If a bomb did go off in the NYC subway, would Bloomberg be liable?

[BurtWorm]

For not just shutting down the subways, considering how credible the threat allegedly was (or is)?

I used the subway this morning. I intend to use it tonight. Probably several times this weekend, as well. I have no expectation that a bomb is going to go off; so toyed with have we been since 9-11 that I'm now inured to the bullshit. But suppose it isn't bullshit. Suppose a bomb explodes on the Broadway local. Then I know I'm going to be pissed at someone (why not Bloomberg--and Bush and Peter King while we're at it) for allowing a "stream" of commuters onto the trains to be sitting ducks. I mean if they really believe our lives our threatened, shut the damn subways down, for chrissake! I mean, isn't it immoral, and shouldn't it be criminal to put people in harm's way like that? Wouldn't someone be liable if the city knew a tunnel was in danger of collapsing and let people have it collapse on them anyway? Would the city's lawyers allow the trains to go through such a tunnel if it were known that the city knew about the threat? Why is it different in a case of "credible threat from terrorists?"

[Gunit_Sangh]

1. naw ... it would be Clinton's fault

n/t

[BurtWorm]

2. Bloomberg: "If I'm going to make a mistake,

you can rest assured it's going to be on the side of being cautious," he said. "If it happened again, I would make exactly the same decision."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/nyregion/07cnd-security.html?hp&ex=1128744000&en=dc586373e2759cac&ei=5094&partner=homepage

If he's so damn cautious, why is he letting anyone on the subway?

(I smell bullshit.)