basis in reality.
Finally, with security out checking in the crowds, the wannabe martyrs can give up the ghost through an act of hesitation, sweat, lack of eye contact, or one of a myriad of tells that could tip off an observant security agent.
Sorry Michelle, I ain’t buying it. Not on this. I would rather have this than a silly, wasteful debate about policies which have little impact on the street, in the subway, when the security agent is working the crowd. At that point, what is on paper someplace in a law book means very little.
Comments Off on Not This Time Michelle