# Concerned about TSA at major stations.



## Durham57 (Mar 19, 2011)

Although I have been assured the Savannah fiasco was a one-time event, I keep reading on other travel forums that TSA is now conducting pre-boarding searches at many Amtrak stations. Has anyone been through these stations recently: Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D. C., New York Penn and Charleston, S.C. If so, what can you tell me about this? I am traveling June 19 to Charleston and return July 3 to LAX. Have been traveling exclusively on Amtrak since 2006 precisely because of TSA. If anyone can tell me what to prepare for, I would really appreciate it....and thanks!


----------



## the_traveler (Mar 19, 2011)

I've only saw a "random" carry-on baggage check at a major station once. That was on #66 in PHL. Out of the 30-50 people in line to board, only *ONE (1)* person was selected!

I'd say your chances are slim to none. And that is also why I tale Amtrak over flying.


----------



## PerRock (Mar 19, 2011)

Isn't TSA banned from Amtrak right now? or is it just their special VIPER teams?

peter


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 19, 2011)

Since January I've ridden various Amtrak and NJT trains in and out of NYP dozen or two times and not seen any TSA. What I have seen is...

1 ) Amtrak Police, with dogs.

2) MTA Police, Armed with BIG guns, stationed, or roaming lower level of NYP

3) US Army, some more visibly armed than others, stationed or roaming throughout NYP.

So what I'm trying to say is that while I did not see any TSA staff, and did not see any searches (other than dogs walking by) at NYP, you will almost for sure feel like you are being watched, and that the area is under heave security surveillance.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Mar 20, 2011)

Coming into Chicago last January on the _*Lake Shore*_ pax were casually "sniffed at" by a dog as we entered the station. I would imagine it was police rather than TSA. Other than Border Patrol or Conductors checking ID at boarding, that is the most aggressive railroad security I have seen.


----------



## GG-1 (Mar 20, 2011)

TVRM610 said:


> you will almost for sure feel like you are being watched, and that the area is under heave security surveillance.


Aloha

I being watched bothers someone then that person better stay out of the Vegas casino's. the number of camera per Square ? is incredible. :giggle:  :lol: :lol:


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 20, 2011)

Saw my first dogs recently in the Austin Station, they were pulling their handlers around the building sniffing luggage, people and walked alongside the Train but didnt question anyone nor get on the Train! It was the local PD, not Feds. The Austin agents told me that there was some "plan" to do spot inspections, surprise gauntlet lines etc. but its supposed to be Top Secret between Feds/Amtrak Police/Locals etc. yada yada! :angry2: Let's Hope not! :excl: :excl: :excl:


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 20, 2011)

GG-1 said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > you will almost for sure feel like you are being watched, and that the area is under heave security surveillance.
> ...


Well there is a difference between being "watched" by cameras and being "watched" by guards holding large guns. One of them secures the area while keeping a "pleasant" experience. The other, is a way to intimidate people.. uh oh.. my foot is easing up on that soap box once again.

A case in point, one of the best secured properties in this country is the Walt Disney World Resort. Cameras are everywhere. They have a private Security team that includes K-9 Teams. However you are never once intimidated. The attitude of the employees is professional and friendly, even within security (with a few minor exceptions I'm sure, like in any job.) You can have an incredibly secure area, without intimidating people, however, that is not what this country is wanting to do.

I imagine your Las Vegas Comparison is much like my Disney one, Casino's want you to feel comfortable, so they don't have a "Casino Security Agent" standing by watching every move you make. That would make you feel uncomfortable, and you would leave. Casinos have merged security, with a comfortable surrounding somehow.

For the record, I'm not bothered THAT much by what I see at NYP. But it does show us how far we have come in this country.


----------



## BobWeaver (Mar 20, 2011)

Durham57 said:


> Although I have been assured the Savannah fiasco was a one-time event, I keep reading on other travel forums that TSA is now conducting pre-boarding searches at many Amtrak stations. Has anyone been through these stations recently: Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D. C., New York Penn and Charleston, S.C. If so, what can you tell me about this? I am traveling June 19 to Charleston and return July 3 to LAX. Have been traveling exclusively on Amtrak since 2006 precisely because of TSA. If anyone can tell me what to prepare for, I would really appreciate it....and thanks!


I traveled through LYH, NWK, NYP, CHI, and WAS 1-2 weeks ago and never saw anything TSA-related. I did see Amtrak Police in WAS and NYP with dogs walking around, and an officer (agency unclear) in NYP standing and holding an automatic rifle, but I didn't see any baggage searches or customer questioning taking place.

John O'Connor has banned TSA from all Amtrak property until a formal agreement can be drawn up.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 20, 2011)

Durham57 said:


> If anyone can tell me what to prepare for, I would really appreciate it....and thanks!


Prepare for the TSA or a similar agency to follow you to Amtrak. Not right away, but eventually. Leaving the airlines didn't actually solve the whole invasive police state problem; it merely delayed your suffering and gave the police state folks more time to build up strength and solidify their mandate. From the looks of it we're currently in a temporary lull after a few controversial incidents gained some unwanted attention, but eventually Amtrak passengers will begin to suffer similarly invasive scans and checks as most airline passengers do. No, it probably won't be every single Amtrak passenger and the actual security provided by these changes is unlikely to actually save lives, but I'm not sure that was ever the point of the TSA in the first place. In any case that's the sort of government interference we've been voting for and that's the sort of government we're going to be living under until we vote the police state politicians out of office. Unfortunately they've been able to stack the deck with partisan gerrymandering so who knows if voting them out is even possible anymore.



TVRM610 said:


> You can have an incredibly secure area, without intimidating people, however, that is not what this country is wanting to do.


I would doubt that a majority of citizens are in support of the TSA's ever more invasive searches. But neither are they willing to take the time necessary to expose and vote out the folks who support and fund the TSA.



TVRM610 said:


> They don't have a "Casino Security Agent" standing by watching every move you make.


They most certainly do. He's in a nice suit and tends to keep his distance until any one of several layers of security notices that something looks amiss. Well, at least this is true at the tables. Maybe the folks at the nickle slots only have cameras, the transaction log, and random waitresses to worry about.


----------



## dlagrua (Mar 20, 2011)

This is all feel good B.S. Is the TSA going to protect and guard every single mile of trackage in the USA? Are they going to have a presence at the numerous unstaffed stations scattered all over the country?

It is up to us, the railroad passenger to keep our eyes and ears open and to report any suspicious activity. Thats really the only way to be secure. Additionally cameras at the large stations are all that is needed.


----------



## amamba (Mar 20, 2011)

I was at NYP last weekend and didn't see any officers from any agency - but I wasn't looking closely. There is generally an Amtrak police officer at PVD either in the station or down on the platform when boarding. I have also seen many officers with dogs at both BOS and BON.

I have yet to see anyone singled out or pulled from line at the gate.


----------



## jis (Mar 20, 2011)

There were several Amtrak Police Officers in Philadelphia 30th Street Station through the chaos that was was in progress during the NEC power failure yesterday. But they were mostly keeping an eye out for disorderly conduct by frustrated people than anything else I think. One even came down and walked the length of the stalled Acela a couple of times.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Mar 20, 2011)

amamba said:


> I was at NYP last weekend and didn't see any officers from any agency - but I wasn't looking closely. There is generally an Amtrak police officer at PVD either in the station or down on the platform when boarding. I have also seen many officers with dogs at both BOS and BON.
> 
> I have yet to see anyone singled out or pulled from line at the gate.


My last ride on Acela 2 dogs and their handlers boarded the train, and rode with us to BOS.


----------



## TN Tin Man (Mar 20, 2011)

I was on #8 Sea-Chi arriving Chi last night. When we arrived at MSP yesterday morning there was a heavy DHS police presence on the platform (5 or 6 armed officers) and at least 1 TSA inspector. Inside the station there were several other armed DHS officers and at least one dog. The dog and handeler were posted at the departure door, I assume to screen passenger as they pass for boarding. I don't know if they conducted pre-boarding inspections (pat-downs) at the station. None of the offficers boarded the train. I stayed on the platform watching for that.

I didn't hear any complaints from the MSP boarded passengers. So again as an assuption they must not have been too intrusive. What I was surprised with was the number of armed federal agents compaired to the TSA inspectors. The armed officers were identified by their jackets. They read DHS POLICE across the back with a POLICE on the front with a DHS federal agent badge. The TSA inspectors were unarmed and had TSA INSPECTOR on their jackets.

Like I said earlier I stayed on the platform for the entire stop. I was not approached by any of the officers and they did not seem too intrested in the passengers already on the train.


----------



## me_little_me (Mar 20, 2011)

The Amtrak police people saw had seeing eye dogs. Amtrak has a new non-discriminatory policy regarding hiring the blind.

Just crouch real low if they ever go for their weapons. I saw one put two bullets between the eyes of a poster of Mickey Mouse last week. He said he thought it was an alien from Mars coming at him. Awesome shooting though!


----------



## the_traveler (Mar 20, 2011)

Long Train Runnin said:


> My last ride on Acela 2 dogs and their handlers boarded the train, and rode with us to BOS.


Maybe the dogs wanted to go for a point run!


----------



## oldtimer (Mar 20, 2011)

me_little_me said:


> The Amtrak police people saw had seeing eye dogs. Amtrak has a new non-discriminatory policy regarding hiring the blind.
> 
> Just crouch real low if they ever go for their weapons. I saw one put two bullets between the eyes of a poster of Mickey Mouse last week. He said he thought it was an alien from Mars coming at him. Awesome shooting though!


Please there are plenty of good law enforcement officers on Amtrak and every other agency. But as in all careers there are the bad apples, LEO's that are in this business for their egos or power trips. Most Amtrak POs are great but there is the occasionally one that make Barney Fife look like Dirty Harry!


----------



## Misty. (Mar 20, 2011)

What I have noticed, especially during my first major haul last week, was not obtrusive to me at all. All I saw were a few police with dogs walking Washington Union Station during my layover between my Capitol Limited and Regional on March 7th, and a few people to make sure that the people waiting were actually ticketed before my between my Regional and Acela on the 10th. Definitely more tolerable than airport-style "security" ^_^


----------



## the_traveler (Mar 20, 2011)

I agree with Misty. When I did my turn at WAS between a Regional arriving at 1:25 AM and one departing at 3:15 AM, I was asked to show my ticket to the Amtrak Police to show that I was an Amtrak Passenger and not a bum. (I am, but that's besides the point!



) I found nothing obtrusive.


----------



## RRrich (Mar 20, 2011)

the_traveler said:


> I agree with Misty. When I did my turn at WAS between a Regional arriving at 1:25 AM and one departing at 3:15 AM, I was asked to show my ticket to the Amtrak Police to show that I was an Amtrak Passenger and not a bum. (I am, but that's besides the point!
> 
> 
> 
> ) I found nothing obtrusive.


The Amtrak Police are there to remove non-Amtrak passengers - being a bum is not relevant. Otherwise you and I would have major problems!


----------



## MattW (Mar 20, 2011)

RRrich said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Misty. When I did my turn at WAS between a Regional arriving at 1:25 AM and one departing at 3:15 AM, I was asked to show my ticket to the Amtrak Police to show that I was an Amtrak Passenger and not a bum. (I am, but that's besides the point!
> ...


All joking aside, can they remove you if you're just in WAS doing business at one of the many stores without actually intending to ride a train? My family and I did that back in 2003, rode METRO into Union Station for dinner in the food court, looked around, saw the gates, then returned to our hotel via METRO.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 20, 2011)

MattW said:


> RRrich said:
> 
> 
> > the_traveler said:
> ...


Wouldnt worry about during business hours of the stores and food court/returants in Union Station. Perhaps wanting to sleep by the Amtrak Gates might cause LE to check you out, wouldnt thing shoppers and customers will have any problem! (and I'm a retired bum too but always have my ticket handy just in case! while hanging out in stations!)


----------



## Saddened (Mar 21, 2011)

Last time I went through Chicago, Amtrak police were randomly pulling people aside and going through their bags. Next trip, I'm taking the bus - and that's sad. I love the train, but not enough to accept a 4th Amendment violation to ride it.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 22, 2011)

Saddened said:


> Last time I went through Chicago, Amtrak police were randomly pulling people aside and going through their bags. Next trip, I'm taking the bus - and that's sad. I love the train, but not enough to accept a 4th Amendment violation to ride it.


If you think it's a 4th Amendment, then sue them in Federal court. Of course, you'll lose because it is not a 4th Amendment violation, but give it a shot anyway. Lawyers need work, too.


----------



## amamba (Mar 22, 2011)

I saw two uniformed TSA agents with blue gloves on standing outside chicago uniin station on Monday. But they were just talking to one another and didn't appear to actually be searching folks. They were on Canal street near the taxis.


----------



## transit54 (Mar 22, 2011)

Saddened said:


> Last time I went through Chicago, Amtrak police were randomly pulling people aside and going through their bags. Next trip, I'm taking the bus - and that's sad. I love the train, but not enough to accept a 4th Amendment violation to ride it.


IMHO, this is the type of thing I want to see. Selective security by trained law enforcement. I think there needs to be a certain amount of security, just make sure its done in a smart way. If there ever was an attack, we'd quickly descend into airport-style security - it's better to have some security measures up front. Amtrak makes it quite clear what security measures you may be subjected to upfront and I think random screening of bags by law enforcement is fine.


----------



## the_traveler (Mar 22, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > All joking aside, can they remove you if you're just in WAS doing business at one of the many stores without actually intending to ride a train? My family and I did that back in 2003, rode METRO into Union Station for dinner in the food court, looked around, saw the gates, then returned to our hotel via METRO.
> ...


Not many stores are open at 2 AM!




(I only found 1, Au Bon Pain [sp]) But during business hours, no problem. After all, that's what they're in business for!


----------



## dlagrua (Mar 22, 2011)

Once again. Is the TSA going to protect and guard every single mile of trackage in the USA? Are they going to have a presence at the numerous unstaffed stations scattered all over the country?

Even if you hired 1,000,000 officers, railroads can never be completely secured. A terrorist wouldn't have to board a train at a major city or at all. All they would have to do is to damage the tracks that ride on the edge of a valley or near a bridge. If terrorists hike over a mountain and destroy some tracks in a remote area, how are they going to protect against that?

There was an incident last year when some "vandals" derailed an entire NS coal train (I believe in PA) by just placing a RR tie across the rails. Many cars left the rails but thankfully there were no deaths as it was a freight train. Damage was extensive, all from a single RR tie.. IMO terrorists are not going to risk boarding a train; they will just take the path of least resistance.

The TSA menace is not for our safety. It is just a part of a bigger plan to control the US population. The people behind this are the Globalists, Financiers, Corporatists and World Bankers. Presdient Obama like his predecessor is just a figure head that takes orders from these people. Look how he has changed since he has become president. The man now supports war. At least for the time being he still likes Amtrak!


----------



## tp49 (Mar 22, 2011)

All I can say is don't ride the train in China. Most would be appalled at the security one must go through just to get in the station. At Shanghai Railway Station you have to go through airport style screening with luggage going through an x-ray machine and passengers going through a magnetometer. Riding the subway? Anyone carrying a bag is subject to security check as well with the bag going through an x-ray machine. They even do this during rush hour in a city of 19 million people.


----------



## SanFranciscan (Mar 22, 2011)

Like many of you I do believe that the alleged war on terrorism is really an attack on our civil rights and that the purpose of homeland security is to protect the government from us.

Even right here in San Francisco I see how selective fare inspectors are in their enforcement, and we are just a local transit agency that stops at the county line. The fare inspectors are all over the tourists or suburbanites going to the museums in the park etc.; but let some thugs in their gang attire get on the trains, or even just passengers from touchy ethnic groups, and the fare inspectors will not approach them.

But perhaps you can help me with a question which affects me personally. I shall be going from San Francisco to Orlando the beginning of next month and haven't ridden Amtrak in years, and I am a Type 1 diabetic. This means that I shall by carrying insulin and syringes. What security measures does Amtrak have for this? I want to keep the fact that I have these medical items with me as quiet as possible because there are no sleeping rooms available for me so I have no way of locking these things up. Can I count on Amtrak to be discreet?


----------



## BobWeaver (Mar 22, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> The TSA menace is not for our safety. It is just a part of a bigger plan to control the US population. The people behind this are the Globalists, Financiers, Corporatists and World Bankers.


Wow. Just....wow. It's been a while since I have read such a bitter and utterly baseless statement. You've made it more than obvious that you think every single one of TSA's 55,000+ employees is somehow a "thug," and that you have a significant animosity towards air travel, the TSA, and now apparently bankers too, since they evidently now control the TSA (how do you take yourself seriously with statements like this anyway?). I don't believe these kind of incongruous opinions are at all necessary on a board such as this. Please keep them to yourself.


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 22, 2011)

BobWeaver said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > The TSA menace is not for our safety. It is just a part of a bigger plan to control the US population. The people behind this are the Globalists, Financiers, Corporatists and World Bankers.
> ...


dlagrua's opinions were completely on topic, and I for one am pretty much in agreement with him. It should be noted that he said "world bankers" not just "bankers," he wasn't suggesting the bank down the road from where I live is in control of the TSA.

Also.. where did he mention in this post that TSA employees are "thugs"? He referred to the TSA as a whole, as a menace, which I for one 100% agree with.

Please keep sharing your on-topic, and relevant thoughts dlagrua.


----------



## BobWeaver (Mar 22, 2011)

TVRM610 said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


Oh forgive me, the world* bankers evidently now control TSA. How silly of me. He has labeled TSA employees as "thugs" numerous times in other posts. Remember, front-line TSA agents are only doing their jobs. If you want to complain, take it higher.


----------



## Cristobal (Mar 22, 2011)

BobWeaver said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > The TSA menace is not for our safety. It is just a part of a bigger plan to control the US population. The people behind this are the Globalists, Financiers, Corporatists and World Bankers.
> ...


Your sign-up date indicates that you've been around for awhile. However, you seem to be surprised by AU's 'tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist/germaphobe'.

BobWeaver, meet dlagrua...

The dude can certainly be 'off the hook' some/most times.


----------



## Durham57 (Mar 22, 2011)

Many thanks for all of your replies....anxiety level is considerably lowered.


----------



## oldtimer (Mar 23, 2011)

SanFranciscan said:


> Like many of you I do believe that the alleged war on terrorism is really an attack on our civil rights and that the purpose of homeland security is to protect the government from us.
> 
> Even right here in San Francisco I see how selective fare inspectors are in their enforcement, and we are just a local transit agency that stops at the county line. The fare inspectors are all over the tourists or suburbanites going to the museums in the park etc.; but let some thugs in their gang attire get on the trains, or even just passengers from touchy ethnic groups, and the fare inspectors will not approach them.
> 
> But perhaps you can help me with a question which affects me personally. I shall be going from San Francisco to Orlando the beginning of next month and haven't ridden Amtrak in years, and I am a Type 1 diabetic. This means that I shall by carrying insulin and syringes. What security measures does Amtrak have for this? I want to keep the fact that I have these medical items with me as quiet as possible because there are no sleeping rooms available for me so I have no way of locking these things up. Can I count on Amtrak to be discreet?



Hi, San Franciscan

I am an insulin dependent diabetic myself and travel on Amtrak in addition to having worked for them for 35+ years. If you travel I would recommend that you pack your syringes, insulin, and meter in a small travel kit. I see no need to hide the fact that you need to give yourself an injection that is needed for your life to be normal. I have discreetly given myself injections at the table in the dining car, but if you must take your kit with your supplies to a restroom and give yourself an injection. I will tell you that Amtrak don't provide a used sharps container. You must take your used syringes with you.

Please do not leave your sharps in the restroom as it is not only dangerous but I have seen a train stopped and searched after an attendant found several used syringes in the restroom and reported it to the conductor. In that case the dogs found illegal drugs in two adjacent coaches (the second car had a suitcase full of marijuana).

  :blush:


----------



## Alice (Mar 23, 2011)

SanFranciscan said:


> But perhaps you can help me with a question which affects me personally. I shall be going from San Francisco to Orlando the beginning of next month and haven't ridden Amtrak in years, and I am a Type 1 diabetic. This means that I shall by carrying insulin and syringes. What security measures does Amtrak have for this? I want to keep the fact that I have these medical items with me as quiet as possible because there are no sleeping rooms available for me so I have no way of locking these things up. Can I count on Amtrak to be discreet?


Amtrak doesn't have security in the same way airports do. Luggage and carry-ons are rarely searched. If your insulin needs to be refrigerated, then I recommend a small icebox, like one of those 6-pack sizes sold for lunchboxes. You could put a small padlock through the zipper although I don't think it is really an issue. You could put the bulk of your syringes someplace inconvenient, like the bottom of your carry-on, and just have a day's worth handy. Whatever you usually do when you go out is probably fine.

You might want to make your reservation by phone or in person (as opposed to by online) and mention your disability. They'll make a note on the manifest your car attendant will see, which could be helpful. They might also give you a discount (Some diabetics get discounts, some don't, I have no idea of the criteria.).

My mother's Type 2 diabetes was controlled partly by meds, partly by diet and exercise, and partly by insulin. The food on Amtrak, even food that I thought would be OK, made her blood sugar go haywire. You might want to carry an adequate supply of something in case the cafe or diner doesn't have anything you can eat. Amtrak can arrange some special menus with advance notice, see here.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 23, 2011)

oldtimer2 said:


> SanFranciscan said:
> 
> 
> > Like many of you I do believe that the alleged war on terrorism is really an attack on our civil rights and that the purpose of homeland security is to protect the government from us.
> ...


I would think you will have no worries at all. There are quite a few people with medical issues that travel by train wherever possible by choice because:

I have not heard of a diebetic having problems because of his needles, etc.

If you are on oxygen, you can carry your own system and supplies. You cannot by air.

If you are in a wheelchair, you can stay in it and not have to be manhandled into one of the airline aisle chairs. If you need meals, they can be brought to you.

If you have metal in your body, you do not have to go through the full "you are a terrorist until proven otherwise" that you get before you get on a plane. (What happened to innocent until proven guilty?)

If you have ear troubles, what pressure changes there are occur at slow rates, with the probable exception of some portions of the Southwest Chief route. Don't know if the climbs on the CZ are fast enough to pop your ears.

There are certainly more.


----------



## rrdude (Mar 23, 2011)

the_traveler said:


> I agree with Misty. When I did my turn at WAS between a Regional arriving at 1:25 AM and one departing at 3:15 AM, I was asked to show my ticket to the Amtrak Police to show that I was an Amtrak Passenger and not a bum. (I am, but that's besides the point!
> 
> 
> 
> ) I found nothing obtrusive.


SHOCKING! Just SHOCKING! I am going to write my Congressman and Senator about this. How could they DARE compare you to a bum? Don't they KNOW a real bum when they see one? IF ever I have seen a real bum, it was certainly Dave!


----------



## rrdude (Mar 23, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> Once again. Is the TSA going to protect and guard every single mile of trackage in the USA? Are they going to have a presence at the numerous unstaffed stations scattered all over the country?
> 
> Even if you hired 1,000,000 officers, railroads can never be completely secured. A terrorist wouldn't have to board a train at a major city or at all. All they would have to do is to damage the tracks that ride on the edge of a valley or near a bridge. If terrorists hike over a mountain and destroy some tracks in a remote area, how are they going to protect against that?
> 
> ...


Well, I'm not gonna jump on _that_ bandwagon, but I do think that what DHS is doing is just _creating_ a need for itself, and the _need_ for add'l staff. Because as one of our wise posters pointed out months ago, "employees are power". i.e., The bigger your staff, the more power you have. And if you have an ever increasing staff (even thru contractors) you have ever increasing political power.(not Dem or Rep, but Departmental power)


----------



## George Harris (Mar 23, 2011)

SanFranciscan said:


> Even right here in San Francisco I see how selective fare inspectors are in their enforcement, and we are just a local transit agency that stops at the county line. The fare inspectors are all over the tourists or suburbanites going to the museums in the park etc.; but let some thugs in their gang attire get on the trains, or even just passengers from touchy ethnic groups, and the fare inspectors will not approach them.


It is not just you. Currently living in SF and deliberately carless, I see the same thing. The reasons are farily simple: Checking the tourists and suburbanites, (and the cleaner city dwellers) enables them to check the box so to speak on doing fare inspection without risk to themselves. The second: In a city loaded with professional level "discrimination" screamers, they do subject themselves to spending lots of time defending their actions in a city where "political correctness" is running amok.


----------



## Ispolkom (Mar 23, 2011)

tp49 said:


> All I can say is don't ride the train in China.


I would expect pointless bureaucratic intrusions into my privacy in China, just as I put up with them in the Soviet Union. Both countries are (or were) dictatorships, after all. I resent such intrusions, though, in the U.S.


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 23, 2011)

rrdude said:


> Well, I'm not gonna jump on _that_ bandwagon, but I do think that what DHS is doing is just _creating_ a need for itself, and the _need_ for add'l staff. Because as one of our wise posters pointed out months ago, "employees are power". i.e., The bigger your staff, the more power you have. And if you have an ever increasing staff (even thru contractors) you have ever increasing political power.(not Dem or Rep, but Departmental power)


Very well written. DHS and TSA are clearly not out for the good of the people as much as they are the good for themselves. Weather you believe that a global conspiracy, A Bush Conspiracy, or a Warthog and Meerkat Conspiracy is to blame doesn't have to be a dividing issue.

Unfortunately, it is becoming ever clear that no form of transportation is being left untouched by the TSA. I read about the "VIPR" teams setting up a check point on an Atlanta Interstate. From what I read, they were only "searching" commercial vehicles, but it still tied up traffic for no real reason.

I've also read that TSA check points have been set up at a few bus stations too.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 23, 2011)

Saddened said:


> Last time I went through Chicago, Amtrak police were randomly pulling people aside and going through their bags. Next trip, I'm taking the bus - and that's sad. I love the train, but not enough to accept a 4th Amendment violation to ride it.


What will you do when they start checking bus riders?



PRR 60 said:


> If you think it's a 4th Amendment, then sue them in Federal court. Of course, you'll lose because it is not a 4th Amendment violation, but give it a shot anyway.


Wouldn't that depend on who was appointed to various circuit courts and Supreme Court at the time?



tp49 said:


> Most would be appalled at the security one must go through just to get in the station.


Considering that China doesn't have any enforceable constitutional protections I don't see why you think any of us would be appalled.


----------



## haolerider (Mar 23, 2011)

TVRM610 said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm not gonna jump on _that_ bandwagon, but I do think that what DHS is doing is just _creating_ a need for itself, and the _need_ for add'l staff. Because as one of our wise posters pointed out months ago, "employees are power". i.e., The bigger your staff, the more power you have. And if you have an ever increasing staff (even thru contractors) you have ever increasing political power.(not Dem or Rep, but Departmental power)
> ...


Can you identify when TSA set up a checkpoint on an Atlanta Interstate?


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 23, 2011)

haolerider said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > rrdude said:
> ...


Yes, It was Tuesday September 28, 2010. According to the Atlanta Jorunal. More information was provided by Channel 2 News.

As a side note... I had originally only read the article in the news. Channel 2 adds the detail that this was done within the Weigh Station. So the "check-point" was not actually across the physical interstate lanes.


----------



## haolerider (Mar 23, 2011)

TVRM610 said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> > TVRM610 said:
> ...


Thanks for the info. No wonder it didn't register with me, since it was at the weigh stations only.

I-75 and I-85 are known drug highways and it is not surprising to see State Troopers and local police pulling over cars on a regular basis - not for speeding, but for drug suspicion. As far as I am concerned, that is a good thing and it has never bothered me while traveling either route.


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 23, 2011)

haolerider said:


> No wonder it didn't register with me, since it was at the weigh stations only.


Well, it's still an interstate check point set up by the TSA of all commercial vehicles. This was not the police searching for drugs, this was a VIPR drill. I'm certain this will not be the last one done.

Perhaps when your vehicle gets searched for no just cause, you will have a problem with it. Or perhaps you will say "I feel safer." That's up to you. Either way, TSA is obviously growing.

The fact is, the TSA is a government agency, that is able to search, without cause, anyone and anything entering a "check point" they set up. These check points have been set up permanently at all airports. And temporarily at bus stations, train stations, and interstates.

The fact is, that if you ride Amtrak alot, you WILL eventually be...

1- Questioned by the Border Patrol.

2- Questioned by Local Police

3 - Searched by the TSA

4 - Searched by Amtrak Police (this is the only thing I'm 100% for. Amtrak Police have full rights to search Amtrak Passengers Luggage).

I've been personally very lucky, I've only been questioned by border patrol, and had an amtrak police dog "sniff" my luggage. I can't see how anyone believes it should be ok for government or police employees to be able to questions and/or search for no just cause.


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 23, 2011)

Alice said:


> SanFranciscan said:
> 
> 
> > But perhaps you can help me with a question which affects me personally. I shall be going from San Francisco to Orlando the beginning of next month and haven't ridden Amtrak in years, and I am a Type 1 diabetic. This means that I shall by carrying insulin and syringes. What security measures does Amtrak have for this? I want to keep the fact that I have these medical items with me as quiet as possible because there are no sleeping rooms available for me so I have no way of locking these things up. Can I count on Amtrak to be discreet?
> ...


Amtrak apparently will give you ice if needed to keep your insulin cool, as listed here. I assume you would have ask the train attendant in coach, or maybe someone in the diner.


----------



## Saddened (Mar 25, 2011)

daxomni said:


> What will you do when they start checking bus riders?


I don't think they will start checking bus riders - because it wouldn't make any sense to do so. Nor does checking train riders make any sense, so I expect it, eventually, to end.

The reason airport security makes sense is that planes are safe from outside attack once airborne. Hence, if you can keep weapons from getting onto the plane, the plane should be safe. This is not true for trains and buses. Jesse James didn't buy a ticket in order to rob a train, and there is no reason to expect a modern-day terrorist to buy a ticket, or ever board the train or bus, either.


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 26, 2011)

Saddened said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > What will you do when they start checking bus riders?
> ...


They already have...



Knoxville Bus

These are the first two i found on Google, I'm sure these are not the only ones.

Now mind you, so far all we have is the same thing we have with Amtrak. Random "VIPR" checks. But it seems reasonable to suspect these checks are testing to see how a permanent TSA presence at Bus and Train Stations (and interstate check points) will work.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 26, 2011)

BobWeaver said:


> John O'Connor has banned TSA from all Amtrak property until a formal agreement can be drawn up.


John O'Connor can say what he wants, the TSA isn't necessarily going to abide by it. Plus, as was mentioned in the thread that discussed this incident, Amtrak owns very few stations nationwide (and Savannah isn't one of them, so even if the TSA were to abide by this pronouncement, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference in that case).



BobWeaver said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > The TSA menace is not for our safety. It is just a part of a bigger plan to control the US population. The people behind this are the Globalists, Financiers, Corporatists and World Bankers.
> ...


Actually, he's pretty dead on and I'll thank you to try to keep your efforts to control what other people say to yourself. I may not agree with very much that the guy has to say, but he's certainly just as free to share his (occasionally) misguided opinions as you are. As far as thugs go, you have convicted felons (sometimes even when the airport tries to stop them) stealing from passengers (that's 3 different links there to 3 different situations, btw). As far as the financial side of things, I'm sure that Chertoff pushing for machines built by a company that he has a financial interest in is just a coincidence.



rrdude said:


> Well, I'm not gonna jump on _that_ bandwagon, but I do think that what DHS is doing is just _creating_ a need for itself, and the _need_ for add'l staff. Because as one of our wise posters pointed out months ago, "employees are power". i.e., The bigger your staff, the more power you have. And if you have an ever increasing staff (even thru contractors) you have ever increasing political power.(not Dem or Rep, but Departmental power)


Precisely.



Saddened said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > What will you do when they start checking bus riders?
> ...


I remember once having that kind of optimism. Too bad that isn't the case.


----------



## amamba (Mar 29, 2011)

I hate to bump this topic because I know its been beaten like a dead horse, however, my husband observed two TSA agents today inside the PVD amtrak station on his way to board 66. It is definitely owned by amtrak, although of course the MBTA also runs some trains in and out of the station.

The two agents were wearing full uniforms with TSA clearly marked on them, and they were wearing those nitrile blue gloves that they seem to always wear. They were standing at the top of the escalator that brings folks down to tracks 1 & 2, where the amtrak trains always run. The agents did not seem to be stopping anyone or speaking with anyone, but they were there nonetheless.

And I did see agents in the same garb standing on Canal Street outside of Chicago Union Station just last week. Coincidence? Or does this mark the beginning of selective screening for pax?


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 29, 2011)

amamba said:


> I hate to bump this topic because I know its been beaten like a dead horse,


It's an important topic though, especially since Amtrak "banned" TSA from stations. I'm not surprised that the TSA didn't listen to Amtrak. If the TSA can violate existing state laws of "sexual harassment" why are they going to listen to Amtrak Chief of Police?


----------



## Cristobal (Mar 29, 2011)

TVRM610 said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to bump this topic because I know its been beaten like a dead horse,
> ...


Can you cite that please?

DHS trumps Amtrak Chief of Police any day of the week. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Maybe your congressman can change that (or not).

I also think that you have the whole VIPR thing bass-ackwards. But that doesn't surprise me coming from someone that is likely using MSM and/or anecdotal blog accounts as their primary source of info.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 29, 2011)

I'd love to hear your explanation of how we have the whole VIPR thing wrong, considering that eyewitness accounts directly contradict the claims made by Blogger Bob.


----------



## Cristobal (Mar 29, 2011)

Ryan said:


> I'd love to hear your explanation of how we have the whole VIPR thing wrong, considering that eyewitness accounts directly contradict the claims made by Blogger Bob.


I didn't say "wrong". I said bass-ackwards. That was in response to this post:



TVRM610 said:


> Saddened said:
> 
> 
> > daxomni said:
> ...


What part of *Visible** Intermodal Prevention and Response* makes you think that they are "testing for permanent presence" and not just doing as planned and showing (possible terrorists) that they could possibly show up anywhere and anytime?

I'm not saying that I agree completely lock-step with everything that DHS/TSA is doing but I do get tired of all the misinformation that is out there.


----------



## MattW (Mar 29, 2011)

Perhaps it's all the lies about "this won't be that big" before becoming a big thing. Like how the insta-porn machines wouldn't become primary screening and only used to clear metal detector anomalies, but many people are now being forced to choose between exposure to ionizing radiation and porn being made of themselves, or a sexual assault by a clown-school reject. Or how the pat-downs would only be used to clear anomalies, but it has been confirmed that the metal detectors randomly select people for a pat-down. Or how the liquids carnival was "temporary." Or how the shoe-removal was "temporary." Or how said insta-porn machines weren't that revealing. And those are just the examples I can think of right off the bat. Nappy's little regime has given us no reason to trust them or take anything they say at face-value.


----------



## Trainmans daughter (Mar 29, 2011)

Well, maybe bomb-sniffing dogs would be more effective than any number of airport-type "gropers". This evening, all trains scheduled to pass through Emeryville and Jack London Oakland have been suspended due to this:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/03/29/oakland-amtrak-train-station-evacuated-during-bomb-threat/


----------



## Tumbleweed (Mar 29, 2011)

Trainmans daughter said:


> Well, maybe bomb-sniffing dogs would be more effective than any number of airport-type "gropers". This evening, all trains scheduled to pass through Emeryville and Jack London Oakland have been suspended due to this:
> 
> http://sanfrancisco....ng-bomb-threat/


I am a firm believer that trained dogs would be much more effective (and cheaper) than the procedures now in place at airports....


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 30, 2011)

Cristobal said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love to hear your explanation of how we have the whole VIPR thing wrong, considering that eyewitness accounts directly contradict the claims made by Blogger Bob.
> ...



What in the world is your point? I said it "seems reasonable to suspect" I did not say "they will be setting up permanent shop soon." I understand what VIPR is. I am the one that pointed out in my own post that you quoted that every day TSA screening was not being done, only VIPR checks.

I said it seems reasonable to suspect that VIPR checks are tests to see how a permanent set-up would work. I think that statement is 100% true. I'm not saying they are, I am saying it is reasonable to suspect that they could be.


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 30, 2011)

Cristobal said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > amamba said:
> ...


Thanks for the personal attack  . I try my best to double check facts vs. Fiction that I read online. I'm quite certain I don't always get it right.

The citations you asked for... I'm not going to list the laws of every state. What the TSA is doing is sexual assault under the laws of every state I know of. Without cause, a law enforcement official can not touch the sexual organs of anyone. I would like to ask you to please cite one law that permits the groping of a citizen without just cause. In fact, please explain to me how the TSA enhanced pat down is NOT sexual assault. And I mean that seriously, if you don't think it is, please tell me why.


----------



## TN Tin Man (Mar 30, 2011)

TVRM610 said:


> The citations you asked for... I'm not going to list the laws of every state. What the TSA is doing is sexual assault under the laws of every state I know of. Without cause, a law enforcement official can not touch the sexual organs of anyone. I would like to ask you to please cite one law that permits the groping of a citizen without just cause. In fact, please explain to me how the TSA enhanced pat down is NOT sexual assault. And I mean that seriously, if you don't think it is, please tell me why.


Your points are valid. The act of conducting a search to the extent the TSA performs them would meet the definition of sexual assault in most states. But, there is a second point to most of the assault laws. That is intent. Was the touch or assault conducted with criminal intent. In the case of the TSA that would be very hard to prove in court.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 30, 2011)

TVRM610 said:


> I said it seems reasonable to suspect that VIPR checks are tests to see how a permanent set-up would work. I think that statement is 100% true. I'm not saying they are, I am saying it is reasonable to suspect that they could be.


I agree that this is 100% reasonable. Hopefully the angry backlash gives them a little bit of pause.



WY Tin Man said:


> Your points are valid. The act of conducting a search to the extent the TSA performs them would meet the definition of sexual assault in most states. But, there is a second point to most of the assault laws. That is intent. Was the touch or assault conducted with criminal intent. In the case of the TSA that would be very hard to prove in court.


They're sure as hell not welcome or invited touches!


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 30, 2011)

Ryan said:


> WY Tin Man said:
> 
> 
> > Your points are valid. The act of conducting a search to the extent the TSA performs them would meet the definition of sexual assault in most states. But, there is a second point to most of the assault laws. That is intent. Was the touch or assault conducted with criminal intent. In the case of the TSA that would be very hard to prove in court.
> ...


Haha... Ryan.. that made me laugh out loud! I do understand Tin Mans point and agree there is not "intent" of sexual assault. I also recognize that what the TSA is doing is technically legal under federal law.

But I just got a great idea! If the TSA is not going to change the search policy, how about they start hiring extremely attractive officers? And maybe get a fashion designer to come up with something a little bit more sexy than a baggy blue jumpsuit. Hey.. if this was done right, people would be lining up at the airport in HOPES they get a screening!

Even though I say this as a joke, you gotta admit, if done right the whole "advanced pat down" thing could be kinda fun.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Mar 30, 2011)

This some thing I don't bring up often .

As some one who was Sexually assaulted when young . I can t really do Airports anymore .

I had a non enhanced patdown 3 years ago and had a relapse to the point for a entire week I could not leave My bed .

THIS is trauma . this is not solving anything .

I have told Ever person I can get ahold off In DC that We need to stop this crap.

Get MM wave NOT XRAY based scaners and Il be happy .

and make a college degree the minumin for ANY TSA job ....

the system can work If we do some simple changes ..

Peter


----------



## Ryan (Mar 30, 2011)

Peter KG6LSE said:


> and make a college degree the minumin for ANY TSA job ....


I'd settle for HS degree or GED at this point!


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Mar 30, 2011)

this is ture ryan ,

See My beef is this ..

My MD	did years of training to SEE me nude .AKA he gained the moral right .

but Mr blue gloves is not a PHD or a MD or a nurse wnhat no.

See the operators who do this stuff need to be Sueable and held acountble and have Profeessonal training . not a 10 Min PPT file .

the AMTK police are more welcome to me then any TSA I have ever met with one exception and that was a agent I knew at ONT as his dad was my teacher in college

Peter


----------



## MrFSS (Mar 30, 2011)

I don't fly much any more since I'm retired and have never experienced being patted down.

Before they start the process do they ask your permission to pat you down? I guess if they do and you say no you wouldn't be granted access to the flight.

In other words if you are consenting to a pat down then I wouldn't think you wouldn't have any right to complain about it.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 30, 2011)

Is it really consent when you don't really have a choice to say no?


----------



## PerRock (Mar 30, 2011)

MrFSS said:


> I don't fly much any more since I'm retired and have never experienced being patted down.
> 
> Before they start the process do they ask your permission to pat you down? I guess if they do and you say no you wouldn't be granted access to the flight.
> 
> In other words if you are consenting to a pat down then I wouldn't think you wouldn't have any right to complain about it.


last news report I heard (and I don't fly much either) you are given the option of the enhanced scanner which takes pictures of you nude, or an enhanced pat down, refusal to both led to being arrested.

peter


----------



## MrFSS (Mar 30, 2011)

PerRock said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > I don't fly much any more since I'm retired and have never experienced being patted down.
> ...


Arrested? Or, just not allowed access to the secure boarding areas?


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 30, 2011)

PerRock said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > I don't fly much any more since I'm retired and have never experienced being patted down.
> ...


Refusal leads to not flying, not arrest. Arrest would occur if you refuse and then make a stink about it by disrupting the security area and then disobeying law enforcement orders to leave. Just refusing the screening will not get you arrested.

Best advise: if you don't want to be scanned and you don't want the pat down, don't fly. It is really that simple.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 30, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> Refusal leads to not flying, not arrest. Arrest would occur if you refuse and then make a stink about it by disrupting the security area and then disobeying law enforcement orders to leave. Just refusing the screening will not get you arrested.


The TSA claims otherwise.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-11-20/business/sfl-airport-scans-pat-downs-refual-20101121_1_tsa-airport-checkpoint-sari-koshetz



> Best advise: if you don't want to be scanned and you don't want the pat down, don't fly. It is really that simple.


That's great if not flying is an option for you. For many, it's a job requirement. In today's economic environment, "just quit" or "don't take a job that requires it" really isn't an option either.


----------



## jis (Mar 30, 2011)

Ryan said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Refusal leads to not flying, not arrest. Arrest would occur if you refuse and then make a stink about it by disrupting the security area and then disobeying law enforcement orders to leave. Just refusing the screening will not get you arrested.
> ...


I would point out that detention for questioning is not arrest. You could be detained for questioning or even just detained for nothing, even if someone with an overactive imagination fingers you or the vehicle that you are traveling in and at that point in time the powers that be have nothing better to do with themselves, as was evidenced by an entire train full of people being detained for over 6 hours in Jacksonville based on a false report.

BTW, any of you ever been through TSA "Freeze" exercise? Another bit of circus brought to you by misuse of your tax dollars 

See: http://wewontfly.com/tsa-likes-to-play-freeze-tag-at-atl

I can just see TSA doing a "Freeze" training exercise in the middle of the Amtrak concourse in Penn Station just to show off how powerful they are. You know a my d*ck is bigger than yours exercise in effect.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 30, 2011)

PerRock said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > I don't fly much any more since I'm retired and have never experienced being patted down. Before they start the process do they ask your permission to pat you down? I guess if they do and you say no you wouldn't be granted access to the flight. In other words if you are consenting to a pat down then I wouldn't think you wouldn't have any right to complain about it.
> ...


This is where the true genius of the DHS in general and the TSA in particular finally becomes clear. From my understanding the TSA does _not_ have the authority to formally arrest an American citizen who can provide evidence of his or her citizenship. However, they _do_ have authority to routinely perform extremely intimate search and seizure on personal and private items both inside and outside your presence and without the usual limits and protections including probable cause. If and when they find _or_ suspect a law has or is about to be broken they _also_ have the authority to forcibly detain you _and_ to then provide whatever they found _or_ suspected to an arresting officer. In the opinion of the TSA even the simple act of entering a checkpoint and then refusing to cooperate with their ever-changing policies and protocols is grounds not just for refusal of entry but _also_ for detainment and questioning. In other words it appears to be a carefully crafted and largely unchallengeable end-run around our civil liberties. It also has a potential of becoming yet another example of how our famed system of checks and balances has become little more than an impotent academic construct that rarely offers more than a theoretical solution when it comes to actually protecting us from our own government.


----------



## alanh (Mar 30, 2011)

Although I haven't encountered the full pat-down from the TSA, I have encountered it when visiting a prison facility.

The rule of thumb is that if you aren't uncomfortable, they aren't doing it right. If there are areas they're not allowed to check, then duh, that's where the contraband will be hidden.

DHS's options are to either do the very intrusive screenings, or tell the public that bombs will get smuggled onto planes and the public will just have to put up with it. Guess which they're going to pick.

My real fear at this point is that it's inevitable that someone will get a small explosive onboard hidden in a body cavity. You think screening is bad _now_....


----------



## jis (Mar 30, 2011)

daxomni said:


> This is where the true genius of the DHS in general and the TSA in particular finally becomes clear. From my understanding the TSA does _not_ have the authority to formally arrest an American citizen who can provide evidence of his or her citizenship.


I don't believe TSA by itself has any authority to formally arrest anyone, citizen or otherwise. They can call actual law enforcement and hand over the situation to them to handle, and they can then proceed to detain, arrest or whatever depending on what the situation warrants, and even there I don't think citizenship is a necessarily at issue. Of course once you are in the hands of law enforcement they might take the opportunity to also try to establish that you are legally present in the country, but one can of course be legally in the country and not be citizen. All that you need is a valid Green Card or I-94 to establish that.

Now certain norms can be bent a bit I suppose in order to try to intimidate those that may erroneously think that they have reduced rights in the eyes of the law for just being non-citizens. OTOH, many citizens even apparently don;t think that they have certain rights that they actually do have.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 30, 2011)

jis said:


> I don't believe TSA by itself has any authority to formally arrest anyone, citizen or otherwise.


I believe you are absolutely correct and I really don't know why I put that meaningless distinction in there. I was about to edit my post but you were a little too quick for me. However, I believe you'll agree that my primary point is in no way reversed or lessened as a result.


----------



## jis (Mar 30, 2011)

daxomni said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe TSA by itself has any authority to formally arrest anyone, citizen or otherwise.
> ...


I would just point out that "it is largely unchallengeable" because the current SCOTUS has ruled so, and that is not necessarily a permanent state of things.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 30, 2011)

jis said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Thankfully the SCOTUS has its own set of checks and balances to ensure they uphold the constitution without undue influence from those with the power to corrupt the process. Unfortunately those checks and balances are _also_ largely academic and theoretical in actual practice, as we have seen when sitting justices are accused of active participation in partisan funding events and conferences, intentionally misusing government security personnel, providing legal guidance to political action groups, refusing to recuse themselves from conflicts of interest and lying on financial documents. It's true that any injustices we suffer from today may not remain in effect forever, but the trend lines appear to be pointing to even _fewer_ privileges and protections for American citizens in the future. Honestly, the more you learn about the potential for practical and effective implementation of America's checks and balances the less faith you're likely to have in them, at least from the perspective of a mere citizen.


----------



## leemell (Mar 30, 2011)

alanh said:


> Although I haven't encountered the full pat-down from the TSA, I have encountered it when visiting a prison facility.
> 
> The rule of thumb is that if you aren't uncomfortable, they aren't doing it right. If there are areas they're not allowed to check, then duh, that's where the contraband will be hidden.
> 
> ...


This description is exactly correct and applies to sworn police anywhere as well.


----------



## MattW (Mar 30, 2011)

Actually, the TSA likely won't arrest you (though the blue-shirted thugs will undoubtedly try), they'll just hit you with an ELEVEN-THOUSAND dollar fine for "failure to complete the screening process." It's not a criminal fine though defined in the U.S. Code, it's an Administrative fine (read: no court, no judge, no trial by jury) defined under dhs's little section in the United States Code of Federal Regulations.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 30, 2011)

The DHS and TSA are a load of BS. Much of the law is screwed up.

Think about it. You have the right to remain silent, but if you do you will be annoyed and harassed and sleep deprived until you change your mind. You have the right to an attorney, but if you (like most people) can't afford their huge fees, you have the right to have an attorney so dumb he can't set up a profitable private practice botch your defense in court. You have the right to plea bargain for a smaller sentence than you'd get if you were convicted of what you didn't do. But if you don't take it, you have a right to a trial of the twelve people in your area so stupid they can't come up with a coherent excuse why they can't serve jury duty.

You have the right to stick to the law... but if you followed every bloody rule, law, regulation, and so forth to the letter, your head would explode because half of them contradict each other.

So, today, we all have the right to the pursuit of misery out of prison. All other courses of action will result in people being miserable in prison. Anyone who manages to escape this will be shot and buried in a miserable grave.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 30, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> But if you don't take it, you have a right to a trial of the twelve people in your area so stupid they can't come up with a coherent excuse why they can't serve jury duty.


I don't know how NJ laws have evolved, if at all since I moved out of the state, but here in NY there very few excuses that will get you out of jury duty. Being a sole proprietor won't do it; being a lawyer won't do it; heck even being the mayor of NYC won't do it. You might not be picked to serve on an actual jury, but you will be called to at least show up and participate in the process.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Mar 31, 2011)

They were searching ppl at Philly 30th Street yesterday...


----------



## amamba (Mar 31, 2011)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> They were searching ppl at Philly 30th Street yesterday...


More information, please. Did you personally see this? Who was searching people - amtrak police or TSA uniformed people? Was it everyone or random? Was it just bags or was it personal searches with wanding, pat downs, etc?


----------



## leemell (Mar 31, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > But if you don't take it, you have a right to a trial of the twelve people in your area so stupid they can't come up with a coherent excuse why they can't serve jury duty.
> ...


The only people exempted in California now are judges and law enforcement. One day or one trial and they really mean it. Even politicians of all stripes :lol: are serving, although I don't think I'd want a politician on my jury.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Mar 31, 2011)

amamba said:


> Nexis4Jersey said:
> 
> 
> > They were searching ppl at Philly 30th Street yesterday...
> ...


TSA , some Amtrak..... unfortunately my photos came out in a blur...


----------



## dlagrua (Mar 31, 2011)

Again this whole TSA B.S. is not about keeping us safe. Its about getting the population use to being controlled. We are now living in a Police State folks.

I'll say it again; how is the TSA or HSC going to protect 100's of thousands of miles of trackage? Putting a device on a train may cost some lives and do damage in one car. However, if terrorists tampered with the rails at critical points, they could send a whole train into a river and the event could be far worse. There are places along the tracks that you don't see a soul for miles. I'd like to ask TSA how they intend to protect those points and for that matter all the trackage in the system. .


----------



## Ryan (Mar 31, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> Again this whole TSA B.S. is not about keeping us safe. Its about getting the population use to being controlled. We are now living in a Police State folks.


For the love of all that is holy, will you stop repeating that crap? _*WE DO NOT LIVE IN A POLICE STATE.*_

Express your disagreement with the TSA all you want (heck, I do), but making ridiculous statements like that just demonstrate profound ignorance of what a police state actually is and serves to discredit everything else that you say.


----------



## Tumbleweed (Mar 31, 2011)

I agree, we do not live in a police state (thank God).......but TSA is beginning to emit the odor of one...... h34r:


----------



## jis (Mar 31, 2011)

Ryan said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > Again this whole TSA B.S. is not about keeping us safe. Its about getting the population use to being controlled. We are now living in a Police State folks.
> ...


I agree. I have personally never lived in a police state. But I know several people who had and who escaped with their lives, literally - remember Caucescu's Romania and Zhivkov's Bulgaria, the Shah's and then Khomeini's Iran and not to mention Mao's China during the Cultural Revolution? One of my Romanian friends could not go back for his Dad's funeral for fear of being incarcerated upon arrival. Trust me those who cavalierly throw about such terms know not what they are talking about, and have not experienced the likes of the Savak or the Stasi.


----------



## tp49 (Apr 1, 2011)

leemell said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Not anymore. Judges and law enforcement are not automatically exempted. I would definitely use a challenge to not have to empanel them but they can sneak in. I had a friend who tried a case with a sitting US District Court judge on the jury because he had run out of challenges.


----------



## Ispolkom (Apr 1, 2011)

jis said:


> I agree. I have personally never lived in a police state. But I know several people who had and who escaped with their lives, literally - remember Caucescu's Romania and Zhivkov's Bulgaria, the Shah's and then Khomeini's Iran and not to mention Mao's China during the Cultural Revolution? One of my Romanian friends could not go back for his Dad's funeral for fear of being incarcerated upon arrival. Trust me those who cavalierly throw about such terms know not what they are talking about, and have not experienced the likes of the Savak or the Stasi.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## leemell (Apr 1, 2011)

tp49 said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I was wrong about judges (bad memory or change in the law) but not about law enforcement, this is from the Code of Civil Procedure:

The following persons are exempt from serving jury duty:


Persons who are not citizens of the United States
Persons who are less than 18 years of age
Persons who are not residents of the County for which they were called
Persons who have been convicted of a felony, or malfeasance of office, and have not had their civil rights restored
Persons who do not understand the English language
Peace officers, as defined in Penal Code Sections 830.1, 830.2(a,b,c) and 830.33(a) only
Persons who have served as grand or trial jurors in any court of this state within the last 12 months
Persons who are the subject of a conservatorship


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 1, 2011)

Ispolkom said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


While I agree with each of you who say we do not live in a police state, I would also like to point out that police states rarely develop overnight. They tend to take time to envision, sell, create, and solidify. In many cases the early stages of the process are the only time average citizens have a chance for a just and moral solution. If they instead decide to simply wait and see what happens before taking any action then it may already be too late to do much of anything by the time they're finally willing to act.


----------



## amamba (Apr 1, 2011)

Nexis4Jersey, even if your photos didn't come out, can you give us some more information? I am assuming you were a personal witness to the event since you said your photos. Again, were they on the platform? Did they set up a gate to search everyone before they reached the platform? Were they in the station? Were they searching bags, or doing personal/body searches with wanding, pat downs, etc? Or were they just a presence there like they were in PVD?

Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 1, 2011)

daxomni said:


> While I agree with each of you who say we do not live in a police state, I would also like to point out that police states rarely develop overnight. They tend to take time to envision, sell, create, and solidify. In many cases the early stages of the process are the only time average citizens have a chance for a just and moral solution. If they instead decide to simply wait and see what happens before taking any action then it may already be too late to do much of anything by the time they're finally willing to act.


Agreed wholeheardtedly. And the best way to fight it is not be be classified as a loon for making ridiculous statements like those that I replied to.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Apr 1, 2011)

amamba said:


> Nexis4Jersey, even if your photos didn't come out, can you give us some more information? I am assuming you were a personal witness to the event since you said your photos. Again, were they on the platform? Did they set up a gate to search everyone before they reached the platform? Were they in the station? Were they searching bags, or doing personal/body searches with wanding, pat downs, etc? Or were they just a presence there like they were in PVD?
> 
> Thank you for clarifying.


They were in the terminal , searching some ppl as they prepared to go down to platforms.... They seem to be flipping with the Amtrak police.....


----------

