Enough!

Okay, that's it, this was the breaking point for me, the point where concern, worry, opposition, and frustration turned into open rage.

Boston (AP, June 8) - Transit police will begin randomly stopping riders on Boston's subways and commuter trains next month to search their bags and packages, a procedure transportation officials say was largely prompted by the March 11 train bombings in Spain. ...

MBTA police already can request to see the identification of passengers they perceive to be acting suspiciously. ...

MBTA Deputy Police Chief John Martino, who is overseeing the development and implementation of the search policy, said police, sometimes accompanied by explosive-sniffing dogs, will randomly pick out riders for inspection throughout the transit system daily. He said the number of inspections would increase dramatically during the convention July 26-29.

This disgusting display of untrammeled power to abuse rights and ignore privacy is the step over the edge for me, the one that demonstrates empirically what was already clear in theory, that all this is more about police power than public protection.

Of course it was justified with the same fear-mongering blather such assaults on our lives always are.

"I have no trepidation about being first (in the nation with the policy)," [MBTA Police Chief Joseph] Carter said. "I don't want to be the first to do an interview about having a serious incident that may have some terrorist indications to it. ... We want to do this to encourage people to feel safe on the MBTA, to utilize public transportation."

We want you to feel safe. It's for your own good. We're just protecting you from GASP! the terrorists! Who are everywhere! They could be right next to you! The train could explode at any moment! Oh no! Oh no! So just keep quiet and do exactly as we say and everything will be okay.

I recall the words of Herman Goering:

[I]t's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

(The quote is sometimes labeled apocryphal, but as the urban legend-busters at Snopes.com point out, that's because he didn't say it at the Nuremberg trials, as is sometimes claimed, but in a private conversation with Gustave Gilbert, a psychologist and intelligence officer who interviewed him during his trial.)

The mealy-mouthed, legalistic response of the ACLU didn't impress me, either.

Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said that while she understands the need for security, the MBTA plan is deeply flawed and may violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure.

"Flawed?" "May?" The thing is a flaming outrage that proposes to use free-floating fear to decimate the Fourth Amendment.

I remember that years ago, when I was living in New Jersey, the state police had gotten a major reputation for stopping people on the Turnpike for "routine checks." (That reputation was bad enough at one time that friends in the UK told me that the travel books there geared to students told them to avoid New Jersey entirely.) Ultimately, the issue came before the state Supreme Court which in a ringing decision banned the practice, declaring that there is no such thing as a legitimate "routine check." That if a car is stopped, if a driver is questioned, there must be a reason.

There must be a reason. So in order to have a "reason," we now have the weasel word "suspicious." It's because you were "acting suspicious." Or you "looked suspicious." There was "reasonable suspicion."

Well, I say that's crap. A standard as vague as "suspicion," standing on its own, is no standard at all. It's meaningless. It's empty, vapid, bogus, a ploy, a platitude, an excuse rather than a reason. It can't be enough for some cop to say they had "suspicions," they had damned well better be able to say exactly what behavior was suspicious and exactly what was suspicious about it. If they can't, not only should any charges vanish, the cop should be liable for civil damages on a charge of abuse of authority. And to those who would say that would make cops "reluctant to act," I say good: There should be a reluctance to commit abuse.

I don't get into Boston that often anymore, but when I do, it's usually on the T (the subway, for those of you outside the area). Because of the number of people who ride the T and the infrequency with which I use it, it is very unlikely that I would be picked out for a "random" search. But I say here and now that if that does happen, I will refuse unless I can be given a damn good - that is, to my satisfaction damn good - reason why I was picked out, and "random chance" won't cut it.

Good - the anger is rising just about the right time to get ready for the "free speech zones" I expect will be erected around the Democratic Convention.

Footnote: According to the same article, last month

the U.S. Transportation Security Administration unveiled a pilot program to screen the bags of all passengers at a single Maryland Rail Commuter station in suburban New Carrollton.

We are being steadily inured to the idea that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply anywhere except within your own home with the doors and windows closed, the blinds drawn, the phone disconnected, and all conversations held in a faint whisper. That as soon as you step beyond that enclosed space, you are fair game to be stopped, your identity demanded, your bags and your person searched. So far, the score is about Police Power-Producing Paranoia 31, Fourth Amendment 2. Still, the game isn't over yet, but it's getting into the late innings.