Recently, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority announced its intention to conduct random bag searches for travelers at Metrorail or Metrobus stations. The program, based loosely on a similar program for New York's subway system, was instituted in an attempt to keep riders safe from possible terrorist attacks. The announcement touched off a firestorm of controversy and protest at this perceived violation of citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. Others believe this program isn't comprehensive enough and that police should take a more active role in ensuring that riders are safe from possible terrorist attacks. The Eagle's Editorial Board, usually almost unanimous in its commitment to personal rights, is not immune to this divide.
After a long debate during which members of the Editorial Board was split nearly down the middle on random bag searches, they acknowledged that this issue is a matter of personal ideology and required more time to make a definitive statement on.
There are legitimate arguments to each side. Opponents of the searches say that not only are the bag searches a violation of their privacy but that they are completely ineffective. Supporters of the plan say that this argument is a perfectly valid argument and a perfect reason to increase the frequency of searches. Opponents say it is important that citizens don't give up their right to privacy for added safety. Supporters claim we already get searched everywhere we go in D.C.; what makes this any different?
What is undoubtedly true is that this issue needs further examination. The people, if not The Eagle's Editorial Board, need to make a decision on the issue. The citizens of D.C. don't have the luxury that we did. They cannot throw their hands up after half an hour of vigorous debate and go back to work. The people of D.C., and in a larger sense, the people of the United States, cannot just let policies like this go unquestioned into the books.
If there is no vigorous discussion on both the constitutionality and the necessity of laws like this, then we are not doing our jobs as voting citizens. This specific policy change doesn't seem menacing, and indeed, it isn't. The amount of people actually affected is minimal and its actual effect on their safety is similarly small. But what about the next change? And the change after that? And so on. Eventually, these changes add up to become our government's policy on privacy.
This change in policy may be good, it may be bad; it is a judgment call. It is a judgment call that we are not yet prepared to make. That does not mean that the people of D.C. should be prepared to blindly submit to this policy simply because it is too hard to settle.
