# TSA spreading its wings



## guest in the west (Aug 5, 2013)

From The New York Times

August 5, 2013
T.S.A. Expands Duties Beyond Airport Security	By RON NIXONWASHINGTON — As hundreds of commuters emerged from Amtrak and commuter trains at Union Station on a recent morning, an armed squad of men and women dressed in bulletproof vests made their way through the crowds.

The squad was not with the Washington police department or Amtrak’s police force, but was one of the Transportation Security Administration’s Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response squads — VIPR teams for short — assigned to perform random security sweeps to prevent terrorist attacks at transportation hubs across the United States.

“The T.S.A., huh,” said Donald Neubauer of Greenville, Ohio, as he walked past the squad. “I thought they were just at the airports.”

link to full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/us/tsa-expands-duties-beyond-airport-security.html?hp&_r=0


----------



## rrdude (Aug 5, 2013)

IMHO, it's all about protecting YOU (TSA) turf, increasing in size, (# of emp), and making sure your employees are NOTICED, the bigger your staff, the bigger your budget, the harder it is to kill.........


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 6, 2013)

I'm guessing its because of the "hightened threat" overseas. I've heard PHL (airport) has beefed up security with more random car "searches" (dogs sniffing for bombs).


----------



## CelticWhisper (Aug 6, 2013)

I don't like this at all. I feel much less safe anywhere TSA is present and this is making me feel very unsafe about my upcoming trip to PVD. I plan on hiding out in the Metro/ClubAcela lounges as much as possible as JoeBas has stated that boarding from those areas tends to get one around any Terrorists Searching Americans activity, but I'm prepared to abandon rail for road just the same way as I abandoned air for rail if TSA becomes a regular part of the Amtrak travel experience.

I already wrote to APD and Amtrak Customer Relations about this and got a call from the Chicago area deputy chief of police (Dan Dugan) about it. I could tell that he thought more highly of the bird droppings he wiped off his shoe that morning than he did of TSA, but couldn't come out and say it. I wonder how much political pressure is being put on APD to cooperate with these thuggish clerks.


----------



## BuzzKillington (Aug 6, 2013)

Is the TSA really that bad? I fly frequently and it rarely takes me over 5-10 minutes to completely get through security. All you do is empty your pockets, take off your shoes, and walk through a metal detector. I've never had a horror story. If you have nothing in your pockets, they don't even touch you. Everyone just has a predisposed notion in their head that they are out to get you. If I had a lot more time and a bigger bank account, I'd love to take Amtrak more, but TSA is hardly a reason to abandon flying (or Amtrak) altogether.


----------



## CelticWhisper (Aug 6, 2013)

It's reason enough for me. My problem with TSA is that I'm put in a situation I don't control, where complete strangers have the final say over whether another complete stranger will make uninvited physical contact with me. Strangers do not touch me, ever.

Add to that their stupid plexiglas holding pens, shouting, intimidation and claims that "Once you start the screening process you have to complete it", where completion includes any physical contact they determine they want to make, and yes, TSA is definitely reason enough for me to abandon any mode of transportation they infest.


----------



## Ted Bell (Aug 6, 2013)

The TSA is precisely the reason I have abandoned air travel for trains instead. A TSA presence at Amtrak stations will absolutely put me back in my car.


----------



## afigg (Aug 6, 2013)

BuzzKillington said:


> Is the TSA really that bad? I fly frequently and it rarely takes me over 5-10 minutes to completely get through security. All you do is empty your pockets, take off your shoes, and walk through a metal detector. I've never had a horror story. If you have nothing in your pockets, they don't even touch you. Everyone just has a predisposed notion in their head that they are out to get you. If I had a lot more time and a bigger bank account, I'd love to take Amtrak more, but TSA is hardly a reason to abandon flying (or Amtrak) altogether.


The VIPR inspections are a pain in the rear end and really a waste of taxpayer money. Security at the airport is one thing because there is a reason for it and there are established security checkpoint systems and procedures. These random spotchecks of a vast ground transportation system accomplish little except to aggravate people. If I'm unlucky enough to encounter one, I will go through it, but not as satisfied taxpayer.
The VIPR program is now up to a $100 million a year and 37 teams? Where does it stop?


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 6, 2013)

BuzzKillington said:


> Is the TSA really that bad? I fly frequently and it rarely takes me over 5-10 minutes to completely get through security. All you do is empty your pockets, take off your shoes, and walk through a metal detector. I've never had a horror story. If you have nothing in your pockets, they don't even touch you. Everyone just has a predisposed notion in their head that they are out to get you. If I had a lot more time and a bigger bank account, I'd love to take Amtrak more, but TSA is hardly a reason to abandon flying (or Amtrak) altogether.


No, TSA is not that bad, but if people want to think so and ride Amtrak instead, then I'm fine with that. It meand there are fewer clueless people fouling up the screening with metal in pockets, belts on, etc.

With minimal prep, getting through security at an Airport is less hassle than boarding an Amtrak train at NYP or WAS. Much less.


----------



## tonys96 (Aug 6, 2013)

I have several reasons for not liking flying. TSA is just one of them, and that is probably just because I do not fly often and am not aware of the rules/procedures. Once I wore lace up shoes-learned not to do that again, once I had a belt on-learned again, still am not totally aware of carry on liquid rules, or what is allowed to be checked through....on upcoming trip, flying is part of the trip and g/f wants to take some vodka (so she will have it on the train)...I did not know you could check that through!

I do not LIKE the TSA circus....but can tolerate it, I suppose.....if I have to.


----------



## Linda T (Aug 6, 2013)

As long as it doesn't include groping or the nude-o-scope I'm fine with TSA. They can use metal detectors, x-ray my purse and bags, etc., (I go through that everytime I enter my local courthouse), but like others have said no strangers have the right to touch me (and I'll add, look at me nude) under the _assumption_ that I might be doing something wrong. Innocent till proven guilty used to be commonplace in America, now it's guilty until proven innocent. Funny I'm far more afraid of TSA (stripping us of our rights, and making us miss trains) than I am of the actual terrorists.


----------



## BuzzKillington (Aug 6, 2013)

I like Amtrak... I really do. Like I said, if I had more time and money, I would ride them more. But if I limited time to take trips and the choice is a 2 hour flight or a 19 hour Amtrak trip, I'll walk through the TSA lines. I've never had anyone act inappropriately and if you empty your pockets, you can be through in 10 seconds. If I knew they were doing more security on Amtrak trains, it wouldn't deter me in the least. Just one of the things in life you put up with. We all wish security wasn't necessary, but if they can successfully save lives, it's probably for the best.


----------



## WinNix (Aug 6, 2013)

Those who willingly sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

As a matter of principle (and my rights), stay away from me unless you have reasonable suspicion I've done wrong. And, since I am a law-abiding citizen, I expect not to be bullied in any way. The TSA should stick to airports.


----------



## boxcarsyix (Aug 6, 2013)

What concerns me is the fact that they were armed and wearing bulletproof vests. IIRC TSA agents in airports wear neither. The constant presence of police forces in armor makes me feel less safe. If they need that sort of protection amoung amtrak passengers, are we at more risk? Are the vests for protection or intimidation?


----------



## cpamtfan (Aug 6, 2013)

Honestly TSA isn't that bad. Does that mean it'd be fine at a train station? Maybe not, but at the same time Amtrak is always an open target, so more security isn't the worst thing in the world. Of course I don't think there will ever be a "true" security screening area at a train station like New York Penn just because you have commuter rail lines and so many passages, so I don't see a threat of any security lines YET..


----------



## leemell (Aug 6, 2013)

Linda T said:


> As long as it doesn't include groping or the nude-o-scope I'm fine with TSA. They can use metal detectors, x-ray my purse and bags, etc., (I go through that everytime I enter my local courthouse), but like others have said no strangers have the right to touch me (and I'll add, look at me nude) under the _assumption_ that I might be doing something wrong. Innocent till proven guilty used to be commonplace in America, now it's guilty until proven innocent. Funny I'm far more afraid of TSA (stripping us of our rights, and making us miss trains) than I am of the actual terrorists.


If you really believe that, then you don't know much about he spectrum of terrorists.


----------



## Cooley47 (Aug 6, 2013)

Definitely would agree it's with the stuff happening overseas. While they say "we have nothing to worry about here," I think it's a load of BS as always. Doesn't make me afraid to travel still, I figure if something happens, it's going to happen. I after all live right outside of Washington,D.C., so if someone is going to go before you all, it's me. Haha, well, trying to look at that in the best way possible I suppose.


----------



## guest (Aug 6, 2013)

WinNix said:


> Those who willingly sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
> As a matter of principle (and my rights), stay away from me unless you have reasonable suspicion I've done wrong. And, since I am a law-abiding citizen, I expect not to be bullied in any way. The TSA should stick to airports.


Interestingly, that quote works both ways: Those who willingly sacrifice security for liberty deserve neither.

I don't generally fear law enforcement, be it local, state, or national, because I, too am law-abiding. I have never been bullied by the police in any significant way, and working for Amtrak for 8 years as well as flying on a regular basis, the only people I have seen getting extra scrutiny are those who act defensively when asked innocuous questions.

The "T" in TSA stands for transportation. That includes flying, driving, sailing, and riding the rails. I don't like the airport experience, but half of that I have realized is due to lazy airport operations and their unwillingness to properly design and staff the security checkpoints (if they did, as they do in Europe, it wouldn't be half the hassle we face today).


----------



## SP&S (Aug 6, 2013)

My personal name for the TSA is the FUD Squad as they spread *F*ear *U*ncertainty and *D*oubt.


----------



## JayPea (Aug 6, 2013)

I'm finding in my own experience that the TSA procedures are less intrusive than they used to be. For some reason it has always been a hassle getting through security at little ole Spokane. Yesterday I was in and out of the TSA circus act in less than five minutes, granting that Spokane at 4:30 AM isn't exactly bustling. I would much rather take the train rather than fly--- but would rather fly than stay home. I don't like the TSA hassle but don't want it to keep from traveling either. It simply is impractical for me to travel everywhere by train. I always maintain for me the biggest hassle with flying is enduring those who tell me how stupid I am for flying.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 6, 2013)

SP&S said:


> My personal name for the TSA is the FUD Squad as they spread *F*ear *U*ncertainty and *D*oubt.


Down here well call them "(T)housands (S)tand (A)round!" :help:


----------



## tonys96 (Aug 6, 2013)

But if they miss one and a plane gets bombed or such...then they will be raked over the coals for not being thorough enough and costing lives.... :blink:


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 6, 2013)

guest said:


> WinNix said:
> 
> 
> > Those who willingly sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
> ...


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”― Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 6, 2013)

As long as there are grade crossings, searching passengers at a train station is silly.


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> BuzzKillington said:
> 
> 
> > Is the TSA really that bad? I fly frequently and it rarely takes me over 5-10 minutes to completely get through security. All you do is empty your pockets, take off your shoes, and walk through a metal detector. I've never had a horror story. If you have nothing in your pockets, they don't even touch you. Everyone just has a predisposed notion in their head that they are out to get you. If I had a lot more time and a bigger bank account, I'd love to take Amtrak more, but TSA is hardly a reason to abandon flying (or Amtrak) altogether.
> ...


I completely agree with PRR. I have actually pretty much given up traveling by Coach on Amtrak LD trains due to my antipathy towards the process and the lack of control over where I get to sit for the next day or two.  Amtrak crews seem to take extra pleasure in harassing unassuming single males for some reason. But then Sleeper is much more fun anyway, so there. 

These days getting through a TSA checkpoint usually takes at most 15 mins if the airport is not equipped with Pre-Check, and about 2 minutes if it is. And I agree the more that people with an attitude towards the TSA stay away from airports, the better it is for the rest of us too.


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2013)

me_little_me said:


> guest said:
> 
> 
> > WinNix said:
> ...


So I gather one also should choose not to stop at traffic lights? Afterall that is giving up some freedom for the sake of security of not crashing into something else?  Or is one allowed to be selective about which losses of freedom are OK and which not. Frankly I believe what Ben Franklin said is really poppycock, since everyone cedes some amount of freedom in exchange for some amount of security. The question is not whether but which and how much.


----------



## CelticWhisper (Aug 6, 2013)

guest said:


> WinNix said:
> 
> 
> > Those who willingly sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
> ...


Not really. The whole point of it is that liberty is too precious to give up, even in what may well be matters of life and death.

Also, I agree with WinNix - it's a matter of principle, not practicality. It's not about "hassle" or delays or efficiency or anything else like that. It's the fact that I'm being presumed guilty until proven innocent. It's that my allegedly-inalienable right to freedom from searches and seizures is being violated. It's the fact that people are being subjected to so-called "patdowns" that, get this, meet the FBI's updated definition of rape, all as a condition of boarding an airplane.

I'm okay with increased risk of terrorist attacks. All the attacks that were attempted between 2001 and today failed, and they failed as a result of passenger resistance and not landside screening. Plus, there's an element of betrayal to TSA procedures when performed by government clerks that's not there with attacks carried out by terrorists. We KNOW terrorists are (supposedly) out to hurt us. We KNOW they "hate us for our freedom" (or whatever line of BS is coming out of Washington mouthpieces this week). _We know they're the bad guys_. The government, however, is supposed to be the good guy. Government actors are supposed to be on our side. And that's what makes it all the more deplorable to see innocent travelers, who are just trying to enjoy their vacations, stripped of their dignity by overpaid and undereducated government clerks who, operating under false colour of authority and with the illegitimate and _stolen_ title of "Officer", decided they wanted to ruin someone's day to break up the tedium of their useless, worthless, tax-draining day jobs. It's people who are supposed to be the good guys turning into bad guys and gutting people's Constitutional rights.


----------



## tricia (Aug 6, 2013)

leemell said:


> Linda T said:
> 
> 
> > As long as it doesn't include groping or the nude-o-scope I'm fine with TSA. They can use metal detectors, x-ray my purse and bags, etc., (I go through that everytime I enter my local courthouse), but like others have said no strangers have the right to touch me (and I'll add, look at me nude) under the _assumption_ that I might be doing something wrong. Innocent till proven guilty used to be commonplace in America, now it's guilty until proven innocent. Funny I'm far more afraid of TSA (stripping us of our rights, and making us miss trains) than I am of the actual terrorists.
> ...


 Perhaps you don't know much about the history of human freedom, and of tyranny. Government ought to have a dang good reason for ANY infringement of a citizen's right to travel freely in his/her own country. And each infringement should be held to the test of being reasonable, minimal, and effective. I'm pretty sure that airport-style screening at Amtrak stations would not pass the "effectiveness" test, given the uncontrolled access to tracks nearly everywhere.

Edit: Thanks for your post, CelticWhisperer--should have read to the end of the thread before posting myself. You've done it better.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 6, 2013)

BuzzKillington said:


> I've never had anyone act inappropriately and


until I do, I'm going to put my head in the sand".

FIFY. HTH. HAND.


----------



## WinNix (Aug 6, 2013)

CelticWhisper said:


> guest said:
> 
> 
> > WinNix said:
> ...


Franklin's quote absolutely does not work both ways. Thank you, CW for pointing that out. According to your rights, people are free to travel and not be harassed. Giving up those rights through either apathy or fear simply does not make sense to me. The point is this is neither a single nor isolated step. One encroachment follows another, follows another. Would the same person who welcomes TSA stop-and-searches anywhere be as apathetic to travel authorization papers? safe-to-travel-the-rails lists? If full searches became mandatory? I am not willing to give up my constitutional freedoms piece by piece, inch by inch. Telling me I am sacrificing safety in exchange for freedom (from baseless federal searches), in the hopes it scares me into agreeing with you, will not work on me.

edit: spelling


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 6, 2013)

OK - let's slow this one down get back on topic, please.


----------



## leemell (Aug 6, 2013)

tricia said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Linda T said:
> ...



I am referring to that sentence quoted. Unless you've had to deal with hard side of the world, you may not know how bad it can be, and some of these people are a hard as it gets.


----------



## leemell (Aug 6, 2013)

boxcarsyix said:


> What concerns me is the fact that they were armed and wearing bulletproof vests. IIRC TSA agents in airports wear neither. The constant presence of police forces in armor makes me feel less safe. If they need that sort of protection amoung amtrak passengers, are we at more risk? Are the vests for protection or intimidation?


You may not be aware of it, but most police wear vests under their shirts. The vest these guys (TSA) wear is Threat Level IIIa or higher and won't fit under shirts. They wear these vests because they are more likely to face rifles than handguns.


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 6, 2013)

BuzzKillington said:


> Is the TSA really that bad?


Yes. There's now a long and well-documented record of TSA thefts from luggage, among other things.


> If you really believe that, then you don't know much about he spectrum of terrorists.


I know a great deal about terrorists. I am far more afraid of the terrorists who have managed to get US government jobs than the ones who haven't. A number of operations carried out by the G.W. Bush administration fit the legal and dictionary definitions of terrorism. As far as I know, the terrorists involved are still at large, with the blessing of the federal government.


----------



## GG-1 (Aug 6, 2013)

Warning, This is way off the topic of TSA and Amtrak


----------



## CelticWhisper (Aug 6, 2013)

So what do you suppose would happen if, when I'm at a station later this month, I insisted on dealing only with APD in the event that TSA shows up? I have Deputy Chief Dugan's assurance that I can always call APD if I'm uncomfortable with what TSA is doing, but I wonder what the TSA clerks' reactions will be and if they'll try to force interaction. Can anyone say?


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 6, 2013)

leemell said:


> You may not be aware of it, but most police wear vests under their shirts. The vest these guys (TSA) wear is Threat Level IIIa or higher and won't fit under shirts. They wear these vests because they are more likely to face rifles than handguns.


Really? How many TSA agents have been shot by handguns vs rifles? What's the ratio? I'd love to see data on this point.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 6, 2013)

CelticWhisper said:


> So what do you suppose would happen if, when I'm at a station later this month, I insisted on dealing only with APD in the event that TSA shows up? I have Deputy Chief Dugan's assurance that I can always call APD if I'm uncomfortable with what TSA is doing, but I wonder what the TSA clerks' reactions will be and if they'll try to force interaction. Can anyone say?


The bigger fuss you make, the more the TSA agents will get their backs up and the longer the whole thing will continue. I wouldn't be surprised if they delay you enough to miss your train.


----------



## leemell (Aug 6, 2013)

Any agency that is involved with force prepares for what could happen rather than what is happening right now or be prepared to be caught unawares with far worse consequences.


----------



## amamba (Aug 6, 2013)

> So what do you suppose would happen if, when I'm at a station later this month, I insisted on dealing only with APD in the event that TSA shows up? I have Deputy Chief Dugan's assurance that I can always call APD if I'm uncomfortable with what TSA is doing, but I wonder what the TSA clerks' reactions will be and if they'll try to force interaction. Can anyone say?


I like to complain about this stuff but I have never seen the TSA at the train stationin PVD. I have only seen Amtrak police.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 6, 2013)

Much of this thread has been more of TSA at airports. The thread said there were TSA agents seen at Washington Union Station. (In case you were not aware, Washington, DC is the capital of the US!) Until TSA starts showing up at Kingston, Elko, Needles or Shelby, I'm not worried, and let's stop talking about TSA at airports!


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 6, 2013)

leemell said:


> Any agency that is involved with force prepares for what could happen rather than what is happening right now or be prepared to be caught unawares with far worse consequences.


To be sure, but you wrote: "They wear these vests because they are more likely to face rifles than handguns." That's a statement of fact. It requires statistics. I was curious about the basis for that statement of fact. "What could happen" doesn't equate to "are more likely." I could get run over by a bus on my bicycle ride to work tomorrow, but statistically it's much more like I'd be hit by a private vehicle. I assumed that your statement was based on the same sort of evidence. After all, there must be a good reason that they're wearing such fancy gear while normal police officers in the same place are less well protected.

I tried to google this information, but unfortunately, any search of "TSA" and "wounded" I make is confounded by stories about TSA mistreatment of wounded war veterans.


----------



## leemell (Aug 6, 2013)

TSA VIPR members are sworn Federal Law Enforcement Officers trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Academy in Georgia. They operate in the TSA Office of Law Enforcement the same office that runs the Air Marshals.


----------



## leemell (Aug 7, 2013)

Ispolkom said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Any agency that is involved with force prepares for what could happen rather than what is happening right now or be prepared to be caught unawares with far worse consequences.
> ...


I have some direct knowledge of LE training, I was involved with a very large law enforcement agency and much of the training, tactics, and equipment is held confidential for obvious reasons. Sometimes it is quite clear why some things are done, sometimes not without specific information. Research of clear sources on line will probably indicate some of what you ask for, but not all. I will leave it at that.


----------



## Coast To Coast (Aug 7, 2013)

Now they appear at stations, who knows the next moment when you are on the train , you see them walking up and down the train..


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 7, 2013)

*Leemell,*

First you write: "They wear these vests because they are more likely to face rifles than handguns."

When I ask how much more likely, you respond with what is almost a nonsequitor, "Any agency that is involved with force prepares for what could happen rather than what is happening right now," which doesn't at all answer how much more likely.

Finally, you respond with an appeal to authority, Mysterio version: "I have some direct knowledge of LE training, I was involved with a very large law enforcement agency and much of the training, tactics, and equipment is held confidential for obvious reasons."

Two issues: 1) an appeal to authority or special knowledge is silly on an anonymous Internet board. You could be a dog. I could be a dog. 2) I too deal with confidential information all the time. I don't natter about those issues on the Internet, though.

Back to the original issue, the article quoted was reprinted in the Minneapolis newspaper, complete with a picture of two of these Tier IIIa vest equipped Homeland Security paladins. Mrs. Ispolkom noticed that the second officer is clearly checking out a young lady in the line to the right. You can practically see the dotted line from his eyes to her... I was at least glad to see that the officers were wearing their pistols in belt holsters, not those embarrassing and unflattering Quick Draw McGraw thigh holsters.

I'm going back to my original view: these VIPER squads (doesn't that sounds like a bunch of the villains from GI Joe?) are just security theater and a waste of public money. They don't address the real danger to railroad passengers, which is vehicles running into trains at grade crossings.

I'm all for people playing dress-up, and I'm in favor of government support for theater, but I draw the line at government-enforced participatory theater. YMMV.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 7, 2013)

True your Post Ispolkom!  ( I quit playing Cowboys and indians and GI Joe when I was 11!!!!!  )


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 7, 2013)

Coast To Coast said:


> Now they appear at stations, who knows the next moment when you are on the train , you see them walking up and down the train..


The appeared at ONE (1, UNO, a single station) in the capital of the US!  And do you know as a fact that there are not TSA agents, police officers, military members, etc... on your train - with a 100% certainty? Remember, they commute to work and take vacations too! 
A few years ago, I was on MAX from PDX (the airport) and there were a few TSA agents in uniform going home. Did that mean that TSA is now on every light rail/streetcar/subway/etc... in the country? :huh:

Please let's refrain from any more discussion about TSA at airports. If you want to discuss TSA at train stations that are in place right now, by all means go ahead. But I don't think there are any. And please, no more talk about any not at train stations!


----------



## amamba (Aug 7, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> Please let's refrain from any more discussion about TSA at airports. If you want to discuss TSA at train stations that are in place right now, by all means go ahead. But I don't think there are any. And please, no more talk about any not at train stations!


There ARE TSA agents at train stations on a roving basis. That is the whole point of the article and the VIPER squads. I have personally seen TSA agents in CHI and NYP. And there is video evidence of them searching pax in Georgia.


----------



## pennyk (Aug 7, 2013)

When I was at the Kissimmee, FL station last April, I encountered TSA agents and, frankly, I was happy to see them. I have seen them a couple of times at the Orlando station (once on September 11th).


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 7, 2013)

Less than 3 weeks ago there were TSA agents with a dog hanging around outside of ESX before and when #55 pulled into the station. They kept to themselves and seemed to be letting the dog do what he was trained to do - and what dogs love to do - smelling whatever scents came his way.

This I have no problem with, but when we trash The Constitution, democracy's enemies win. :angry2:


----------



## BCL (Aug 7, 2013)

CelticWhisper said:


> It's reason enough for me. My problem with TSA is that I'm put in a situation I don't control, where complete strangers have the final say over whether another complete stranger will make uninvited physical contact with me. Strangers do not touch me, ever.


Implied wherever you go is that anyone can be searched on "reasonable suspicion" by law enforcement. If it comes to that, you have no say in the matter. I'm not saying that you have to like it given that you believe strangers can never touch you, but that's been the reality of living in the US and most of the world. I suspect that if it ever came down to a cop frisking you on suspicion that a bulge in your clothing may be a concealed weapon, you'd probably make an exception.


----------



## CelticWhisper (Aug 7, 2013)

BCL said:


> CelticWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > It's reason enough for me. My problem with TSA is that I'm put in a situation I don't control, where complete strangers have the final say over whether another complete stranger will make uninvited physical contact with me. Strangers do not touch me, ever.
> ...


Exception? Not without consulting a lawyer first to see if there's any grounds for a constitutional lawsuit against the cop or their department. Yes, really. Principle matters that much to me.

My rights come first, period. I concern myself with safety only once my rights are guaranteed. We have to push back, hard and constantly, to keep TSA et. al. in check. I think it's time I had words with my elected officials again. Durbin proclaims to be Mr. Illinois-Is-The-Nation's-Rail-Hub, maybe he'll care. They need to know that we're not going to stand for TSA in train stations. That agency has done enough damage already and APD has always been more than capable of handling rail security without harassing passengers.

Either way, I'll report on what I see when I'm at CUS, WAS and PVD in a couple weeks. Holding out hope that the Metro/CA lounges will be TSA-free, or that boarding via a Red Cap will circumvent any TSA BS, but whatever happens I'll let you all know.


----------



## tonys96 (Aug 7, 2013)

Personally, I do not mind TSA at stations. I do not want the whole "circus" that exists at airports, but law enforcement presence either APD or TSA or whatever is acceptable. A dog sniffing my luggage is OK, too. That is because I have nothing to hide.

The entire "take off shoes/belts/x-ray" would be too much. Hell, I might not even mind a metal detection scheme, if done smartly and efficiently. Efficiency and with common sense is tantamount, though. It works in courthouses all over the country.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 7, 2013)

CelticWhisper said:


> My rights come first, period.


Really?

From the website FindLaw:



> Annotation 13 - First Amendment
> 
> Maintenance of National Security and the First Amendment
> 
> Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic, is the obligation of government and one of the foremost reasons for government to exist. Pursuit of this goal may lead government officials at times to trespass in areas protected by the guarantees of speech and press and may require the balancing away of rights which might be preserved inviolate at other times. The drawing of the line is committed, not exclusively but finally, to the Supreme Court. In this section, we consider a number of areas in which the necessity to draw lines has arisen.


----------



## leemell (Aug 7, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> CelticWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > My rights come first, period.
> ...


And they have already established that LEOs may search an individual for safety, Terry v. Ohio State 1963.


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2013)

> My rights come first, period.


So would your rights come first even when my safety is threatened by it? Depending on the answer to that I'd form an opinion about whether I would care for protecting your rights or not. 

But again all this is veering way off subject of the thread.


----------



## BCL (Aug 7, 2013)

CelticWhisper said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > CelticWhisper said:
> ...


You certainly have the right to ask if there is a reasonable suspicion and deny a frisk if the answer is no. Some cops do ask if you'll consent to a search on a hunch without reasonable suspicion.

However, if the answer is "I believe I have reasonable suspicion - please place your hands behind your head" that's your obligation under the law in pretty much every state, and it's not unconstitutional. If you don't voluntarily do as such, you could very well be arrested for obstructing an officer, with more strangers touching you then you'd bargained for in the first place. You'll be able to contact your attorney at that point.

A lot of times this happens, they make the arrest, and then drop the charges. However, it's no fun being arrested. So if the principle is important enough to you to risk getting cuffed and taken to a police station, then be my guest. We live in a constitutional democracy, but our individual rights are not absolute. While the Fourth Amendment protects those in the US against unreasonable search, that doesn't preclude a reasonable search. If there's a search warrant that includes an allowance to search your person, you most definitely won't be allowed to contact your attorney before the search occurs.


----------



## BCL (Aug 7, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> CelticWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > My rights come first, period.
> ...


This might be more relevant:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/annotation03.html#1


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 7, 2013)

Yes, but if his reasonable suspicion consists of "I think so" or "My gut tells me, either that or the Chili I ate last night", then he'd better be prepared to back that up in court.

But we're far afield from "reasonable suspicion" when it comes to the TSA, and much more over in the "Somehow vaguely constitutional because courts had their heads put up their butts on 9/11/01" dragnet territory.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 7, 2013)

leemell said:


> And they have already established that LEOs may search an individual for safety, Terry v. Ohio State 1963.


Terry requires Reasonable, Articulable suspicion. Not a "random" search, or dragnet.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 7, 2013)

BCL said:


> This might be more relevant:
> 
> http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/annotation03.html#1


Absolutely! :hi:


----------



## George Harris (Aug 7, 2013)

BCL said:


> A lot of times this happens, they make the arrest, and then drop the charges. However, it's no fun being arrested. So if the principle is important enough to you to risk getting cuffed and taken to a police station, then be my guest. We live in a constitutional democracy, but our individual rights are not absolute. While the Fourth Amendment protects those in the US against unreasonable search, that doesn't preclude a reasonable search. If there's a search warrant that includes an allowance to search your person, you most definitely won't be allowed to contact your attorney before the search occurs.


And, if you have not been arrested, I would suggest that you would really like to avoid it happening. As part of the process, your identity is checked out, which means fingerprinting and probably mug shots. From that point forward, you are "in the system" and your stats will be part of the checking process whenever there is an unknown person they are trying to identify. If you have ever been in service, applied for any job requiring any form of seccurity clearance, and now in most states are a teacher or have or have applied for a job working with children, you are already in the system. If you are not already in the system for other reasons and want to keep a low profile it would be a REALLY GOOD IDEA to avoid being arrested if at all possible to do so.


----------



## BCL (Aug 7, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > And they have already established that LEOs may search an individual for safety, Terry v. Ohio State 1963.
> ...


However, we have someone posting here that his/her protection from being searched is apparently absolute and never to be violated. I could easily see a situation in a public place where law enforcement could conduct a pat down and there's zero chance that an argument that one's constitutional rights are being violated will hold. I would hope that LE would be professional and courteous. If there's nothing to be found, then it pays to cooperate and receive a "That's it, and thank you for your cooperation" rather than fight. It's one thing to have principles about one's inviolability, and another to wrongly believe that one is always entitled to be free from unwanted contact. If anything, I'd suggest asking an attorney before this ever happens, because the inevitable answer is that a Terry frisk is very much legal and provided the search is professionally done - nothing can be done to prevent it short of getting arrested for obstructing a peace officer (and then really being searched while handcuffed).

There was the Sikh man who tried getting on an Amtrak train with a clearly display dagger (called a kirpan). He was told to get off for having a weapon on his person and refused. When the police arrived, he didn't have an issue with being handled by law enforcement, but the thing he repeatedly made clear was that the kirpan was not to be touched by anyone but himself. Personally, I don't believe that the police typically allow someone to possess a dagger while they are in custody, and I'm pretty sure they confiscated it while he was being booked.


----------



## CelticWhisper (Aug 7, 2013)

BCL said:


> CelticWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > BCL said:
> ...


For various personal reasons, I would respond...poorly...to being arrested. To that end, I wouldn't actively fight back right then and there against a warrantless/no-probable-cause search, but rather would pursue legal redress after the fact as aggressively as possible. I'm the kind who gets really, REALLY angry over rights violations. I want to see careers ended. Scorched-earth type stuff. May not get it but I'd pursue it as best I could.

I don't have any real fear over interaction with APD. They seem to know what they're doing, the ones I talked to at PHL last year were perfectly cordial and didn't seem like authoritarians, and from what I gleaned from my conversation with Dugan, they make an even bigger point now than ever before to respect procedure (probable cause and the like) due to TSA's flagrant disregard for people's rights.

My concern is over whether, when/if confronted with TSA interaction at a train station, I request assistance or intervention from APD and either end up with a rookie cop who kowtows to some TSA-hole "pulling rank" by brandishing the word "federal" or get a cop who's had a bad day and takes it out on me.

This news is alarming enough that I've even had thoughts of canceling the whole trip. I don't want to do that and I don't intend to, but I may not book any more for a long time if someone in Washington (whether at my urging or by some other impetus) doesn't step in and block TSA from continuing their expansion. Amtrak stands to lose a good amount of business over this - surely they must realize that.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 7, 2013)

BCL said:


> However, we have someone posting here that his/her protection from being searched is apparently absolute and never to be violated. I could easily see a situation in a public place where law enforcement could conduct a pat down and there's zero chance that an argument that one's constitutional rights are being violated will hold. I would hope that LE would be professional and courteous. If there's nothing to be found, then it pays to cooperate and receive a "That's it, and thank you for your cooperation" rather than fight. It's one thing to have principles about one's inviolability, and another to wrongly believe that one is always entitled to be free from unwanted contact. If anything, I'd suggest asking an attorney before this ever happens, because the inevitable answer is that a Terry frisk is very much legal and provided the search is professionally done - nothing can be done to prevent it short of getting arrested for obstructing a peace officer (and then really being searched while handcuffed).


Sorry, but that's mealy-mouth surrender-monkeyism at its finest.

If a LEO is going to search me, he's going to articulate his suspicion first. And if the laws of the state I'm in (such as mine) allow it, I'll be recording his answer for posterity. And yes, I will submit to the search, but he will find himself justifying it after the fact.


----------



## BCL (Aug 7, 2013)

CelticWhisper said:


> For various personal reasons, I would respond...poorly...to being arrested. To that end, I wouldn't actively fight back right then and there, but rather would pursue legal redress after the fact as aggressively as possible. I'm the kind who gets really, REALLY angry over rights violations. I want to see careers ended. Scorched-earth type stuff. May not get it but I'd pursue it as best I could.


That someone (maybe even you) may be searched is not necessarily a rights violation. You may think that a Terry frisk is a violation of your rights that can get someone fired and maybe a large monetary settlement with a police department. However, I'd think if a frisk was done by the book, you'd get laughed out of court and your attorney admonished for bringing such a weak case before the court.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 7, 2013)

And keep in mind that a "terry frisk" is only permitted insofar as to allow the officer to be confident of his safety. It is not a carte blanche for an extensive search. Probable Cause still applies for that (at least for now).

Similarly, I will (and have) refused requests from LEO on the train to search my belongings. Once, the cop let it go. Once, he went and got the conductor, who as per my contract of carriage agreement I allowed to inspect my belongings.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 7, 2013)




----------



## BCL (Aug 7, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > However, we have someone posting here that his/her protection from being searched is apparently absolute and never to be violated. I could easily see a situation in a public place where law enforcement could conduct a pat down and there's zero chance that an argument that one's constitutional rights are being violated will hold. I would hope that LE would be professional and courteous. If there's nothing to be found, then it pays to cooperate and receive a "That's it, and thank you for your cooperation" rather than fight. It's one thing to have principles about one's inviolability, and another to wrongly believe that one is always entitled to be free from unwanted contact. If anything, I'd suggest asking an attorney before this ever happens, because the inevitable answer is that a Terry frisk is very much legal and provided the search is professionally done - nothing can be done to prevent it short of getting arrested for obstructing a peace officer (and then really being searched while handcuffed).
> ...


Like I said - I wasn't referring to random hunches. If a cop sees someone randomly and nervously pacing in front of a bank and also has a suspicious bulge in a jacket pocket, that's actually a pretty reasonable suspicion that maybe the guy could be a bank robber. It could go down like this:

*Sir, would you consent to a search?*

_What for?_

*I noticed you pacing in front of the bank.*

_Is that illegal?_

*No, but will you consent to a search?*

_Am I required to?_

*I have reasonable suspicion that you're carrying a concealed weapon. Please place your hands behind your head. I will frisk you now.*

_OK._

_<Frisk concluded. Cop notices that the bulge was just a lot of money with a withdrawl receipt>_

*Sorry about that. Looks like you're just nervous about carrying all that cash. You're free to go.*

It's not surrender. It's being realistic that a search like that is fully constitutional and has been tested in our courts. Even if fully recorded, if done by the book the cop surely isn't going to be in trouble.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 7, 2013)

Such an action is legal and reasonable and articulable, and as such would be allowed. But like I said, he'd damned well better have a damned good reason that he can articulate, and not just "respect my authoritah!!!!!".

But again, we're pretty far afield with what TSA does... who in fact, are not sworn peace officers at all, rather civilians dressed up and playing security*.

*(with the exception of the armed VIPR teams, who actually are sworn peace officers, with all the rights and *RESPONSIBILITIES* (including articulable suspicion and probable cause) thereof).


----------



## BCL (Aug 7, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> And keep in mind that a "terry frisk" is only permitted insofar as to allow the officer to be confident of his safety. It is not a carte blanche for an extensive search. Probable Cause still applies for that (at least for now).


Not probable cause but reasonable suspicion. The standard is lower.

A cop needs probable cause to arrest or to seek a warrant, but only reasonable suspicion to detain and/or frisk.


----------



## BCL (Aug 7, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> Such an action is legal and reasonable and articulable, and as such would be allowed. But like I said, he'd damned well better have a damned good reason that he can articulate, and not just "respect my authoritah!!!!!".
> But again, we're pretty far afield with what TSA does... who in fact, are not sworn peace officers at all, rather civilians dressed up and playing security*.
> 
> *(with the exception of the armed VIPR teams, who actually are sworn peace officers, with all the rights and *RESPONSIBILITIES* (including articulable suspicion and probable cause) thereof).


You mentioned VIPR. There's also the Federal Air Marshal Service, although they typically wouldn't be involved in ground security operations.

For the most part in my dealings with TSA, I've never actually seen anyone act like they were actually law enforcement. That doesn't always mean I felt comfortable in my dealings, but I always got the sense that if anything were to happen, they'd be calling for help from local law enforcement.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 7, 2013)

BCL said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > And keep in mind that a "terry frisk" is only permitted insofar as to allow the officer to be confident of his safety. It is not a carte blanche for an extensive search. Probable Cause still applies for that (at least for now).
> ...


He needs reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk. But he needs probable cause and/or a warrant for an extensive search.

A terry stop (stop and frisk) is only SUPPOSED to extend to convince the officer that you are not armed.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 7, 2013)

BCL said:


> You mentioned VIPR. There's also the Federal Air Marshal Service, although they typically wouldn't be involved in ground security operations.
> For the most part in my dealings with TSA, I've never actually seen anyone act like they were actually law enforcement. That doesn't always mean I felt comfortable in my dealings, but I always got the sense that if anything were to happen, they'd be calling for help from local law enforcement.


Well, yes and no. TSA likes their nice spiffy blue shirts and tin badges, because it gives them the _appearance_ of actual authority, and makes the people they're "processing" more intimidated and easier to control.

That being said, if anything serious bad were going down, I have no doubt they'd be at best standing by and doing nothing, and at worst pushing passengers out of the way running away. In fact, it's already happened.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 7, 2013)

For what it's worth, to date on AMTRAK I've had much more interaction with both CBP and local yokel cops than with TSA. The question is 1) with TSA trying to grown their bureaucratic empire, er, I mean, Keep America "Safe" from a threat that has yet to manifest itself, and 2) The recent replacement of Chief O'Connor, who told these TSA where to go (with the horse they rode in on) with a Chief branded from the "Anything for Security" complex so many of our "leaders" now espouse... are we going to see more and more (and equally stupid as the Great Savannah De-Training Frisking Fiasco) activity from TSA on the rails? All signs point to "yes". Unfortunately.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 7, 2013)

To bring things back to trains, I think we have some people here with crosstie size chips on their shoulders.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 7, 2013)

Confucius Say "Most people with crosstie sized chips on their shoulders had them put there by bad Maintenance of Way".


----------



## BCL (Aug 7, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeBas said:
> ...


But it does mean uninvited physical contact, which is what I believe was outlined as "Strangers do not touch me, ever". I'm just saying there could be something totally innocent where reasonable suspicion is inferred, and it's all by the book and legal that a cop frisks someone.

Even if the intent is only to look for weapons, an incidental discovery of a drug package is then probable cause.

I mean - it's one thing to believe you have rights when it comes to being searched, but it's another to know what those rights and their limits are.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 7, 2013)

Oh absolutely. But to be fair, the orignial topic was on TSA, and on the fact that you can be doing something inherently unarticulably unsuspicious, and have some creep come along and insist that he has to feel you up to keep America safe.

Is there a time and place for physical searches? Absolutely. Is that time and place being trampled to death, particularly by this organization? Absolutely.


----------



## jis (Aug 8, 2013)

The last (previous) page of discussion has been illuminating and educational at least for me. Hopefully we can keep this thread at this level of sanity. If we can it will remain open as I have been assured by a Moderator, who helped me reopen this thread. However, if we go back into the rant mode espousing extreme positions apparently based on emotion, rest assured this thread will get locked again as I have again been assured by a Moderator. So please guys (and gals), let us try to stay within bounds of reason. Thanks for your help and indulgence, and of course sharing of deep knowledge of the subject of 4th amendment and searches.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 8, 2013)

Thanks jis!

As I stated in the thread about this thread being locked, when the TSA was at the Essex Junction station 3 weeks ago, thoughts of the craziness at SAV came to mind, and I wondered how I would deal with the situation, if they decided to be stupid. A greater TSA presence at train stations seems to be in the works, so I think it is important to have an intelligent conversaton about what that means for all of us who ride Amtrak.


----------



## rrdude (Aug 8, 2013)

I just love the fact, that was reported here I think, that if one chose to, one cud simply walk around the TSA line at the SAV Amtrak station.

Traveling alone, I think I'd have the balls to try that, with family or friends.....I'd prolly wimp out.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 8, 2013)

rrdude said:


> I just love the fact, that was reported here I think, that if one chose to, one cud simply walk around the TSA line at the SAV Amtrak station. Traveling alone, I think I'd have the balls to try that, with family or friends.....I'd prolly wimp out.



EXACTLY. I thought of the option folks had of simply walking around TSA, which I too remeber reading about here. Mrs Crockett and I even talked about it - quietly - on our walk to the store across the street from the station.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 8, 2013)

You could walk around it... IF you hadn't checked any bags. You could just walk around the outside of the station and leave.

If you had checked bags, though, you had to go into the station to pick them up. And if you had to go into the station, you had to be "Screened"...


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 8, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> If you had checked bags, though, you had to go into the station to pick them up. And if you had to go into the station, you had to be "Screened"...


I didn't follow that thread that closely, but if I understand correctly you had to go into the station to PICK UP your checked bags - and were screened? That means you were screened AFTER getting off? :huh: That makes no sense at all!I see why people were upset!


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 8, 2013)

Yes, you arrived at your destination, but you had to go into the station to pick up your checked bags, and to enter the station, you had to be screened, even if you just wanted to use the restroom before getting in your car to drive away.

Combine that with confusion about what was going on, and not knowing at the time that you could just walk right to your car and avoid the process entirely, and the intrusiveness of the searches (There were no scanners or anything, so EVERYONE got the "good hands" treatment), yes, people were justifiably irate.

People INCLUDING the head of the APD, who kicked TSA off the properly entirely for almost a week, and then grudgingly allowed them to return ONLY when escorted by APD.

Unfortunately, it seems like the new chief of the APD is cut much more from the "Anything for Safety" mold that's bankrupting our country (both financially and morally), having served a number of years as a senior law enforcement official in the DC area, and thus is IMO much less likely to tell people with no common sense (which TSA seems to attract like a magnet) where to go if and when they hold a repeat performance of their Savannah activity.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 8, 2013)

Ever notice that when it's Budget time that LE Agencies always announce New Threats and step up the Security Theater with the provision that if they just had More Staff, More Equipment and More Money everyone would be Safer? Just saying. <_<


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 8, 2013)

The purpose of a bureaucracy is to expand.


----------



## CelticWhisper (Aug 8, 2013)

So I'm going to try to recap what we've got here as specifically pertains to Amtrak:

-News article comes out reporting "TSA expanding beyond airports." Given that they've been infesting train depots sporadically since 2011 (Savannah) at the latest, this isn't news in and of itself.

--Does this perhaps mean that we should expect a marked increase in such activity in the future?

-Most of these actions are not the TSA clerks you see at airports, but rather their "elite" (ha!) poisonous-snake teams (VIPR) who, it has been stated, are actually sworn LEOs with federal law-enforcement training.

--This suggests they understand proper procedure for LEO actions and may be held to a higher standard of conduct and/or be liable for misconduct (i.e. acting like a TSA clerk).

-APD is always present wherever TSA poisonous-snake teams are active.

-Not in this thread, but as stated elsewhere by JoeBas, ClubAcela boarding doesn't get subjected to this crap.

--Also not in this thread, but the Chicago Metro Lounge is a nice place, which suggests to me that it's TSA-free.

-Signs point to Chief Hanson being more receptive to cooperation with DHS/TSA than Chief O'Connor was.

--Subordinates may be more of the O'Connor school of thought, at least going by impressions I got from talking to Dep. Chief Dugan. What this means for in-the-moment interaction with TSA and APD remains fuzzy. That makes me nervous.

-Poisonous-snake operatives need reasonable suspicion to detain and/or touch passengers. If I'm walking through a terminal and make a point to lumber along, looking either half-asleep or bored out of my skull, this should not give them any actionable suspicion on grounds of which to bother me.

--To clarify, there is a difference between these officers and the blue-uniformed clerks you find at the airport, who will bother anyone, anywhere for no good reason other than that they can.

-Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but blue-uniformed TSA clerks don't actually have any authority at all in a train station as there has been no declaration of a secure vs. insecure zone (e.g. airport terminal beyond the security-theater checkpoint). They can't tell me I can't board my train, can they? If they can, why? As I understand it, I can ignore them or call APD for assistance if they try to stop me, right? I realize APD may want to inspect my bags, and I'm okay with a quick, cursory inspection performed by APD officers. I won't have anything to do with TSA clerks - it's the reason I started taking Amtrak instead of flying.

Thanks for the answers so far.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 8, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> Ever notice that when it's Budget time that LE Agencies always announce New Threats and step up the Security Theater with the provision that if they just had More Staff, More Equipment and More Money everyone would be Safer? Just saying. <_<


It's not just law enforcement agencies. It is ALL government agencies. Also notice that when it is budget time congress goes "All the ways we could save money if the othere party would just go along with it" mode, and that usually their targets tend to be items that are a small fraction of 1% and hit something that does not affect their home turf?

For example of a highly visible but miniscule in total cost saving, notice that the Blue Angels have been grounded. I would suspect that their total cost per year would hardly reach that of one round trip across the country for the president. (For one of these trips it is not just the cost of the planes and the federal level folderol which is huge, but if you have ever been at the location he visits, you will see that the total disruption to everything in that area is simply unbelievable. It makes it very clear why post-Katrina GWB flew over the area but did not land. The last thing the area needed was to go through all the nonsense a presidential visit causes.)

Interesting contrast is what was done when the persident traveled by train in the years around WW2: The track was inspeced no earlier than the day before, all switches were spiked and a "sweep" train was run shortly before the presidential train, but not the same amount of time ahead of it on each trip. Chance are all bridges had someone or several someones either from the railroad's B&B department or the railroad's police force watching them as the train went by, but that was not said in what I read. There may or may not have been Army Air Force flights in the vicinity at the time. One thing to note: The cost of operating a special train was charged to the government, but the costs of ensuring the condition of the railroad was borne by the railroad.

Also to note, from a read in a Trains magazine for the time: At the end of Truman's term, his Secret Service protection ended, and he and Bess went down to Union Station and got in a space on an ordinary Pullman car to go to Kansas City.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 8, 2013)

CelticWhisper said:


> So I'm going to try to recap what we've got here as specifically pertains to Amtrak:
> -News article comes out reporting "TSA expanding beyond airports." Given that they've been infesting train depots sporadically since 2011 (Savannah) at the latest, this isn't news in and of itself.
> 
> --Does this perhaps mean that we should expect a marked increase in such activity in the future?


Perhaps... though as of now there's been nothing more than the "puff piece" stay scared my friends anecdotal reports in newspapers.



CelticWhisper said:


> -Most of these actions are not the TSA clerks you see at airports, but rather their "elite" (ha!) poisonous-snake teams (VIPR) who, it has been stated, are actually sworn LEOs with federal law-enforcement training.--This suggests they understand proper procedure for LEO actions and may be held to a higher standard of conduct and/or be liable for misconduct (i.e. acting like a TSA clerk).
> 
> -APD is always present wherever TSA poisonous-snake teams are active.


Correct... VIPRs are much more likely to be just standing around doing nothing but looking tough, showing the flag, etc. They take their "V" much more seriously than the rest, because there's in reality very little P and R for them to do.



CelticWhisper said:


> -Not in this thread, but as stated elsewhere by JoeBas, ClubAcela boarding doesn't get subjected to this crap.--Also not in this thread, but the Chicago Metro Lounge is a nice place, which suggests to me that it's TSA-free.


As with anything that has to do with TSA, YMMV... however I've never in all my days seen a TSA agent in either an Amtrak Lounge (including Metro Lounge in CHI and Magnolia Room in NOL), and as these lounges have escorted and/or direct boarding I've never had any direct interaction with any TSA agent (VIPR or otherwise) while riding the rails.



CelticWhisper said:


> -Signs point to Chief Hanson being more receptive to cooperation with DHS/TSA than Chief O'Connor was.--Subordinates may be more of the O'Connor school of thought, at least going by impressions I got from talking to Dep. Chief Dugan. What this means for in-the-moment interaction with TSA and APD remains fuzzy. That makes me nervous.


Again, that may be assuming facts not in evidence... however the WMTA did not exactly have a sterling reputation of civil rights, especially following 9/11/01, and assuming that the same mentality from that organization is now at the head of the APD, it will take quite a bit of organizational intransigence for it not to seep down.

Then again, AMTK has always been a little bit "intransigent", so who knows.



CelticWhisper said:


> -Poisonous-snake operatives need reasonable suspicion to detain and/or touch passengers. If I'm walking through a terminal and make a point to lumber along, looking either half-asleep or bored out of my skull, this should not give them any actionable suspicion on grounds of which to bother me.--To clarify, there is a difference between these officers and the blue-uniformed clerks you find at the airport, who will bother anyone, anywhere for no good reason other than that they can.


Correct, legally speaking they SHOULD have RAS (Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion) before touching you. But they can have their dog stiff all they want, and they can talk to you (you have the right not to respond, but I make it my policy to at least tell them that I don't engage in small talk with people who can arrest me for what I say).



CelticWhisper said:


> -Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but blue-uniformed TSA clerks don't actually have any authority at all in a train station as there has been no declaration of a secure vs. insecure zone (e.g. airport terminal beyond the security-theater checkpoint). They can't tell me I can't board my train, can they? If they can, why? As I understand it, I can ignore them or call APD for assistance if they try to stop me, right? I realize APD may want to inspect my bags, and I'm okay with a quick, cursory inspection performed by APD officers. I won't have anything to do with TSA clerks - it's the reason I started taking Amtrak instead of flying.





CelticWhisper said:


> Indeed not, however keep in mind that under current policy they are in constant company with APD, who DO have the authority to deny boarding and/or require presentation of ID or bag searches for boarding.


----------



## amamba (Aug 8, 2013)

Yes, keep in mind that amtrak police do have the ability to prevent you from boarding your train if you decline a search.


----------



## BCL (Aug 8, 2013)

amamba said:


> Yes, keep in mind that amtrak police do have the ability to prevent you from boarding your train if you decline a search.


They're also real law enforcement with guns and badges that mean something.

That being said, the laws on what federal law enforcement can arrest for varies by the state. California is governened by Penal Code 830. Federal law enforcement isn't normally allowed to arrest for state crimes without the expressed consent of the primary law enforcement head of a particular jurisdiction. The only exception is for National Park Service rangers (I believe "law enforcement ranger" is implied) because that's specifically written into the law. This has become an issue because recently the El Dorado County Sheriff rescinded the authority of US Forest Service officers in his county to enforce state laws. There are allegations that they were getting ticket happy citing for barely going over the speed limit or for minor infractions.



> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=830-832.17
> 830.8. (a) Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers, but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer in any of the following circumstances:
> 
> (1) Any circumstances specified in Section 836 of this code or Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or local laws.
> ...


I'm not sure how it works for Amtrak Police. They travel across a lot of different jurisdictions, and I wouldn't be sure that they would have a memorandum of understanding with each and every jursidction that an officer might be in.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 8, 2013)

Every railroad company of any size has had its own police force for many years. I would assume that the Amtrak police would be operating on the same basis. The definitely had police powers when enfocing laws on company property. What police powers they have otherwise I am not certain, but I think there are agreements with local and state jurisdictions. What is in these probably varies depending upon where you are.


----------



## BCL (Aug 8, 2013)

George Harris said:


> Every railroad company of any size has had its own police force for many years. I would assume that the Amtrak police would be operating on the same basis. The definitely had police powers when enfocing laws on company property. What police powers they have otherwise I am not certain, but I think there are agreements with local and state jurisdictions. What is in these probably varies depending upon where you are.


Amtrak Police would be considered federal law enforcement I believe, since the establishing legislation is in federal law and they receive federal law enforcement training.

Railroad police powers are specified in CPC 830.33. The law says an officer is "commissioned by the Governor".



> 830.33. The following persons are peace officers whose authorityextends to any place in the state for the purpose of performing their
> 
> primary duty or when making an arrest pursuant to Section 836 as to
> 
> ...


----------



## leemell (Aug 8, 2013)

The number of agencies with law enforcement powers in a give spot can be very confusing and complex. Just take the Burbank Airport Train Station. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department is contracted by Metrolink and the MTA to provide law enforcement services. Also the Burbank PD and Burbank Airport Police serves this station, The station is owned by Caltrans, hence the California Highway Patrol. Amtrak uses this station, Amtrak PD and TSA. Also, any sworn law enforcement officer in California can enforce the law anywhere in the state, in jurisdiction or not, where the law is broken in their presence. I'm quite sure that UP has their own PD. Just food for thought.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 8, 2013)

In Texas ALL Certified LE Officers have jurisdiction anywhere in the State and there are literally hundreds of LE Agencies!

Here in Austin (65% of the City Budget goes to Public Safety) we have the DPS (Highway Patrol Division/Texas Rangers)Inteligince Division/Investigations Division/Drug Enforcement Division etc), Game Wardens, State Capitol Police/University of Texas Police/Austin Community College Police/AISD School Police/Airport Police/Austin Police Department/Park Rangers/Travis County Sheriffs/Constables and Deputy Constables/DA Investigators and Police/Court Police/ all the Suburbs around here (about 20 different ones all have their own Police/Williamson County Sheriff/Hays County Sheriff/Bastrop County Sherriff and all of their assorted Constables, Deputies, School Districts and a Partridge in a Pear Tree! 

And all the various Alphabet LE Agencies from the Feds! Boy do we feel Safe, not a single Crime is ever committed around here, it's Safe I tell you, Safe! :help:


----------



## BCL (Aug 8, 2013)

leemell said:


> The number of agencies with law enforcement powers in a give spot can be very confusing and complex. Just take the Burbank Airport Train Station. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department is contracted by Metrolink and the MTA to provide law enforcement services. Also the Burbank PD and Burbank Airport Police serves this station, The station is owned by Caltrans, hence the California Highway Patrol. Amtrak uses this station, Amtrak PD and TSA. Also, any sworn law enforcement officer in California can enforce the law anywhere in the state, in jurisdiction or not, where the law is broken in their presence. I'm quite sure that UP has their own PD. Just food for thought.


I've become aware of this. I understand that there are tons of MOUs written about who has what jurisdiction and which federal agencies are allowed to routinely enforce state laws. I've read the MOU between Berkeley Police and UC Police, and outside of their jurisdiction they're supposed to call in a violation to the other department unless it's considered an emergency or if they are requested to intervene. There was also a school district police dept that took an extremely broad view of their authority, including call jumping on residential burglary calls, as well as issuing traffic and parking citations off campus - apparently to bring in revenue with targets for how many cars to tow per day. They also did a lot of tows, and their release fees were considerably higher than the city or county fees.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/04/v-wireless/4029671/vehicle-towing-by-twin-rivers.html

http://www.news10.net/news/local/article/160212/2/What-is-the-scope-of-the-Twin-Rivers-Police-Dept

Caltrain (operating from San Francisco) to Gilroy contracts their police services to the San Mateo County Sheriff's Dept, and they have six deputies assigned. What I've read about them is that they often end up talking down people considering suicide. They can't necessarily stop someone jumping in front of a train, but apparently along the tracks there are trees and some people have climbed them with the intent of dropping in front of a train. They work across the entire line, and once I heard of a weapons discharge in San Jose. Our own roadman1313 can talk about his transit agency, which contracts with two sheriff's departments; that must be really interesting since the bus routes go across several county lines. The following mentions the transbay lines, which can take them into San Francisco, San Mateo County, or Santa Clara County.

https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/les_contracts.php

I work near the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority headquarters in San Jose and have driven through their parking lot. They have a fenced in location where the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Dept cars attached to VTA are parked.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 8, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> In Texas ALL Certified LE Officers have jurisdiction anywhere in the State and there are literally hundreds of LE Agencies!
> Here in Austin (65% of the City Budget goes to Public Safety) we have the DPS (Highway Patrol Division/Texas Rangers)Inteligince Division/Investigations Division/Drug Enforcement Division etc) State Capitol Police/University of Texas Police/Austin Community College Police/AISD School Police/Airport Police/Austin Police Department/Park Rangers/Travis County Sheriffs/Constables and Deputy Constables/DA Investigators and Police/Court Police/ all the Suburbs around here (about 20 different ones all have their own Police/Williamson County Sheriff/Hays County Sheriff/Bastrop County Sherriff and all of their assorted Constables, Deputies, School Districts and a Partridge in a Pear Tree!
> 
> And all the various Alphabet LE Agencies from the Feds! Boy do we feel Safe, not a single Crime is ever committed around here, it's Safe I tell you, Safe! :help:


Yea and verily. We lived in Texas for a couple of years. There is plenty of complexity in government agencies to deal with. When it came to election time, School District, City, and State/Federal races required us to go to three different places to vote. At this point I have forgotten where the county races were voted, but I do remember it took visiting three different locations to hit them all.

If you want to truly be owerwhelmed with police presence I don't think any place can beat the District of Columbia. DC police force, Capital police force, Secret service, Federal protective service, WMATA police, of course Amtrak police, and probably several others I can't think of right now.


----------



## BCL (Aug 8, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> In Texas ALL Certified LE Officers have jurisdiction anywhere in the State and there are literally hundreds of LE Agencies!
> Here in Austin (65% of the City Budget goes to Public Safety) we have the DPS (Highway Patrol Division/Texas Rangers)Inteligince Division/Investigations Division/Drug Enforcement Division etc) State Capitol Police/University of Texas Police/Austin Community College Police/AISD School Police/Airport Police/Austin Police Department/Park Rangers/Travis County Sheriffs/Constables and Deputy Constables/DA Investigators and Police/Court Police/ all the Suburbs around here (about 20 different ones all have their own Police/Williamson County Sheriff/Hays County Sheriff/Bastrop County Sherriff and all of their assorted Constables, Deputies, School Districts and a Partridge in a Pear Tree!
> 
> And all the various Alphabet LE Agencies from the Feds! Boy do we feel Safe, not a single Crime is ever committed around here, it's Safe I tell you, Safe! :help:


California is different. Any peace officer is allowed to act if there is a danger or if the perp might get away, but routine juridiction for local law enforcement is limited to geographic boundaries. And when there's theoretically overlapping jurisdiction (like a county sheriff's dept) they rarely step on toes by performing routine enforcement in another place where another agency (city police) has "primary jurisdiction". The law specifies that CHP, UC Police, CSU Police, Dept of Corrections, Dept of Fish and Game (I've heard of them making traffic stops too), state Parks and Recreation officers, specified Forestry and Fire Protection officers, and (I kid you not) California State Fair Police have authority throughout the state.

The law says that UC Police has a primary duty within campuses and 1 mile from campuses, but I know they don't step on toes even within that 1 mile boundary, and local police don't make it a habit of patrolling campuses. It does get interesting when they're preparing for riots (and I've seen cops in riot gear).


----------



## BCL (Aug 8, 2013)

George Harris said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > In Texas ALL Certified LE Officers have jurisdiction anywhere in the State and there are literally hundreds of LE Agencies!
> ...


Every federal agency operates in DC, but I'd think State Dept Protective Detail has a lot of officers with all the embassies. All the various agency Office of the Inspector General departments are legally federal law enforcement.

In uniform, there's NPS LE rangers as well as US Park Police. USPP handle a lot of supplemental security for the President and visiting dignitaries. The Smithsonian has its own limited-powers police force (they also supplement the USPP at the National Mall), but apparently the National Zoo has a full-fledge police department.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 8, 2013)

Uniformed Division of the Secret Service is in charge of protecting foreign diplomatic missions in Washington DC.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 8, 2013)

Wow, is that Zoo Trooper waiting on a Speeding Lion or Tiger?? Look like something out of Reno 911!! :giggle:

No Place like DC that's for sure!


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 8, 2013)

No, cheetah! You know how fast they run!


----------



## amamba (Aug 8, 2013)

Zoo police! That is awesome.


----------



## BCL (Aug 9, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> Wow, is that Zoo Trooper waiting on a Speeding Lion or Tiger?? Look like something out of Reno 911!! :giggle:
> No Place like DC that's for sure!


I found that on a message board post. The guy who took the photo wanted to get a better look at the other side, but he took off on a call. Apparently that's an electric scooter. I suppose that makes sense since it's pretty quiet and they worry about noises upsetting the animals. Still - he looks rather eager.

And the National Zoo Police has apparently been around for over 120 years.



> http://nationalzoo.si.edu/AboutUs/History/police.cfm
> *NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK POLICE CELEBRATE 120 YEARS OF SERVICE*
> 
> In August 2009, the National Zoo's police force celebrated its 120th year of dedication and service to all who visit, work, and live at the Zoo. The Police Department began as one of the original five law enforcement agencies in Washington, D.C., in 1889, with only two watchmen tasked to patrol the entire 163-acre facility. Over the past 12 decades, it has developed and expanded to become a substantially larger Federal Law Enforcement agency.
> ...


----------



## BCL (Aug 9, 2013)

amamba said:


> Zoo police! That is awesome.


I'm a member of the Oakland Zoo. They have cars that sort of look like police vehicles, but it just says Public Safety/Zoo Security on the side. They don't have guns, but I suppose they can call Oakland Police (like they don't have anything better to do) any time.


----------



## BCL (Aug 9, 2013)

tp49 said:


> Uniformed Division of the Secret Service is in charge of protecting foreign diplomatic missions in Washington DC.


I was thinking foreign dignitary protection from the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service. However, I guess they wouldn't go around protecting high level embassy staff, but major targets. Still - they provide security at State Dept offices as well as the Secretary of State's protection detail.

I've actually seen a cabinet level protection detail up close and personal at a private event. I was like 5 feet away from the Secretary of Commerce. He had two guys with the stereotypical earpieces. One was chubby and stone faced. The other guy was thin and couldn't stop smiling. I looked it up, and that detail is from the OIG office within the department.

Every cabinet level agency has internal law enforcement provide security details for their cabinet secretary. Homeland Security is probably Secret Service. Interior is from the US Park Police. State is Diplomatic Security Service. Still - some reports I've read question whether or not there's really any viable threat to the Secretary of Agriculture or other departments where most people have no idea who is in the position.


----------



## jis (Aug 9, 2013)

While all this is interesting, what on earth does all this have to do with what TSA may or may not do to Amtrak passengers?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 9, 2013)

jis said:


> While all this is interesting, what on earth does all this have to do with what TSA may or may not do to Amtrak passengers?


Yeah! I'm Shocked! Shocked! that Posters wander off Topic on AU! They should be Ashamed! <_<


----------



## jis (Aug 9, 2013)

Considering that the reason for locking was the wild straying off topic, I am hoping that we can be a little more disciplined and actually address what I (and perhaps many of you all) consider to be a truly important topic of what we can do to:

(a) Help educate fellow Amtrak riders about what will keep them out of trouble when confronted with such a TSA or VIPER situation, based on their level of tolerance of invasion of private space etc.

(b) What we can do to collectively have an impact in communicating with the lawmakers and executors on what is and is not reasonable given the realities that we face today.

This needs to be done while minimizing emotional outbursts, since that is what causes a discussion to go off rails (folks here would understand the consequences of that way more than in some other groups).

Keep in mind also, that by merely bullying a discussion thread into submission using weird tactics of argument, ad hominem attacks and name calling is not going to change one single thing in the real world outside of it.

OK, now I shall descend from my 2 inch high soap box


----------



## amamba (Aug 9, 2013)

Well back on topic of security at Amtrak stations, I was at PVD early this morning to board the 95. There are three trains that leave within 10 minutes - a SB acela, SB regional and the 66 going north.

Once again I observed the same two female Amtrak PD officers. They stood around observing and then around 6:35 am started going through the station and swiping bags for explosives.

They did not swipe my bag as I headed to the platform when they started. They move counter clockwise around the benches which are positioned in a circle in the middle of the waiting area.


----------



## amamba (Aug 9, 2013)

Of and I meant to say I did not see any TSA agents. Just Amtrak PD.


----------



## BCL (Aug 9, 2013)

Still - I hear a lot of people talk about taking Amtrak instead of flying to avoid the security circus at airports. I understand the aversion to being searched. It isn't routine on Amtrak, but it can happen. I don't believe random searches of luggage are common (it's happened when I've flown) on Amtrak, but I suppose they can happen.

What I don't understand is an almost militant attitude about being searched. However, there are situation where someone doing something totally innocent can be searched on the street and has no means of opting out. Maybe taking Amtrak usually gets around TSA, but you'd still need to walk though stations with law enforcement doing what they normally do. It's great to learn what your rights are as well as the limits of those rights.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 9, 2013)

George Harris said:


> If you want to truly be owerwhelmed with police presence I don't think any place can beat the District of Columbia. DC police force, Capital police force, Secret service, Federal protective service, WMATA police, of course Amtrak police, and probably several others I can't think of right now.


 I grew up in the DC area and have spent a majority of my life here, and wouldn't even begin to try and name the insane number of law enforcenment entities that exist in the greater DC area. The number would be interesting, and scary.

Amtrak Police Chief Hanson worked for Washington's Metro Transit Police for 27 years, rising up through the ranks. She is what I would call a 'Washington Insider' and I'm sure knows many many people involved in law enforcement in the area. I'd be real surprised if some of those folks don't work for TSA. She is not Former Chief O'Connor.

Here is a link to a message from her, at The Amtrak Police Department's website, and here is a quote from it:



> The Amtrak Police Department is a national police force committed to protecting the passengers, employees, and patrons of Amtrak. We achieve this effort by working closely with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies across the country, and by collaborating with our counterparts across the globe; sharing best practices and other vital information.


----------



## rrdude (Aug 9, 2013)

Two TSA oficers accompanied two Amtrak LE's, canine division, on a NER I was on from WAS to BWI, a few weeks ago. They stayed in the AmCafe for the entire trip, did no overt searching or sniffing, ALL got out at BWI.

For all I know, the TSA officers may have been commuting to work at BWI, but the didn't "seem" in any rush to leave platform at BWI.

My ride was waiting, so was a cold beer, so I didn't hang around to snoop.


----------



## jis (Aug 9, 2013)

BCL said:


> What I don't understand is an almost militant attitude about being searched. However, there are situation where someone doing something totally innocent can be searched on the street and has no means of opting out. Maybe taking Amtrak usually gets around TSA, but you'd still need to walk though stations with law enforcement doing what they normally do. It's great to learn what your rights are as well as the limits of those rights.


Yep. I wholeheartedly agree. I think it is very important for us to understand exactly what the currently accepted practices are as upheld in courts.

This is not to pass any judgement on someone who chooses to enter into an act of civil disobedience as a protest. However, it is unfair to characterize everyone who is trying to lead a normal daily life as a "sheepy" or whatever other pejorative term one chooses, simply because they don't share ones own attitude towards such things. As I said before name calling is not going to win friends to your cause. Reasoned arguments might.

But also, having personally known the leadership of AU, I am almost certain that it is not the purpose or goal of AU to facilitate organization of mass civil disobedience. So if you believe that is what you are trying to organize, you are probably are at the wrong place. Civilized discourse to argue the points with lawmakers and legitimate lobbying activities would be OK I suppose. The Moderators can chime in to clearly state the limits.


----------



## JayPea (Aug 9, 2013)

jis said:


> This is not to pass any judgement on someone who chooses to enter into an act of civil disobedience as a protest. However, it is unfair to characterize everyone who is trying to lead a normal daily life as a "sheepy" or whatever other pejorative term one chooses, simply because they don't share ones own attitude towards such things. As I said before name calling is not going to win friends to your cause. Reasoned arguments might.
> But also, having personally known the leadership of AU, I am almost certain that it is not the purpose or goal of AU to facilitate organization of mass civil disobedience. So if you believe that is what you are trying to organize, you are probably are at the wrong place. Civilized discourse to argue the points with lawmakers and legitimate lobbying activities would be OK I suppose. The Moderators can chime in to clearly state the limits.


Exactly!!!! I do not for the life of me understand why those of us who don't intend to engage in acts of civil disobedience have to be subject to name-calling simply because we don't choose the same course of action. Someone does that to me and the LAST thing I'll do is pay any attention to their cause.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 9, 2013)

amamba said:


> Well back on topic of security at Amtrak stations, I was at PVD early this morning to board the 95. There are three trains that leave within 10 minutes - a SB acela, SB regional and the 66 going north.
> Once again I observed the same two female Amtrak PD officers. They stood around observing and then around 6:35 am started going through the station and swiping bags for explosives.
> 
> They did not swipe my bag as I headed to the platform when they started. They move counter clockwise around the benches which are positioned in a circle in the middle of the waiting area.


I also have seen the APD explosive sniffing dogs at PVD making the rounds. They are unobtrusive and I'm glad to see them!  (And you did say APD in your post.)


----------



## leemell (Aug 9, 2013)

BCL said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > In Texas ALL Certified LE Officers have jurisdiction anywhere in the State and there are literally hundreds of LE Agencies!
> ...


I have seen the CSUN campus police routinely respond to drug store/stationary store/ supermarket robberies within that one mile jurisdiction.

Train topic: Metrolink and the MTA encourages LE to travel in uniform off duty on their trains by allowing them to do so without buying tickets.


----------



## BCL (Aug 9, 2013)

leemell said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


I live near Berkeley and went to school there. I looked up the MOU with the city of Berkeley, and they've agreed to a joint off-campus patrol area just off the south side of campus. This is an area where it's pretty clear that the foot and vehicle traffic has a lot to do with the campus being there.



> http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/jurisdiction.html
> By mutual agreement in December 1969, the City and the University established a joint UCPD/BPD Patrol in the South Campus area as a cooperative venture to reduce, by preventative patrol, the high incidence of serious crime and disorder in this densely populated area. This evolved in to the current program consisting of bicycle and foot patrols seven days a week, as staffing permits.



Not sure who patrols the Berkeley Amtrak station though. I suppose it's Berkeley PD. The parking spaces are metered and that's clearly a city responsibility. I suppose Alameda County Sheriff's Dept might also patrol the bus stop at the station, especially with a lot of people waiting right at the bus stop.


----------



## KWBud (Aug 11, 2013)

jis said:


> This is not to pass any judgement on someone who chooses to enter into an act of civil disobedience as a protest. However, it is unfair to characterize everyone who is trying to lead a normal daily life as a "sheepy" or whatever other pejorative term one chooses, simply because they don't share ones own attitude towards such things. As I said before name calling is not going to win friends to your cause.


Have you not just done something similar by blurring the lines between merely standing firm for your rights and *civil disobedience*, or breaking the law as an act of protest? I do stand up for my Constitutional Rights, but leave breaking the law to make a point to others. I feel that painting us all with the same broad brush is an insult to me and many others like me.



jis said:


> Reasoned arguments might.


If only a few honest citizens always stand up for their rights, then the cops and courts mostly see those who do as lawbreakers who are trying to sail through loopholes in the law.

On the other hand if the majority of Americans took their Constitutional Rights to heart *all the time,* then the cops and courts would better understand that Americans really do value the Constitution and it would be a much healthier document today than it is.

--

Bud


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 12, 2013)

jis said:


> I am hoping that we can be a little more disciplined and actually address what I (and perhaps many of you all) consider to be a truly important topic of what we can do to:
> (a) Help educate fellow Amtrak riders about what will keep them out of trouble when confronted with such a TSA or VIPER situation, based on their level of tolerance of invasion of private space etc.


Having been through the TSA/DHS dragnet a hundred times or more I'm hard pressed to name something more physically or emotionally invasive that doesn't involve being housed on government property. As with the NSA, the danger of the TSA isn't just the power given to the agency itself but also the carefully created path they provide to warrantless search and seizure. Consider it this way...

The TSA is allowed to search anyone and everyone who intentionally or unwittingly falls into the TSA's ever changing dragnet, but we allow this because the TSA otherwise has limited powers and cannot arrest you or confiscate your possessions without permission.

On the other hand the police are allowed to arrest you or confiscate your possessions without permission but we accept this because they have limited powers to search you and are not permitted to do so without a warrant or probable cause.

However, if we let the TSA search you and your belongings and then hand you and your possessions over to the police then we've created a backdoor method for allowing search, seizure, and arrest without a warrant or probable cause. The NSA is also understood to be following a similar extrajudicial protocol. In my view this isn't a simple mistake or unintended unintended consequence. It's a carefully implemented stepping stone to a police state.

I realize that not everyone was raised to value freedom over safety, but for me this is a major setback to our liberties that I find extremely discouraging. If you take everything we've learned about the US government's actions in the post-911 period and boiled it down to a single sentence I think it would come out a bit like this...

"In order to save our freedoms we must first subvert and destroy them."

If we take the path of educating fellow riders on how best to conform with the directives and assumptions of our growing security apparatus in order to avoid being singled out for interest or punishment then what have we really accomplished? What more would even need to be said besides doing whatever you're told and never saying anything back?



jis said:


> (b) What we can do to collectively have an impact in communicating with the lawmakers and executors on what is and is not reasonable given the realities that we face today.


Is there any actual impact you'd like to have today's security process, or are we just supposed to guess?



jis said:


> This needs to be done while minimizing emotional outbursts, since that is what causes a discussion to go off rails (folks here would understand the consequences of that way more than in some other groups). Keep in mind also, that by merely bullying a discussion thread into submission using weird tactics of argument, ad hominem attacks and name calling is not going to change one single thing in the real world outside of it.


The person I've seen bullying others is the member who repeatedly insists that the TSA is in no way involved with Amtrak despite all evidence to the contrary. You can be as clear, calm, and careful as you like but he's not going to change his mind.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 12, 2013)

Locked pending moderator's review.


----------

