The Greater Good

As a frequent subway-riding, bag-carrying New Yorker who is coincidentally swarthy in complexion, the news that cops will start random searches of people on subways, commuter railways and buses obviously interests me.

Where to start on this one?

How about with a fundamental question: can this actually work? Will it make us safer? While reasonable people can debate it endlessly, my sense is that this is folly. There are thousands of points of entry into the New York City public transportation system. If a terrorist is trying to enter the subway system, for example, and sees a cop waiting, he can simply turn around and leave. He can come back later, try another point of entry, or get on a bus or commuter train. And if he somehow does get singled out for a search, he can simply refuse and be allowed to leave the system. Someone intent on a subway attack is not going to be deterred by an average beat cop standing at a turnstile any more than a serial killer is deterred by the death penalty. Essentially, the system is too large and open to "protect" in any preventative sense.

In addition, I have absolutely zero confidence in the ability of the average underpaid and overworked New York City cop to understand, apply and adhere to the rigorous standards for racial profiling established by our judicial system. Other law enforcement officers such as state troopers go through extensive sophisticated training on this, and are monitored constantly for abuses. And that does not end problems with profiling, as we occasionally see with highway stops. Turning thousands of cops loose inside the public transportation system with a not-so-vague notion of what the "enemy" looks like and giving them free rein to grab anyone they want at rush hour? You don't think that's going to cause some serious problems? Get ready for a deluge of media reports---as well as lawsuits---about those pulled aside based on complexion or ethnicity.

But even if we temporarily stipulate that this may deter potential attacks, we must then consider the trade-offs. What do we give up for this extra sliver of safety?

One of the immediate effects of 9/11 was public adulation of the police and fire departments. They became heroes, and everyone from Rudy Giuliani at Yankee games to average citizens on the street wore NYPD and FDNY baseball caps. Inserting the police in such a stark way into the basic fabric of New York City life---the subways, buses and trains---will change that. Do you think joe six-pack who rides the subway every day is going to see the police the same way? Will he keep wearing that NYPD cap after he gets pulled aside by a cop demanding to rifle through his bag?

This has important implications. Society sees its local cops as ticket-writing, neighborhood-patrolling, cruiser-riding monitors of public safety. The role of the cop is generally a passive one; he watches, monitors, and when necessary responds. Transforming that role into one of a gatekeeper and grand inquisitor is a fundamental, radical move. I believe strongly that the public's vigilance and cooperation with law enforcement keeps us far safer from terrorism than the efforts of law enforcement alone. And I think most cops would agree with that. Anything that turns the average cop into an agent of an intrusive, behavior-monitoring state---yes, the police have said that those caught carrying drugs or other contraband during these searches will be arrested---will alter public perception, and thus impact our ability to combat the terrorism this is supposed to prevent. Someone who is pulled aside suddenly (and possibly repeatedly) or sees it happen to friends or family is far less likely to make an extra effort to help the police. That mentality is not too difficult to understand, particularly in New York City.

The broader picture is even more distressing. President Bush is fond of the bromide that "the terrorists hate our way of life." Assuming that's true, why are we helping them achieve their goals via creeping, incremental, self-imposed restrictions on that way of life? Does our way of life not entail the ability to shop or go to work without the possibility of being yanked out of a crowd by the police for absolutely no reason at all?

Do we have more to fear from a terrorist who might get on a bus, or cloying and cowardly public servants who will surrender something the rest of us hold dear so they have a slogan to use during the next election? Is it really so hard to envision us waking up as a nation one day in five or ten years, suddenly realizing how much of our own freedom we've gladly given away in the name of safety, and wondering why we are no safer than when we started down that road?

Then again, maybe all we need is a mirror. From the NYT:

Pete Friedes, 63, a retired computer executive who recently moved to Manhattan from Chicago, said he was willing to tolerate the searches. "If it's a policeman, you have to put up with it," he said. "In general, people will accept it. The government has the right to try and protect us."

Eileen Chua, 49, a nurse who is visiting from Singapore, said she would not be bothered by having her packages searched. Asked if police searches would make her feel safer, she replied: "It does. It definitely does."

Or, as Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."