# Do you ever see TSA/security checkpoints coming to major Amtrak statio



## MIrailfan (Mar 25, 2014)

Me I personally doubt it, because too many unstaffed stations.


----------



## RTE_TrainGuy (Mar 25, 2014)

It would be extremely difficult and expensive to do so. Securing all areas of tracks would be next to impossible.

However, if some type of major attack occurred major changes would likely take place. Probably in the realm of heavily increased security and random screenings, in the station and onboard. Yet even those would still not change the fact that trains aren't all that difficult to attack, if you have a bomb and are willing to either die and/or get caught, as many terrorists are. Keep in mind, though, that there are many things that are easy to attack, and their sheer numbers means that traveling and living your life is still very safe in this country.


----------



## FriskyFL (Mar 25, 2014)

Yes, I think that the TSA should send all of their blueshirts to Sanderson.


----------



## tim49424 (Mar 25, 2014)

I have seen TSA at Chicago a few times in the last three years. It looked random and non-invasive.


----------



## BCL (Mar 25, 2014)

I've seen Dept of Homeland Security Police around the Ferry Building in San Francisco. They were actually dressed rather casually for federal officers. Just cargo pants (for all their stuff), a light tactical vest with DHS Police front/back, and stocking caps (it was a cold morning). They were monitoring the arrivals/departures of Golden Gate Ferry and San Francisco Bay Ferry mostly. I asked at the Amtrak office the next building over if they came by, and I was told occasionally they ask around. It wasn't a checkpoint though. It was more a show of force more than anything else.

Here's a picture of them patrolling around a planned BART protest:


----------



## saturn04 (Mar 25, 2014)

I have seen them at the SVT station; it was odd, they had a table set up outside with their gear, but never saw them check anyone. That station gets 14 trains (north a and south bound Hiawatha's) a day and those trains only go between MKE and CHI. It is not a staffed location either.


----------



## TinCan782 (Mar 25, 2014)

Just saw DHS (in addition to L.A. County Sheriff) a few mornings ago at LA Union Station when I arrived on Metrolink. Several weeks ago, a VIPR (DHS & TSA) team was set up early AM at the Chatsworth (CA) Amtrak/Metrolink station.


----------



## Shortline (Mar 25, 2014)

I don't see it as feasible.


----------



## fillyjonk (Mar 25, 2014)

I've seen them at STL, and even once they walked a dog (drug dog? I don't know, they didn't stop and check in the sleeper, just walked through) through the train.

I suspect that if there were a major incident, maybe LD travel wouldn't "go away," but they might close all the "little" unstaffed stations....and only stop in major cities where they could have a big TSA presence.

I don't know. Having airport-like screening at the train station (and airport-like rules, like "No bottles of water you carry in with you") would probably make me stop taking the train....probably make me stop most of my traveling altogether.


----------



## Eyegor (Mar 25, 2014)

FYI - There is no such thing as "DHS Police" The Dept. of Homeland Security is a collection of 22 seperate agencies. Many but not all who have a law enforcement component. While it is not uncommon for some gear to be blazoned DHS, if you inquire further the officers/agents will actually belong to ICE/CBP/USSS/FAMS/FPS or one of the 17 other agencies. In this case most likely FAMS (Air Marshals) backing up TSA. Yes, FAMS are sometimes used for other tasks other than flying.


----------



## brentrain17 (Mar 25, 2014)

I have see them at Seattle once, dogs sniffing luggage, they are at the ferry docks al the time.


----------



## BCL (Mar 25, 2014)

Eyegor said:


> FYI - There is no such thing as "DHS Police" The Dept. of Homeland Security is a collection of 22 seperate agencies. Many but not all who have a law enforcement component. While it is not uncommon for some gear to be blazoned DHS, if you inquire further the officers/agents will actually belong to ICE/CBP/USSS/FAMS/FPS or one of the 17 other agencies. In this case most likely FAMS (Air Marshals) backing up TSA. Yes, FAMS are sometimes used for other tasks other than flying.


The ones I saw were most likely FPS. All it says on their vests is "DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY POLICE". I believe this is their vehicle color scheme:






I've seen officers from all of those DHS agencies. They're usually identified with their full agency name except for FPS.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 25, 2014)

OK, the post is only to inform, not to threadjack. The Dog has already installed private security checkpoints at major terminals. Some of them require pat-down with metal detactors to pass through, others only require a ticket and ID check. Also, ID my be checked again by the driver at boarding. Or course this does not happen in small stations like Winnemucca.

So Amtrak might do this too, just saying.


----------



## HAL (Mar 25, 2014)

MIRAILFAN said:


> Me I personally doubt it, because too many unstaffed stations.


At major stations there are TSA personel. They do random checks


----------



## pennyk (Mar 25, 2014)

I have seen TSA in Orlando and Kissimmee.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Mar 25, 2014)

DHS has been creeping up on Amtrak little-by-little every year. I'm plenty safe without their lot, so I'd rather they not exist. That being said this is something a GOP congress would not object to if Amtrak requested it in their budget, they would love to hand over another few million in tax dollars to the security-industrial complex. It would have the added benefit of making Amtrak even more unattractive. If somebody on Capitol Hill wanted to kill Amtrak off slowly this would be one way to hasten the death.


----------



## tp49 (Mar 25, 2014)

If as the thread's topic states seeing TSA checkpoints at major stations (NYP, DC, Chicago, LA) then the answer is maybe though I think it would take some major type of event to get this to happen. However, it would be foolhardy and cost way too much to try to do it at all stations.based on logistics.

When I was living in Shanghai every subway station had a bag check station (x-ray) to clear before they let you through and onto the trains.


----------



## jebr (Mar 25, 2014)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> OK, the post is only to inform, not to threadjack. The Dog has already installed private security checkpoints at major terminals. Some of them require pat-down with metal detactors to pass through, others only require a ticket and ID check. Also, ID my be checked again by the driver at boarding. Or course this does not happen in small stations like Winnemucca.
> 
> So Amtrak might do this too, just saying.


I doubt Amtrak will be hiring private security officers to do checkpoints; they'd just use the Amtrak Police to do that. That's also something Greyhound is doing entirely voluntarily, whereas I'd imagine Amtrak is being "forced" to have the TSA at certain stations/checkpoints (and any development for the TSA would be forced upon Amtrak.)

It's an apples vs. oranges comparison.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 25, 2014)

Every so often a team of TSA "Officers" come by the Amtrak Station from the Airport, drink their coffee, talk on thier phones and hang around until the Eagle Loads and Rolls out! I haven't seen them really do anything or board the Train so guess they're just " showing the flag" so to speak!


----------



## SarahZ (Mar 25, 2014)

I don't understand the point in having people go through a TSA checkpoint in Chicago when it's easy enough for someone with nefarious intent to board down the line in Galesburg or some other, smaller station. Additionally, the rail lines are not secure, so someone can easily plant explosives along the rails, under a bridge, etc. Really, the entire thing would be fairly pointless.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Mar 26, 2014)

Once in a while they will show up at Norman OK to watch the southbound boarding of the _*Heartland Flyer*_ but they keep their distance and never bother anyone.


----------



## Dan O (Mar 26, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> I don't understand the point in having people go through a TSA checkpoint in Chicago when it's easy enough for someone with nefarious intent to board down the line in Galesburg or some other, smaller station. Additionally, the rail lines are not secure, so someone can easily plant explosives along the rails, under a bridge, etc. Really, the entire thing would be fairly pointless.


Agree!


----------



## Passinthru (Mar 26, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> I don't understand the point in having people go through a TSA checkpoint in Chicago when it's easy enough for someone with nefarious intent to board down the line in Galesburg or some other, smaller station. Additionally, the rail lines are not secure, so someone can easily plant explosives along the rails, under a bridge, etc. Really, the entire thing would be fairly pointless.


Security is a side issue. The goal of a bureaucracy is to grow its budget and power, and in that regard DHS is on a tear. The blue shirt donut eaters are roaming out of the airport terminals and spreading their brand far and wide. They are riding public transportation in several "test/training" projects and it's a safe bet that Amtrak will eventually be blessed with their presence.


----------



## SarahZ (Mar 26, 2014)

Passinthru said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand the point in having people go through a TSA checkpoint in Chicago when it's easy enough for someone with nefarious intent to board down the line in Galesburg or some other, smaller station. Additionally, the rail lines are not secure, so someone can easily plant explosives along the rails, under a bridge, etc. Really, the entire thing would be fairly pointless.
> ...


That's pretty much what I said, with about 99% less tin-foil-hat-ness.


----------



## seat38a (Mar 26, 2014)

Lately, Amtrak Police (They Have Their Own Police!) come through the train on the Pacific Surfliner with the dogs and do a sweep.


----------



## FriskyFL (Mar 26, 2014)

Security Theatre creates the illusion of safety, nothing more.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## anonymous (Mar 26, 2014)

If they do begin requiring airport-like securty, Amtrak will lose all my businness just as the airlines did in 2010 when the bodyscanners and "enhanced pat downs" became prominent.


----------



## neroden (Mar 26, 2014)

The purpose of the "security" at airports, to the extent that there is a real purpose, is to prevent people from hijacking planes and taking them where they're not supposed to be.

You can't really take trains where they're not supposed to be. They stay on the tracks. With PTC, you can't even move them forward if they don't have operating authority from the dispatcher. If anything needs security, it's the dispatchers' offices where they control the switches. (And for the record, I would actually support tight security on the dispatchers' offices -- a coordinated takeover of a dispatching office could cause all kinds of trouble.)

Any "security checkpoint" in the stations simply *creates* an attractive target for bombings.

Now, is it possible that out-of-control, fascistic "security theater" operators will decide to start harassing train passengers in order to show off how thuggish they are? Sure, it's possible. We should make every effort to prevent it.


----------



## amamba (Mar 26, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> Passinthru said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


+1 on this. I'm on my phone or this would be the perfect opportunity for a .gif.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 26, 2014)

neroden said:


> The purpose of the "security" at airports, to the extent that there is a real purpose, is to prevent people from hijacking planes and taking them where they're not supposed to be.


I would argue that armored cockpit doors and the realization by passengers that "sit there and let the hijackers do their thing" is no longer a valid strategy for survival accomplish that without the need for security checkpoints.

The only thing that the checkpoint defends against is suicide bombers, which could have some applicability to train travel as well.

That said, the current airport style checkpoints are massive, massive overkill for the actual purpose they serve.


----------



## neroden (Mar 26, 2014)

RyanS said:


> The only thing that the checkpoint defends against is suicide bombers, which could have some applicability to train travel as well.


The problem which many, many, many security experts have pointed out is that a security line is the *perfect* target for a suicide bomber. So security checkpoints are actually really bad if you're worried about suicide bombers.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 26, 2014)

Oh yeah, I agree completely.

I tried (and seemingly failed) to make that point with my last sentence. There are a great many better ways to skin that cat.


----------



## BCL (Mar 26, 2014)

neroden said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing that the checkpoint defends against is suicide bombers, which could have some applicability to train travel as well.
> ...


Setting off a bomb at the security line probably doesn't achieve the same objective. Getting a bomb past security makes for a different message - that you shouldn't feel secure just because there are people checking.


----------



## fillyjonk (Mar 26, 2014)

. With PTC, you can't even move them forward if they don't have operating authority from the dispatcher.



neroden said:


> The purpose of the "security" at airports, to the extent that there is a real purpose, is to prevent people from hijacking planes and taking them where they're not supposed to be.
> 
> You can't really take trains where they're not supposed to be. They stay on the tracks. With PTC, you can't even move them forward if they don't have operating authority from the dispatcher. If anything needs security, it's the dispatchers' offices where they control the switches. (And for the record, I would actually support tight security on the dispatchers' offices -- a coordinated takeover of a dispatching office could cause all kinds of trouble.)
> 
> ...



Heh. I can see it now:

Would-be terrorist: "Great leader, we are TRYING to hijack this train, but the host railroad is not letting us go anywhere!"

Great Leader: "$&%#. Foiled again by the bureacracy of Union Pacific! Let's just go home...."

(Yes, in my mind, terrorists sound a bit like Boris and Natasha from the old Rocky and Bullwinkle show)

All joking aside, if someone bent on doing harm to a train wanted to, there'd be ample opportunities away from stations. I always say a little prayer when we cross the Eades Bridge on the Texas Eagle, that it holds together for at least one more run....


----------



## CZzzz (Mar 26, 2014)

amamba said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > Passinthru said:
> ...


Tin?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/us/tsa-expands-duties-beyond-airport-security.html?pagewanted=all

http://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/video-tsa-agents-to-eyeball-bus-passengers-during-security-exercise-outside-airport/

Gotta love the stare-down training for these pudgy rent-a-cops. Toughen 'em up for that showdown with the hipsters that post here on Amtrak Unlimited.


----------



## dlagrua (Mar 26, 2014)

This whole TSA fiasco is not about security. Its about CONTROL of the citizenry or preparing the people to lick the governments boots. We saw this in Germany in the 1930's and it got very ugly. Apparently people want a government like that here as well, other wise the airports would have been boycotted years ago. The sheep just continue to submit.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 26, 2014)

BCL said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


True.

But the message "You're not safe anywhere you congregate" is a pretty powerful message as well.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 26, 2014)

dlagrua said:


> This whole TSA fiasco is not about security. Its about CONTROL of the citizenry or preparing the people to lick the governments boots. We saw this in Germany in the 1930's and it got very ugly. Apparently people want a government like that here as well, other wise the airports would have been boycotted years ago. The sheep just continue to submit.


I object strenuously to the comparisons to 1930 Germany and the characterization of people that still fly as "sheep continuing to submit".
To the first part, it's a matter of scale, and comparing the security checkpoints to the mass murder of millions of people is wildly out of proportion.

To the second, some people fly out of necessity, and that necessity comes from a lot of different places. My sister lives in Hawaii - seeing her without flying is essentially impossible. Others have to travel for work. It's possible to live within the system and work for change without just being a sheep, and it's rather offensive to be painted with that broad of a brush.


----------



## SarahZ (Mar 26, 2014)

^^^^ That.

(I wish we had a "like" button.)


----------



## JoeBas (Mar 26, 2014)

RyanS said:


> But the message "You're not safe anywhere you congregate" is a pretty powerful message as well.


But do you REALLY feel safer because some slack-jawed yokel gave you a massage?

I don't feel any different inside a "Secure" airport area than I do outside of it, TBH.


----------



## MattW (Mar 26, 2014)

RyanS said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > This whole TSA fiasco is not about security. Its about CONTROL of the citizenry or preparing the people to lick the governments boots. We saw this in Germany in the 1930's and it got very ugly. Apparently people want a government like that here as well, other wise the airports would have been boycotted years ago. The sheep just continue to submit.
> ...


I object strenuously to automatically shunning comparisons to 1930 Germany simply because. History isn't something that should be picked and chosen from; the entirety of history, it's good and bad parts, deserve to be analyzed lest we repeat the same mistakes. Hitler didn't wake up one morning and murder 6 million people that day. It took time to build up to that. He had to enact policies that enabled the control of the population necessary to do that. Some of those same methods seem to be being used by the U.S. government. Hopefully it won't be for the same purpose, and I don't think it is either, but it doesn't matter. Hitler wasn't responsible for just the Holocaust, there were a lot of other things he did, many of which were aimed at, or greatly assisted, the Holocaust such as the infamous obsession with national ID, "papers please," and internal checkpoints, ways to limit the population's movement without government supervision as well as sending the secret police after people saying things against the government. While we haven't heard about any middle-of-the-night raids against people saying things by the FBI or Secret Service, the fact that the NSA is watching more communications than they need to be is a disturbing first step toward that kind of crackdown. But just because a first step has been taken, doesn't mean that the second step will be taken, but it also doesn't mean it won't be.

Well why can't we use other authoritarian states like the Soviet Union or Communist China or North Korea? We can and do, but by and large, most of those countries are left-wing countries. Hitler's Germany and the United States are both right-wing countries (to be clear, I'm not calling the U.S. a right-wing extremist nation, just that it's on the right). Yes, the United States left is still pretty far to the right when put on the global scale. There have been very few countries that had true Fascism, Italy and Germany are the two everyone remembers, plus Spain, though I can't say I know much about Spanish conditions under Fascism or even much about Italian Fascism. But because of the fewer right-wing authoritarian states, with Hitler's Germany being the one that is most known, there just aren't that many places to pull historical comparisons from.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 26, 2014)

MattW said:


> I object strenuously to automatically shunning comparisons to 1930 Germany simply because.


I didn't shun it "simply because", I shunned it because it's a comparison not based in reality.




JoeBas said:


> But do you REALLY feel safer because some slack-jawed yokel gave you a massage?
> 
> I don't feel any different inside a "Secure" airport area than I do outside of it, TBH.


Nope.


----------



## MattW (Mar 26, 2014)

Why isn't it based in reality? I'm afraid we may be getting quite a bit offtopic and deep into history, but I would still like to know why the measures Hitler employed in controlling his citizenry isn't comparable to measures we're starting to see here today. If you would like, we can continue this via PM instead of taking up forum space. I'm hardly a history expert myself so if there is something about that time period I am deficient in, I would dearly like to know.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 26, 2014)

MattW said:


> Why isn't it based in reality? I'm afraid we may be getting quite a bit offtopic and deep into history, but I would still like to know why the measures Hitler employed in controlling his citizenry isn't comparable to measures we're starting to see here today. If you would like, we can continue this via PM instead of taking up forum space. I'm hardly a history expert myself so if there is something about that time period I am deficient in, I would dearly like to know.


Maybe rounding up millions of them and killing them?


----------



## Ryan (Mar 26, 2014)

That might have something to do with it.

If there are steps that were taken in Germany in the 1930's that have a direct parallel, I'm all ears.

In the absence of those, the analogy is bunk.


----------



## neroden (Mar 27, 2014)

MattW said:


> There have been very few countries that had true Fascism, Italy and Germany are the two everyone remembers, plus Spain, though I can't say I know much about Spanish conditions under Fascism or even much about Italian Fascism.


I've researched both to a certain extent. The thing about Mussolini was his combination of fascism (which he invented) with gross incompetence. (Franco and Hitler were in many ways both more competent.) As a result I do like to compare the current situation with Mussolini, since I keep seeing parallels. (Anyone see recent parallels to Mussolini's long, brutal, only half-successful invasion of Ethiopia, and his use of chemical weapons against civilians there? Well, I do.)


----------



## neroden (Mar 27, 2014)

RyanS said:


> If there are steps that were taken in Germany in the 1930's that have a direct parallel, I'm all ears.


The aggregation of power in the executive branch by the Enabling Acts is *very* similar to the powers (unconstitutionally) granted to the executive branch by the USAPATRIOT Act and subsequent legislation. Both were passed after "acts of terrorism" (in the 1930s case, the Reichstag fire).

That freaked me out a lot, especially coming after a stolen election where 5 men in Washington appointed their buddy as President. Mussolini was appointed to run Italy by the conservative King after the left-wingers won the most votes in Italy.

History doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme. :-( I can find close parallels in the present day to the pre-Civil-War period in the US too.


----------



## NW cannonball (Mar 27, 2014)

JoeBas said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > But the message "You're not safe anywhere you congregate" is a pretty powerful message as well.
> ...


Me neither.

BUT - back when my kids were flying as "unaccompanied minors" - and got diverted and had to change planes at an airport they weren't scheduled to - didn't faze them one bit --

but I felt less worried knowing that all the excess "security" was there - not account of terrorists - account of worrying that kids might be exploited by other passengers (or non-passengers). All the surveillance (real or not) made *me* feel safer on their account.

Airports ARE safer than, say, a bar in a slum. A bit safer than mega-malls.


----------



## NW cannonball (Mar 27, 2014)

Trying to get back on-topic --

Never seen any law enforcement at all at MSP - not a major station - just a medium one. Not even a decade ago when I heard on the scanner the Conductor asking for local law for child-beating. The cops didn't show up, the Amtrak and CP and the local cops argued about who failed.

OTOH - the Border Patrol frequently walks the Empire Builder somewhere in Montana - asks everyone their citizenship - say "American" -- they walk on by.

MSP - TSP - never seen one.


----------



## JoeBas (Mar 27, 2014)

PRR 60 said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Why isn't it based in reality? I'm afraid we may be getting quite a bit offtopic and deep into history, but I would still like to know why the measures Hitler employed in controlling his citizenry isn't comparable to measures we're starting to see here today. If you would like, we can continue this via PM instead of taking up forum space. I'm hardly a history expert myself so if there is something about that time period I am deficient in, I would dearly like to know.
> ...


Hitler didn't do that in the 30's.



NW cannonball said:


> BUT - back when my kids were flying as "unaccompanied minors" - and got diverted and had to change planes at an airport they weren't scheduled to - didn't faze them one bit --
> 
> but I felt less worried knowing that all the excess "security" was there - not account of terrorists - account of worrying that kids might be exploited by other passengers (or non-passengers). All the surveillance (real or not) made *me* feel safer on their account.
> 
> Airports ARE safer than, say, a bar in a slum. A bit safer than mega-malls.


Really? 'Cause I'd think "Stranger Danger" would be higher at an airport, with people leaving in 20 minutes for halfway around the world much less chance of being caught.

Stay frightened, my friends!


----------



## Dennis LaGrua (Mar 27, 2014)

If my reply ignited a firestorm about the tyrannical TSA, it wasn't intended to insult anyone but it did stimulate conversation on a subject that affects all of us. Whether you agree with my analogy or not, our freedoms and rights are diminishing and this is worrisome. It seems like this should be a concern for most but some people apparently don't mind being subjugated by the promise of safety. As an innocent law abiding person, (who has led an exemplary life), I vehemently object.

Unfortunately, history shows a poor record in the human rights area. Slavery, communism, fascism, the pogroms, anti-Semitism, discrimination, NSA spying, the Patriot Act, NADA, the treatment of the American Indians and the TSA all fit the same authoritarian mindset. The violations of ones human dignity caused by these policies are not all equal in their draconian application but with time things tend to bloom. Its only a matter of time before the TSA requires you to strip completely naked to board a plane. They already X-Ray you, make you empty your pockets, scan you and treat you in a subhuman way. I don't want this for my fellow Amtrak travelers. I will be there speaking out for this injustice.


----------



## afigg (Mar 27, 2014)

It is rarely a useful discussion when a thread wanders into Godwin's Law (aka Godwin's Rule of N*zi Analogies). 

TSA outside of airports are a nuisance in almost all situations and not a good use of taxpayer's money, but so far the security teams are just mostly a nuisance.

edit: link to wikipedia entry on Godwin's Law is getting chopped off. So wiki it on your own for those not familiar with it.


----------



## JoeBas (Mar 27, 2014)

afigg said:


> It is rarely a useful discussion when a thread wanders into Godwin's Law (aka Godwin's Rule of N*zi Analogies).
> 
> TSA outside of airports are a nuisance in almost all situations and not a good use of taxpayer's money, but so far the security teams are just mostly a nuisance.
> 
> edit: link to wikipedia entry on Godwin's Law is getting chopped off. So wiki it on your own for those not familiar with it.


Agreed with Godwin's law, however that doesn't mean you can't see parallels.

As far as it being just a "nuisance", just got Travelogue notes from a colleague in the Home Office in Norway, visiting us this past week. Sounds like more than a "Nuisance" to me.

Wednesday ... "Back at the airport and through security. I had an train ticket in my pocket that the scanner detected, This triggered next security level and the guy took a hand test on me (swiping a piece of paper in my palms and put it into the machine. The Machine screen went red saying “Explosives detected” – and I was pulled aside. Into a separate locker and a guy with latex gloves.. crazy security.."


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 27, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> Passinthru said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


Your post points out why the TSA would likely be an ineffective deterrent while the reply offers an explanation for why it may happen anyway. The tinfoil hat reference seems rather confusing and unwarranted to me.


----------



## Dennis LaGrua (Mar 27, 2014)

In the spirit of the great Mahatma Ghandi, passive resistance is the way_ I choose _to go. This is why I have not flown in 10 years. I refuse to give up my inalienable rights just to board a plane and I will no longer travel by train if airport security is instituted..

Additionally, if we wish to correct historical facts here; 1930's Germany, was governed by the very left wing Social Democratic Party. The government controlled and ran everything and there was no free enterprise. That's a government from the left.

If you examine what the US has become, government and the corporate interests have combined into an all powerful ruling force. Combine this with the police state and it's called _Fascism. _


----------



## SarahZ (Mar 27, 2014)

Some people here need to keep in mind that flying isn't always a choice, and those of us who fly are not sheep who blindly accept everything the government throws at us. When my employer needs me in Dallas tomorrow, what am I supposed to do? Tell them no? I don't think so.

Ryan's example of visiting his family in Hawaii is another good example of why driving and/or taking the train isn't always feasible.

And how, exactly, is Jis supposed to visit India?

And when I'm a bridesmaid in my friend's wedding, which takes place in Alaska, are you suggesting I take the EB and then drive across Canada? I don't have three weeks of vacation time stored up, nor would I use that much for something like that.

You really can't paint everyone with the same, broad brush. Sometimes, a desire to keep one's job and see one's family overrides the desire to tell the government to smeg off.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 27, 2014)

It's one thing to come up with valid explanations for why people don't curtail their flying or do anything to upset the TSA in person. However, it's a little harder to explain why so few complain to their senators and representatives. This is one of those exceedingly rare issues that supposedly ticks off liberals and conservatives alike. Yet even when there is consensus there is no action. Personally I think the TSA debacle is an example of how our fundamental system of governance itself may be permanently broken.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 27, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Personally I think the TSA debacle is an example of how our fundamental system of governance itself may be permanently broken.


 I couldn't agree more.



neroden said:


> The aggregation of power in the executive branch by the Enabling Acts is *very* similar to the powers (unconstitutionally) granted to the executive branch by the USAPATRIOT Act and subsequent legislation. Both were passed after "acts of terrorism" (in the 1930s case, the Reichstag fire).


Yeah, no. The Enabling Act gave Hitler the power to pass any law he so chose without any oversight or input from the legislative branch. The "PATRIOT" act gives the Executive a whole bunch of powers, but making up laws out of the clear blue sky on any topic ain't one of them.

Edit: The Enabling Act also said (paraphrased) "If you want to make a law that would ordinarily be unconstitutional, that's totally cool with us too. Whatever you want, man. It's all yours, have fun". Arguments about Constitutionality aside, the PATRIOT act at least has to pretend to be Constitutional and is subject to the Judicial Branch's oversight.


----------



## Paul CHI (Mar 27, 2014)

I don't know why Amtrak should be more of a target than the dozens of commuter trains that use CUS every day. And good luck patting down the 150,000 people who transit CUS on a daily basis. There is, of course, always the risk of a package bomb, but you'd have to hugely inconvenience thousands of people to catch it. Life just has trade-offs between risk and security.


----------



## JayPea (Mar 27, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> Some people here need to keep in mind that flying isn't always a choice, and those of us who fly are not sheep who blindly accept everything the government throws at us. When my employer needs me in Dallas tomorrow, what am I supposed to do? Tell them no? I don't think so.
> 
> Ryan's example of visiting his family in Hawaii is another good example of why driving and/or taking the train isn't always feasible.
> 
> ...


THIS!! I've often said the most annoying thing about flying is being called a sheep, or, alternatively, a sheeple because I choose to do so. I have only so much vacation time available to me, and, for instance, when I want to visit my uncle and his family in Illinois, I have to at least fly one direction so that I have time to visit. If I were to take Amtrak both directions, I would have no time to visit. And I have future trips planned that A) involve travel to Alaska and B) travel to Hawaii, all in the name of my quest to have visited all 50 states. I can't do either, especially go to Hawaii, without flying. Alaska, I guess, is technically feasible, but again it would take far too much time for me to drive there, even from my home here in Eastern Washington. And I don't know why yet again I'm defending my choice to fly. Whether I fly, ride the train, ride a bus, drive, bicycle, walk, or hop backward, how, when, and where I choose to travel is no one's business but my own.


----------



## FriskyFL (Mar 27, 2014)

Tinfoil hats here, get your tinfoil hats, they're going fast....



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## tp49 (Mar 27, 2014)

FriskyFL said:


> Tinfoil hats here, get your tinfoil hats, they're going fast....
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T999 using Amtrak Forum mobile app


Just make sure that the shiny side is out.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 27, 2014)

RyanS said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > The aggregation of power in the executive branch by the Enabling Acts is *very* similar to the powers (unconstitutionally) granted to the executive branch by the USAPATRIOT Act and subsequent legislation. Both were passed after "acts of terrorism" (in the 1930s case, the Reichstag fire).
> ...


We already have a presidential kill list that ignores due process, the right to challenge your accuser, the right to be tried by peers, etc. If you gave Hitler a list of people he was legally allowed to kill and then let him decide who was to be included on the list the distinction starts to become rather uncomfortable.


----------



## jis (Mar 27, 2014)

JayPea said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > Some people here need to keep in mind that flying isn't always a choice, and those of us who fly are not sheep who blindly accept everything the government throws at us. When my employer needs me in Dallas tomorrow, what am I supposed to do? Tell them no? I don't think so.
> ...


<a-bit-of-jest-mode>I figure that if you are in a train lover's place you will get raked over coal for doing anything other than taking a train, by some extremists. It has more to do with assuaging their own fear/perception that they are viewed as freaks by everyone else. It's just the way things are. Nothing to worry about and no one really needs to defend flying or anything like that. A desperate need of some to feel morally superior to those sheepies is satisfied and all is good with the world. Keeps them from doing something worse perhaps. 

</a-bit-of-jest-mode>


----------



## andersone (Mar 27, 2014)

I reiterate: you can't defeat folks who are willing to kill themselves for the cause,,,,, This homeland security ***** lies at the feet of George the Second, who if you remember was elected only the hi-jinks of his brother the Governor. The more we give in, the more we lose. Shame on us for accepting such shenanigans. Just think if those TSA guys just cleaned Amtrak toilets,,,, what a wonderful world it would be,,, we could put two guys on each can on every train... and even Mr. Whipple would be proud.


----------



## mkeroad (Mar 27, 2014)

3/16 the EB was boarded and the train held for almost an hour in Spokane East bound. The next night we were boarded after midnight and Border Patrol was running through the cars.

West bound on the CZ two weeks earlier we were boarded by Fed drug agents in Reno and they did what they called random profile checks. They had t-shirts and running shoes on with NO IDs. They went through all luggage of the selected pax. It seemed to me that they were targeting people of color so I presented this to my black sleeper attendant and he assured me they were not and this was a norm in RNO because the best stuff is grown in CA. and its legal in CO. money and drugs cross paths on the CZ. They opened a guys suitcase 2 weeks previous and he didn't even have a pair of sox, but, there was $130,000 in small bills. I would guess his bag was over weight.

These two were let off at the next cross road. not a scheduled stop and got into Reno police and state patrol cars.

I felt their presents and after Boston they can check my public transportation. The other stuff will be legal soon enough


----------



## FriskyFL (Mar 27, 2014)

If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 27, 2014)

Screw that noise. It's called privacy. You may be fine with opening your life up to scrutiny, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us has to be.



> *The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*





Devil's Advocate said:


> We already have a presidential kill list that ignores due process, the right to challenge your accuser, the right to be tried by peers, etc. If you gave Hitler a list of people he was legally allowed to kill and then let him decide who was to be included on the list the distinction starts to become rather uncomfortable.


That's the best example anyone's come up with yet. Congrats.


----------



## jis (Mar 27, 2014)

It is possibly worse than that. I understand the President has actually a list of SIM cards, which are allegedly associated with individuals who are ok to kill. However there is no certainty when a SIM card is successfully eliminated, the person associated with it at that point is the one that was intended. It's quite bizarre actually IMHO that this whole charade passes Constitutional muster in some people's eyes. It just strongly suggests that a sufficiently scared nation will happily sacrifice it's founding principles, which is sad.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## amamba (Mar 28, 2014)

Don't forget to make a tin foil hat for your pets, too.


----------



## neroden (Mar 28, 2014)

FriskyFL said:


> If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide.


In that case, I presume the CIA and NSA and DOD and so forth will be releasing all the so-called "classified" documents they have IMMEDIATELY. If they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.

Right?

And just as obviously, they have no grounds for complaining about Snowden revealing anything. After all, if they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.

Right?

(Actually, I think it's been proven pretty conclusively that the NSA and CIA are using "classified" as a smokescreen to cover up a hell of a lot of crimes committed by the NSA and CIA, so this is more true than you might think.)


----------



## neroden (Mar 28, 2014)

jis said:


> It is possibly worse than that. I understand the President has actually a list of SIM cards, which are allegedly associated with individuals who are ok to kill. However there is no certainty when a SIM card is successfully eliminated, the person associated with it at that point is the one that was intended.


Yep. This information came out a few weeks back.

This is the most insane part of the entire business. It's almost certain that al-Qaeda affiliated warlords in Afghanistan are using this idiocy for their own benefit: planting "targeted" SIM cars on *their* enemies and getting the CIA to assassinate the enemies of al-Qaeda.

The total idiocy of this SIM-card-targeting-drone policy is so bad that it is actually aiding and comforting the enemies of the United States. Which makes the drone policy an actual act of *treason*.



> It's quite bizarre actually IMHO that this whole charade passes Constitutional muster in some people's eyes. It just strongly suggests that a sufficiently scared nation will happily sacrifice it's founding principles, which is sad.


----------



## neroden (Mar 28, 2014)

mkeroad said:


> West bound on the CZ two weeks earlier we were boarded by Fed drug agents in Reno and they did what they called random profile checks. They had t-shirts and running shoes on with NO IDs.


That would have been sufficient for me to absolutely refuse to cooperate. They said they were federal drug agents -- without IDs, for all I know they're members of the Medellin drug cartel.

...though actually, given the history of corruption in the DEA, even if they were genuine DEA agents they could still be members of a drug cartel. h34r:


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 28, 2014)

Does the end justify the means? (In other words if our enemies are sleeze bags and monsters should we be like them???)


----------



## neroden (Mar 28, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> Does the end justify the means? (In other words if our enemies are sleeze bags and monsters should we be like them???)


It's a good question. But we don't even need to ask this question... because as far as I can tell the means aren't doing a damn thing to achieve their stated ends. It makes one suspect that there are other, secret, ends which are actually intended.

A really dramatic example was when Bush was told, by, well, everyone, that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. But Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld *wanted* to invade Iraq, so they said "Sweep it all up, related and not", and started a propaganda campaign to claim that it had something to do with Iraq, in order to convince Congress to invade Iraq.

Or there's the Bush vs. Gore case, where the 5 criminals on the Supreme Court claimed that they were serving the ends of "equal protection" by the means of PREVENTING all the votes from being counted, and allowing the existing mishmash of different vote-counting rules to remain in place. Uh.... those means have nothing to do with those ends, guys. Perhaps you had some other ends in mind (like "installing our buddy into the White House whether or not he won the most votes").

We know that torture doesn't work at all for getting information -- tortured people will make up whatever they think the torturer wants to hear, so you get lots of useless, false, misleading information. So when Bush & company claimed that they "needed" to torture people in order to get information.... well, you have to start suspecting that they weren't actually doing it for that reason. They probably had other, hidden, ends -- such as getting FALSE information which they could use in propaganda ("Look, Saddam Hussein really was behind 9/11! We tortured this guy until he admitted it!"). Or maybe they were just sadists.

And *here's* a good place to make a comparison to Hitler. He promised all kinds of wonderful things -- "ends" -- to the German people. Hitler then made claims that "means" like putting the Communists in concentration camps, taking all the businesses away from Jewish people, or the annexation of Austria, would provide these wonderful things. Of course these means did NOT help achieve the stated ends. But with propaganda by Goebbels, people were bamboozled. When will people stop being bamboozled?


----------

