Slate article gives up civil liberty argument half way through

Posted by | July 26, 2005 | media | No Comments

I wonder if this Slate article, Are Subway Searches Legal? – The rules for searching bags. By Daniel Engber was written by someone that :

thought he had a point then realised that his argument was flawed;

added the paragraph at the bottom marked ‘bonus explainer’ which tries and fails to defend against the flawed logic in the main piece;

ran the story anyway.

There are very real civil liberty concerns post 911, they highlight the fact that democracy is built from a peaceful society. But cummon, screening bags for bombs before travelling is not one of them. There is nothing that takes away your liberty more than being blown to pieces.

Summary – piece highlights a claim that searching subway bags is ‘unconstitutional’, realizes that could be argued that is no diff from air travel searches. Tries to say that air travel is different because:

1. You have other travel options when flying vs taking the subway. (In fact it is more likely that you have more travel options when using the subway, as people from Hawaii).

2. Airline searches search everyone and where some people are singled out it is not at discretion of the security personnel (Er – bullshit).