Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

July 11th, 2006

Tags

,

Comments

36 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Terror in India

It seems Bombay has just joined Madrid and London:

Blasts rock Mumbai rail network

There have been at least five blasts on commuter trains in the Indian financial capital, Mumbai (Bombay), police say. It is not yet clear what caused the blasts and police are not confirming the location of the explosions, which occurred during evening rush hour. Police told the BBC more than 20 people were wounded in one blast. Some reports say at least one of the blasts took place near a train station.

Other sources say there were 7 bombs but this just broke so it will develop fast. Let’s hope to god this isn’t linked to a group in Pakistan. Public transportation continues to be a prime target for terrorists. Meanwhile, New Yorkers complain about bag searches. I recommend they visit Israel if they want to know what real bag searches are about. Don’t blame the government for this, blame the terrorists.

Comments to this entry

Bill
July 11, 2006
2:47 pm
Not good news--can't see how the bombings wouldn't be connected back to elements in Pakistan, even if the only 'proof' is the reasonable suspiscions of those in India. This has the potential to get very bad.
Pajamas Media
July 11, 2006
4:22 pm
Mumbai Blasts

UPDATE 9:05AM Pacific: FoxNews reports (no link yet and pending confirmation): "India Reports Arrests of Islamic Terrorists in Deadly Train Bombings" Confederate Yankee links to a "fleeting moment of honesty at DU." Captain's Quarters: "It looks ...
M Pav
July 11, 2006
4:29 pm
I live in Manhattan and have heard no one of my acquaintance complain about bag searches, and the article to which you link doesn't present complaints either, except from the ACLU. So, I don't know what you mean by "Meanwhile, New Yorkers complain about bag searches." I'm sure some do complain, but you don't present evidence of that.
Lexington Green
July 11, 2006
4:45 pm
If Pakistan is behind it, then get that fact out.

If India responds, they will be doing no less than we would do.
Vikrant
July 11, 2006
4:48 pm
It seems Bombay has just joined Madrid and London:

Bollocks! Bombay has been target of Islamists even before 9/11. The most destructive Islamist bombings happened in 1993 when over 250 ppl were killed. Last major bombing occured in Aug 2003 claiming 53 lives.
Shloky
July 11, 2006
6:30 pm
"Bollocks! Bombay has been target of Islamists even before 9/11. The most destructive Islamist bombings happened in 1993 when over 250 ppl were killed. Last major bombing occured in Aug 2003 claiming 53 lives.


Neither of which were targeted on critical transportation systems - which I believe was Chirol's point.
Eddie
July 11, 2006
6:31 pm
Didn't Islamic terrorists attack India's Parliament in late 2001?
Naman Mantra
July 11, 2006
6:39 pm
"Let's hope to god this isn't linked to a group in Pakistan"

Let's also not be naive. It's common sense that Pakistan is involved in some way. They've been a part of most major terrorist attack in India (even if remotely) for the last 50 years.
Chirol
July 11, 2006
6:47 pm
Eddie: Yes

Naman Mantra: Of course, they probably are involved. I just meant I hope things don't get nasty. But like you, I'd put my money on them being behind it.

Shloky: exactly!

M Pav: I read an article that did mention that a few days ago but couldnt find the link agian. It may have been CS monitor.
Naman Mantra
July 11, 2006
6:47 pm
Yup Eddie, and in that one Pakistan's ISI was responsible for the attack and the two nations almost went to war over it. If Pakistan is involved with this one too...well I just hope India takes some action, instead of just sit around and say "ISI did it" and go along with their lives like they've done so many times.
J.Kende
July 11, 2006
7:11 pm
The serious complaint about the bag searches is that they don't achieve anything. They are done in a tiny fraction of the stations and anyone who doesn't want their bag searched can say so, walk away from the station, and go in through another entrance. Systemwide mandatory searches would take more manpower than we have and would be struck down by the courts anyway. Sure, plenty of people are just complaining for no good reason. But in a system the size of ours a bag search policy doesn't work. What the NYPD is doing now is a total joke.

Much better use of those officers would be as a boost to general presence patrols on the subways and in the stations. A real security plan would build off of that by returning the size of the force to the pre-911 levels (we are at 5,000 less today), dedicating a good number of that increase to mass transit duty. That would benefit not only counter-terror efforts, but would also do wonders to bring the crime rate of NYC down even further. It was after all a sharp increase in police presence and proactivity in the subways that began the historic drop in crime here in the first place.

Combine a fast-tracking of the plans to install smart video surveillance throughout the system with those increased presence patrols and NYPD efforts to engage in it's own global intelligence operations and you've got a much better plan than the flimsy bag searches we have now.
Alfred Russel Wallace
July 11, 2006
7:44 pm
I agree with others that the bag searches are a cosmetic anodyne, designed more to show that something is being done than to be effective. J. Kende makes some good suggestions for more efficacious use of policemen... But it will take political courage to implement them
shloky
July 11, 2006
8:10 pm
Chirol: I think you may be interested in a more indepth analysis on my site.

Kende: You are spot on at a strategic level- local troops should be empowered and trained as part of the organic reaction to the terror threat. I like your ideas on a tactical level as well.

But to make it a reality we're talking about major systemic changes (convincing an increasingly isolated government which derives its power from reacting to and waging the long war to shift its power base to local govrnments will take much more than political courage). Sadly enough I think a tipping point for this type of attack must be reached - in every relevant geospatial area - for change to be inacted. Or extraordinary individuals who understand the new wold - comng anarchy if ou will ;) - with the power to change.
J.Kende
July 11, 2006
8:25 pm
Well in the long haul sure. But NYC and NYS have the resources we need to boost local force levels, continue the global intelligence operations they are already engaging in, and speed up the already underway process of installaling a world class smart surveillance system in the subways (along with finally getting our buses GPS equiped). It will take political courage to actually get those resources to where they are needed, but it doesn't require waiting around for the feds to sign off.

I'll hold off on getting into detailed budget wonkery for now, as I think this entry and comment space is better suited to security in general and specifics of today's events in India. But this is all inspiring a lengthy entry of my own...
Eddie
July 11, 2006
9:41 pm
Despite being a government entity of sorts, the "ISI" may very well be the most sinister group in the world, beyond Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah. Considering the ever-existent risk of Musharraf getting bumped off, (as well as Karzai), by elements of the fundamentalists who plague the region who were trained, indoctorinated and often bankrolled by the ISI, they have the potential to do phenenomal damage to peace and prosperity in the subcontinent.
Lexington Green
July 11, 2006
10:07 pm
"...I hope things don't get nasty."

They are already nasty.

This kind of thing is going to keep happening if the Indians don't get nasty eventually and make it stop.
bc99
July 11, 2006
11:22 pm
I have family in Mumbai and was elated to hear that everyone is fine. That aside, my Dad, a really patriotic Indian born American citizen, has ALWAYS wished that Pakistan be blown away forever. He hates that the U.S. is allied with Pakistan in this "so called" war on terror and claims that Pakistan is the center of of terrorism along with Afghanistan and that Musharef (sp?) is a fraud.

That being said, I kind of agree with his sentiment to a certain extent, but I am still trying to let all of this sink in (i.e. I am still kind of emotionally blown away). India has been attacked a number of times by fanatic groups based in Pakistan. While I agree with Ghandi's saying that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, I think this is India's time to really show Pakistan's ISI that they will not succeed. I really hate all of this.
Mark
July 12, 2006
12:33 am
According to the nightly news here in the US, 7 bombs were detonated and so far over 135 have been confirmed killed.

More senseless violence.

It is quite evident we will all never get along, saddening and shameful.
Mutantfrog
July 12, 2006
2:04 am
J Kende is 100% right about bag searches. Pretend security measures like these less than half-assed checks they do in the subway are in fact WORSE than doing nothing, because it has no real positive effect on safety but still fools a large number of gullible people into thinking that they are safer, and therefore being less observant to any real threats.

I should point out that I must have ridden the subway a few dozen times while I was home for 3.5 months earlier this year, and never once saw any bag searches being conducted. Is this program even still going?
Curzon
July 12, 2006
2:09 am
MF: they were stepped up today after the Mumbai bombing. The NYPD chief even said this won't stop terrorists, but it is designed to give people peace of mind. I don't think you're correct in that it's worse than having no checks; in many ways, the biggest thing terrorism does is cause irrational, runaway fear in the civilian population, and anything done to lessen that is a step in the right direction.
tdaxp
July 12, 2006
3:24 am
AfroIslamic Gap v. New Core

"The Pentagon's New Map," by Thomas Barnett, Esquire, March 2003, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm.

"LeT, SIMI hand in Mumbai blasts," The Times of India, 11 July 2006, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/...
sun bin
July 12, 2006
7:13 am
"I don't think you're correct in that it's worse than having no checks"

if it is totally cosmetic as kende said, (with obvious bypass to avoid it) it provides a fals sense of security, it could be worse.
OTOH, if it is truly random check, even if the sampling is extremely small, it is effectively to some extent.
Mutantfrog
July 12, 2006
7:16 am
As I understand it, they simply stop one out of every x people, or some equally bypassable algorithm. Furthermore, they only pick a few subway stations on any particular day, so a person wanting to avoid the checks can ALWAYS walk out of the station and go a few blocks to the next one. Obviously a properly organized terrorist network would do some scouting before trying to walk through the turnstile, enter the subway network at a spot without bag checks, and then ride the rails, possibly transferring trains, until they reached their target.
Elizabeth
July 12, 2006
9:39 am
Regarding my earlier comment on another post, provided these are indigenous terrorists, I wonder whether the Muslims are catching up to the Hindus in terms of sectarian violence in India.

As for bag checks, I also believe this is a big waste of time. Have you ever heard of the police actually finding anything other than narcotics in this way? Another problem with so-called "random" searches is that they are often more biased than people imagine, thus increasing social exclusion among certain groups as well as wasting time and resources.
Giustino
July 12, 2006
2:36 pm
The bag searches in NYC don't bug me. It's the lack of federal funding for security that bugs me.
Naman Mantra
July 12, 2006
3:11 pm
I'd be surprised if this is just another part of the occasional Hindu Muslim violence you find in a few places in India. Indians hardly ever do anything this bad to one another (aside from a small population of a couple cities in Gujrat). And Muslims know that Mumbai has a large Muslim population that would also be victims of the blast. Muslims that are in involved with Hindu Muslim clashes normally don't try to destabilize the state, they normally just attack other Hindus. It is far more likely to be either Pakistan or Kashmir based terrorists, in coordination with ISI.
J.Kende
July 12, 2006
8:19 pm
bq. I don't think you're correct in that it's worse than having no checks; in many ways, the biggest thing terrorism does is cause irrational, runaway fear in the civilian population, and anything done to lessen that is a step in the right direction.

That is actually a very good point. But very few New Yorkers are given real peace of mind from these checks. MF describes how it works pretty accurately. I've seen the checks quite a few times, mostly at my own station up in Harlem. They really don't do much of anything to reassure New Yorkers. Maybe there is a greater impact on the many millions of visitors to NYC, and that isn't something to be shrugged off. As the drop in crime in the 90's showed there is a lot to be said for perception contributing to reality.

Still, an effective security plan would achieve both real security and the impression of security. As much credit as the NYPD and Bloomberg deserve for doing a good job on security over all, I find it deeply frustrating that they continue to stick with their "less is more" mantra when it comes to force size. As spikes of crime return throughout the nation and terror related security threats persist, there is no excuse for a force size that is 11% smaller than it was pre-911, with 1,000 of those remaining switched from general enforcement duties to counterterror, and a half million resident citywide increase since that time. Yes, we have deep longterm structural budget problems (despite a multibillion dollar surplus this year), but a 5,000 officer increase to the NYPD would cost in the neighborhood of 500million/year after the recruits reach the salary average (which takes a few years to get to anyway) and factoring in all benefits and pensions. A city with an annual budget in excess of 50billion can afford that. That's even more clear when considering how much of our economy depends on a low crime rate and robust security against terror.
J.Kende
July 12, 2006
8:29 pm
bq. Another problem with so-called "random"Â? searches is that they are often more biased than people imagine, thus increasing social exclusion among certain groups as well as wasting time and resources.

This is not true. They are random. They are based on the number of people that pass, taking aside every nth person who has a big bag. As for hightening divisions between groups, nonsense. The greatest racism I've experienced throughout my many years in NYC has consistently been from the very groups that you are suggesting are being victimized here. The extent of divisivness in the many neighborhoods of NYC is barely nudged in the least by these random half-assed searches. If you stand there watching the police conducting these searches they are incredibly polite and nonthreatening.
Mutantfrog
July 13, 2006
12:19 am
Of course simply counting every nth person just makes it that much easier for people actually carrying bombs, or even simple contraband, or even people who just don't like to be searched, to watch the line and get in line at the right spot. Then they can avoid being searched without having to even go to the next station!

Also, because US law (at least how they are interpreting it without forcing a lawsuit and a judicial ruling) bans involuntary searches without probable cause, if you get picked for a random search you are allowed to refuse and leave the station without penalty!

Then of course there's the issue of how even thorough bag searches aren't going to stop a suicide bomber from pulling an attack. OK, so you can't blow up the subway-big whoop. How about Times Square? Or a famous museum? Washington Square Park? Or even better- how about just blowing up the people WAITING to get searched before entering the subway! At a busy station you could probably hit just as many as if you were inside the car itself.

No, all a program like this does is take expensive and valuable police officers away from doing the real police work that can prevent and punish crime.
Joe
July 13, 2006
11:30 am
:Also, because US law (at least how they are interpreting it without forcing a lawsuit and a judicial ruling) bans involuntary searches without probable cause, if you get picked for a random search you are allowed to refuse and leave the station without penalty!

That's what you'll say in court the next morning with teeth marks from a German shepherd on your butt.
Elizabeth
July 14, 2006
7:43 am
E: "Another problem with so-called "random"Â? searches is that they are often more biased than people imagine..."

J.K.: "This is not true. They are random."

Hm. I suppose I meant to say that they are not implemented as intended, though they ARE intended to be random. And I wasn't trying to imply discrimination against any group in particular, at least not in the United States, because I have only seen bag searches in other countries and at our borders (which is of course 100% bag searches). People whom the police avoid: big fat ladies talking in loud voices; men in suits who might be in a position of power so that they could complain against the police to their superiors; women with children who are crying because people hate to stand around screaming children; etc. I have seen this many times in Russia: the police would be checking every other person, but if a big fat woman with a screaming baby came up, it was NEVER her turn. They just couldn't deal with that. The police might be unconsciously avoiding black people so as not to be accused of discrimination.

"As for hightening divisions between groups, nonsense. The greatest racism I've experienced throughout my many years in NYC has consistently been from the very groups that you are suggesting are being victimized here."

The very fact that you have experienced racism is a sign of heightened divisions. I didn't say this victimized blacks or anything, I said it heightens divisions.

"If you stand there watching the police conducting these searches they are incredibly polite and nonthreatening."

I think you're missing my point. I wasn't accusing the police of brutality, rudeness, or overt racism. I was saying that there is usually unrecognized bias even in so-called randomized systems, when people are carrying out these systems on the street. I don't consider myself a big racist, but I realize that even if I was asked to randomly interview people in a crowd, I could unconsciously end up avoiding interviewing men who I thought looked threatening (I'm not talking about anti-terrorist measures here).
Geeknoob
July 14, 2006
2:53 pm
_"I should point out that I must have ridden the subway a few dozen times while I was home for 3.5 months earlier this year, and never once saw any bag searches being conducted. Is this program even still going?"_

It was still in effect before the bombings in Mumbai... Though only at terminal-stations and major stations (IE, 34th & 42nd street stations).

_"If you stand there watching the police conducting these searches they are incredibly polite and nonthreatening."Â?_

What's the point of a cop being rude about a bag check? All that gets you is PO'ed people trying to get where they're going... At least if you're nice about your job, 9 out of 10 times, the person will grumble a bit, but you're not provoking outright argument. (With or without associated violence.) It's not the cop's fault he's there doing the check! (And I think most people know that...)
heirabbit
July 15, 2006
3:51 pm
That's right. He's not at fault for anything, he's just obeying orders. Poor guy. We should all chip in on a doughnuts-for-cops fund, y'know, brighten up their miserable days.

But as for the the search issue, the score is effectiveness=0, public sense of security=0, bureaucrats=10. They love this safe harassment of normal citizens, all while being hailed as upholding security. They don't like those nasty criminal looking people, 'cuz confronting them would be dangerous. Better to continue being busy doing nothing. After all, what could happen? In this stage of development in American politics, if they screw up they're hailed as heroes. If the big bomb actually hit, the people would generally support more money for all gov't military and police agencies. It's win-win for them, lose-lose for the hapless, alone and informed citizen.

Unless the gov't and police will agree to legal liability for public safety, rest assured that all their programs are for show only.
Geeknoob
July 15, 2006
5:19 pm
"That's right. He's not at fault for anything, he's just obeying orders. Poor guy. We should all chip in on a doughnuts-for-cops fund, y'know, brighten up their miserable days."

You missed my point. Whether they're rude and displaying a machine-gun or polite and non-threatening, which makes their job easier and keeps people from getting pissy? They're going to search you, or you're going to leave. They didn't make that decision, so being rude to someone gains them nothing. Being polite makes thier job easier. Period. (Now if someone cops an attitude first, this is a different situation. I am speaking only of the normal citizen trying to get to work, etc.)

I didn't say this job was effective, I didn't say it gained anyone any sense of security, I didn't even say it was implemented well. I simply said, if they decided you were their random person to search, would you rather some cop scream and cuss you out at gun-point, or be a civil-tongued human being through the 5 minute process?
heirabbit
July 16, 2006
6:46 am
Point well-taken, geeknoob. My post actually refers to the general topic, and not whether the cops doing random searches have any self-interest in being rude or not. I'm also adding a new question to the mix, that is, what if cops had to take legal responsibility for the safety of citizens? I don't think they'd mess around with the measures if that was the case.

In gated communities, the security guards usually have a legally binding contract to protect the inside residents. If something happens to anyone inside (rape, robbery etc.), there's a way to sue the guards. But the street - the gov't skirts responsibility for it by saying it's "public" or "everyone's", but unless you believe communist rhetoric, you would buy that. The owner is the one who controls it, and the owner is the gov't. They put police on this property under the guise of "to serve and protect", but where's their legal responsibility? If there's robbery or rape, do they compensate for it or not? Obviously not, and therefore their reason to exist is something other than they would prefer us to presume.

Isn't this the gist of what Elizabeth is saying? If they avoid the scary people, what the hell are we "hiring" them for?
Geeknoob
July 19, 2006
5:34 pm
This is a good question.