# "Amtrak to add screenings, bomb-sniffing dogs"



## mercedeslove (Feb 18, 2008)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-a...2&cset=true


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 18, 2008)

I hope this really is as unobtrusive and easy as they say it is. I wouldn't want Amtrak to lose one of its big advantages.


----------



## mercedeslove (Feb 18, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I hope this really is as unobtrusive and easy as they say it is. I wouldn't want Amtrak to lose one of its big advantages.



Yeah thats what I hate about flying. Though I work with a division of Homeland security so I have passes and what not if I want to avoid the lines, but still. The first time I flew was a few weeks after 9-11 and I was so scared. the whole thing freaked me out. That's why I don't fly. I'd hate to take trains off my list.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Feb 18, 2008)

Sounds bad to me. I also subscribe to the belief that things like this are part of the point of terrorists attacking, their whole point is to try to disrupt lives and instill terror. We are just giving into them by doing things like this. I don't see any point in half of the security we have now. If a terrorist wants to attack bad enough they will find a way around any security measure we can come up with. I think the best thing to do is go on with our lives as normal only making changes where there is an obvious need. To me it would be more prudent to find a way to override pilot control of a hijacked aircraft and have a airtraffic controller land the plane remotely at a location with the proper law enforcement/military personnel on hand to deal with the situation. Trains have had this in the form of ATS/deadman devices for years.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 18, 2008)

I wonder if one gets a full refund in the event of a refusal, or if Amtrak's normal 10% penalty still applies. I sure hope not, as that would be wrong.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 18, 2008)

mercedeslove said:


> Yeah thats what I hate about flying. Though I work with a division of Homeland security so I have passes and what not if I want to avoid the lines, but still. The first time I flew was a few weeks after 9-11 and I was so scared. the whole thing freaked me out. That's why I don't fly. I'd hate to take trains off my list.


From what I saw in another story, your pass would exempt you from the search if indeed you were even selected for one.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 18, 2008)

AlanB said:


> I wonder if one gets a full refund in the event of a refusal, or if Amtrak's normal 10% penalty still applies. I sure hope not, as that would be wrong.


According to internal Amtrak information, passengers who refuse screening will be given a full refund of rail fare and accommodation charges.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 18, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Sounds bad to me. I also subscribe to the belief that things like this are part of the point of terrorists attacking, their whole point is to try to disrupt lives and instill terror. We are just giving into them by doing things like this. I don't see any point in half of the security we have now. If a terrorist wants to attack bad enough they will find a way around any security measure we can come up with. I think the best thing to do is go on with our lives as normal only making changes where there is an obvious need. To me it would be more prudent to find a way to override pilot control of a hijacked aircraft and have a airtraffic controller land the plane remotely at a location with the proper law enforcement/military personnel on hand to deal with the situation. Trains have had this in the form of ATS/deadman devices for years.


While I don't totally disagree that the terrorists are winning, because they are indeed forcing us to change and to give up our freedoms, I don't really have a huge problem with this plan as outlined in the story.

If they keep things where they first just run an explosives test swab and don't actually search the luggage, unless a positive indication is received, then that is fine. I don't like the NYC program where they perform actual open case/open bag searches with no prior test while things are closed.

Now one area of the current security that Amtrak has running, I do disagree with. That being the requirements for photo ID's. The Federal Government is changing the rules for crossing our boarders because trained Customs agents are having trouble spotting fake drivers licenses. Yet here comes Amtrak which now requires ticket agents to check ID's, as well as random checks while on board, and yet no one has been provided any training on photo ID's. If trained customs agents can't spot phony ones, how can an untrained Amtrak employee spot one? And then there is of course the fact that many of the 9/11 terrorists actually had valid state issued drivers licenses from New Jersey.


----------



## Galls (Feb 18, 2008)

You do not need a massive amount of security on trains, you cannot exactly turn them.

Personally, I think the best from of security in the world is a combination of Locke's state of nature with MAD, just let everyone pack heat, it works in Vermont...

P.S. I do not even take myself serious.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2008)

A freight loaded with anything toxic would need greater security than a passenger train, except, perhaps trains that travel in urban tunnels. IMHO.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 18, 2008)

All security that doesn't involve complete strip searches, up to, and including, dental and rectal examinations, a complete and total search and dis-assembly of luggage, and a total separation of people from their belongings and any way of contacting them, is essentially surmountable. A constant search can be analyzed and surmounted. A random search can be beat by "flooding" or "decoying".

Flooding is the theory that while some people will be stopped, others won't. So you send 100 people with missions to blow up a train, and even if one out of the hundred make it through, ya got yourself a functioning plan. Decoying operates on the theory that "Random" searches are rarely random, but are in fact a matter of profiling and leads. So you carefully leak information that indicates that an agent A of yours is going to bring a bomb onto train X. And you do send A onto X. You also send the dreaded B onto train Y, and the fearsome C onto Train Z. While people are searching for A, B and C are having a field day.

ID checks, likewise, are a concept of hilarity. I knew someone in my school who got into the business of getting people into clubs and liquor stores. That is to say, he made fake licenses. He was an 17 year old kid, and he made some that the police ran and didn't realize were fake. All identification documents are paper, plastic, and magnetic strips. Thats all they amount to. They are hilariously easy to fake. Yes, if you put them under a 40X microscope or run laboratory tests on them, people are going to discover the fake. But you don't carry science labs into border check facilities, nor carry 40x microscopes.

Now, since the average citizen can procure pretty accurate fakes of these documents, what do you think a terrorist operation, backed by an organization of thousands and millions of dollars of backing, can do?


----------



## mercedeslove (Feb 18, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> All security that doesn't involve complete strip searches, up to, and including, dental and rectal examinations, a complete and total search and dis-assembly of luggage, and a total separation of people from their belongings and any way of contacting them, is essentially surmountable. A constant search can be analyzed and surmounted. A random search can be beat by "flooding" or "decoying".


well if they are going to do this kind of search. I would at least like a dinner and movie before we get friendly.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Feb 18, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> All security that doesn't involve complete strip searches, up to, and including, dental and rectal examinations, a complete and total search and dis-assembly of luggage, and a total separation of people from their belongings and any way of contacting them, is essentially surmountable. A constant search can be analyzed and surmounted. A random search can be beat by "flooding" or "decoying".
> Flooding is the theory that while some people will be stopped, others won't. So you send 100 people with missions to blow up a train, and even if one out of the hundred make it through, ya got yourself a functioning plan. Decoying operates on the theory that "Random" searches are rarely random, but are in fact a matter of profiling and leads. So you carefully leak information that indicates that an agent A of yours is going to bring a bomb onto train X. And you do send A onto X. You also send the dreaded B onto train Y, and the fearsome C onto Train Z. While people are searching for A, B and C are having a field day.
> 
> ID checks, likewise, are a concept of hilarity. I knew someone in my school who got into the business of getting people into clubs and liquor stores. That is to say, he made fake licenses. He was an 17 year old kid, and he made some that the police ran and didn't realize were fake. All identification documents are paper, plastic, and magnetic strips. Thats all they amount to. They are hilariously easy to fake. Yes, if you put them under a 40X microscope or run laboratory tests on them, people are going to discover the fake. But you don't carry science labs into border check facilities, nor carry 40x microscopes.
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree, why do we punish ourselves with security checks that really have no point. I understand having security personnel on duty but its completely unnecessary to subject people to anywhere near the amount of security checks we do.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 18, 2008)

mercedeslove said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > All security that doesn't involve complete strip searches, up to, and including, dental and rectal examinations, a complete and total search and dis-assembly of luggage, and a total separation of people from their belongings and any way of contacting them, is essentially surmountable. A constant search can be analyzed and surmounted. A random search can be beat by "flooding" or "decoying".
> ...


:lol: I wasn't suggesting we start doing that. God forbid, I'd move to someplace I'd need the ARRs _Hurricane Turn_ to get close to, about a days hike from anybody, and build myself a nice bunker I could isolate myself from society with.

I was just pointing out, somewhat descriptively, the number of holes in the concept of security, partially literally.


----------



## TVRM610 (Feb 18, 2008)

Well, the article compares these searches to those on NYC subways. I have never seen or been a part of any type of security check on NYC subways (true, I do not ride them super frequently) but you see the police, you know they are there, and you know they can search if they want too.

True random checks, as described, and the presense of security i think would be fine. Plus, good chance that sleeper passengers wont have to worry about this, when they are pre-boarded (at least I hope not!).

Do I think this could get out of hand? Yes. Am I worried yet? No, but I am hoping for the best.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 18, 2008)

If they have any brains, they'll do it primarily at small, unmanned stations on busy routes. They are the most likely to be targeted as a boarding point.


----------



## Galls (Feb 18, 2008)

The amount of damage a sadistic person can do on a train, is less than that same person can do on a street in NY. While both pale in comparison to what a person can do with a plane

Personally I think the largest amount of security that should be enforced on, I guess what you would call fixed public transit (bus, rail, walking) is security cameras and the occasional cop on the actual transit.


----------



## yarrow (Feb 18, 2008)

couldn't get registered and the article downloaded but from what i gather from the posts i do not like it. i don't enjoy being treated like a criminal and feel that what would make us safer is not security checks but a rational foreign policy


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Feb 19, 2008)

from CNN

Interestingly enough, this is the 6th most popular story on cnn's web site right now.


----------



## frj1983 (Feb 19, 2008)

Yawn,

Just another plan to show John/Joan Q Public that the Department of Homeland Security are doing something (visible) about terrorism. I agree, as another poster said, that the terrorists have already won...they've forced us to change.

I'm wondering if the the DHS has credible evidence that Terrorists were plotting against Amtrak?? If I were a terrorist, I'd say Amtrak was small potatoes, I'd aim for Commuter railroads and Subway Systems that carry many more people.


----------



## yarrow (Feb 19, 2008)

amtrak to unveil new security measures

i assume this is about the same article i couldn't access from the link to the chicago tribune in the first post on this topic. it saddens me. i think we are headed in the wrong direction. the terrorists haven't won but the military/industrial/security complex sure has


----------



## had8ley (Feb 19, 2008)

Actually the Feds have been after Amtrak to beef up security for some time now. Change seems to be a four letter word in Amtrak's dictionary but I, personally, am glad that something finally is being put in place.


----------



## had8ley (Feb 19, 2008)

frj1983 said:


> Yawn,
> I'm wondering if the the DHS has credible evidence that Terrorists were plotting against Amtrak?? If I were a terrorist, I'd say Amtrak was small potatoes, I'd aim for Commuter railroads and Subway Systems that carry many more people.


If you're looking for evidence I don't think you would want the evidence after the fact; a devastated coach with multiple fatalities. True, Amtrak may be small potatoes compared to the NYC subway system or an NJT rush hour train but the American traveling public deserves security at every level of transportation. I would hope that some day there would be dogs screening people getting on Greyhound buses. Thats about as small potatoes, passenger wise, that you can get but they still are subject to terrorism riding a public conveyance.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 19, 2008)

Ummm... OK, so a terrorist would board at New Carrolton instead of DC. Big deal. I'd be more concerned about screening pax coming _into_ Washington DC rather than going out.

Amtrak stations for the most part are not gated, so access to the platforms (and even getting on a train) is pretty open. Tighten the screws at a few key spots, and you're actually encouraging someone to engage at a weaker point.

Best security measure that can be put in place is fully gated stations and platforms, security cameras, and staff.

Screen the names that are on reservations. Increase police (which they are trying to do, but can't seem to get the staff). Even (eek) support profiling. That doesn't mean pull aside every person wearing a yamika or a turban, but profile body language.

Taking Granma aside at WAS to see if she's carrying NASA issued Depends is NOT the best way to ensure our safety.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 19, 2008)

frj1983 said:


> I'm wondering if the the DHS has credible evidence that Terrorists were plotting against Amtrak?? If I were a terrorist, I'd say Amtrak was small potatoes, I'd aim for Commuter railroads and Subway Systems that carry many more people.


I don't necessarily agree. Amtrak has a bigger national and international _image_. It is the symbol of American rail transport that transcends NYC and other metro areas. Folks from around the world come to ride Amtrak, not NYC's subway.

That being said, an attack on the subway would definitely hurt many many more people.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2008)

It might not agree with everyone but in the event of a problem, Amtrak would suffer enormous public relations problem along the lines of, "why didn't you...".


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 19, 2008)

Guest said:


> It might not agree with everyone but in the event of a problem, Amtrak would suffer enormous public relations problem along the lines of, "why didn't you...".


Regrettably, that is the cost of freedom. You can pump $1 Billion into rail security and someone will thwart it if they want to bad enough. Then your question will STILL be asked.

Give me Liberty or give me death.


----------



## wayman (Feb 19, 2008)

Thoughts:

(1) I'm surprised this is news *now*. There have been Amtrak Police with dogs at PHL for at least four months. They were a fixture since at least Thanksgiving, and I think much of November. The dogs aren't always visible, but they (with their handlers, of course!) are frequently either wandering idly around the station hall or sniffing every passenger's bags in a queue preparing to board a train (at the "about to flash their tickets and go down a stairwell" point in the boarding procedure).

I have also seen an Amtrak Police dog board the Southwest Chief at Kansas City and do a thorough sniffing inspection of my coach, though in that case it was clear from all the radio chatter that the police team were searching for drugs and a suspected drug dealer working the train. Those police were undercover, though they did identify themselves as "Amtrak Police" as opposed to city or federal authorities; I assume the dog was also Amtrak Police, though I suppose he could have been a "loaner" from the local Kansas City drug-dog program.

In any event, parts of this program have been in place for quite some while already with extremely little fanfare and (in the several cases where a dog has walked my Keystone queue) absolutely no delays or hassles at all.

(2) I have never seen anyone called out of line for a swab test in conjunction with the Amtrak Police dogs. I assume there has been a procedure for "if the dog indicates he smells something", but I have no idea whether that would have been "swab test" or "bag inspection" or "security interview" or what. I have also been completely unaware of any sort of "machine" as a follow-up test. Of course, I would presumably see this stuff in action only in the unlikely event of it being necessary.

(3) It's possible that the dogs I have seen to this point were exclusively looking for drugs, not bombs. I never asked. That could be what's different.

(4) People have mentioned "Homeland Security" above, but I doubt they're involved at all. This looks (from the article, and from the police with bomb- or drug-sniffing dogs which have been active at PHL for months already) to be entirely an Amtrak Police operation. (The PHL dogs are very clearly "Amtrak Police", not DHS or Philadelphia Police.)

The feds (ie. DHS) may have put pressure on Amtrak to implement an internally-run security screening, and DHS may be providing the "mobile security team" equipment (swabbing kits and explosive-detecting machines), but I doubt even that. I expect the costs for those come out of Amtrak's budget, and could have instead gone towards maintenance costs of some sort. But perhaps they had earmarked funds for this, and it doesn't actually come at the expense of a coach overhaul or the like.

(5) Does anyone expect a "mobile security team" to ever show up at a station other than BOS, NYP, PHL, or WAS in the initial "Northeast Corridor" phase of implementation? Granted, transit between stations is extremely easy in this area, so I would not be tremendously surprised to hear reports of them setting up camp at Newark or Baltimore or Wilmington, I suppose. Still, I'd be a bit surprised.

A dog will never walk a train once it has been boarded. This will only ever happen at a train's point of origin--to do otherwise would delay the train by at a minimum ten minutes, which on a corridor train is unacceptable. The Kansas City boarding I mentioned above falls into the special case of "the conductor reported suspicious activity to the station, which responded to the incident". There was a significant delay--half an hour at least--while at least six plain-clothes police and one dog searched the train; numerous people were taken off the train and interviewed, some of whom were not permitted to re-board.

The fundamental flaw here is that they're attempting to build a security system on the airline model. (Whether the airline security itself is effective is another issue entirely, one I won't touch with a ten foot pole right now!) The airline *model* makes sense because all flights are from one airport to another, with no intermediate stops. The only way this comes *close* to being able to work for Amtrak is to secure the Acela stations (relatively few of them, and high-profile frequent trains with high ridership). The system will be completely useless for any wider implementation.

Once things move on to "nationwide", I will be *extremely* surprised to hear of a "mobile security team" outside of CHI, LAX, SEA, or PDX. Maybe other termini (EMY, NOL, etc) serving multiple trains, but these things will *never* *ever* show up in, say, Lynchburg or Grand Junction or even a frequently-served station like Paoli.

And even if they were to show up in Paoli "because a terrorist could be trying to blow up 30th St by boarding a Keystone", don't you think the terrorist would board at Exton anyway? They're never going to walk the dog through the entire train at a non-terminal stop inbound from Exton (like Paoli)--it will delay the train by at least ten minutes. And they're never going to set up shop with a dog, etc, at Exton because it sees maybe four passengers per train and has a "bus shelter" for a station.

(6) I agree with the thought expressed by others that the "real danger" (small danger as it is) is of a train being blown up in a major destination station (as in the Madrid bombings). That means someone boarding an Acela at a major station intending to blow up another major station (which this security *could* prevent), or someone boarding a Keystone in Exton bound for PHL (which this security will *never* catch). Do I think the terrorists are going to figure this one out? Of course! They're not stupid.

(7) So do I feel the least bit safer? No. Do I feel like this was a reasonable expense? No.


----------



## yarrow (Feb 19, 2008)

not much terror attack potential on most of the cs route these days. maybe that is the direction amtrak should move in


----------



## had8ley (Feb 19, 2008)

wayman said:


> A dog will never walk a train once it has been boarded. This will only ever happen at a train's point of origin--to do otherwise would delay the train by at a minimum ten minutes, which on a corridor train is unacceptable. The Kansas City boarding I mentioned above falls into the special case of "the conductor reported suspicious activity to the station, which responded to the incident". There was a significant delay--half an hour at least--while at least six plain-clothes police and one dog searched the train; numerous people were taken off the train and interviewed, some of whom were not permitted to re-board.


We were on #20 pulling into Meridian, MS on the morning of 9/11. The mayor, chief of police and a bomb sniffing dog greeted us along with the local news station. I tried to tell the officer, to no avail, not to make the dog sniff the hot wheels but he insisted. All they found in two hours of witch hunting was a dog with third degree burns on his nose.


----------



## caravanman (Feb 19, 2008)

I *loved* the tongue in cheek statementfrom Amtrak : "On-time performance is a key element of Amtrak service." Together with the polite staff and quality food, no doubt!

Ed B)


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 19, 2008)

There are more flaws with the entire concept than I can shake a stick at. I don't know where to begin even.

First off, I've always been pretty good at planning operations like this. I don't know why, I just seem to have the knack for it. You wouldn't believe the number of operations of this sort, albeit not malevolent particularly, I have planned and executed and not been caught with. My favourite was the one involving slightly diluted prune juice, a modified water pistol, and my teachers desk drawer, but I digress.

The biggest question is: What are you trying to accomplish? Now, I know the answer is terror, but its more complicated than that. The loss of life during September 11th was a big deal, yes. But the bigger, more substantial result was financial and infrastructural chaos.

Are you trying to achieve the most visibility? By which I mean, is it supposed to be something spectacular in the view of everybody such that it makes people shiver with fright? The World Trade Center was pretty visible. But a better example of a visual terror attack would be something along the lines of the Anthrax attack. It created fear, although it caused very little direct financial damage or death. Blowing up a bridge while nobody is going over it would be a good example.

Are you trying to create the most economic damage? Carry a powerful bomb in the form of, perhaps, large aluminum soda cans. The large red bull cans would work. If you detect considerable security, toss it in a garbage can before boarding the train. If you don't, take it on, pretend to drink it, place it in a trash can on the train, get off at newark. Wait until dispatch indicates the train has entered the tunnels tunnels, detonate it. Those tunnels are ready to collapse as it is, a bomb would disintegrate them and close the country's largest city to rail transport from the south. Probably kill several hundred people in the process. You might have to try it a dozen times, but it can easily be done. Especially if you board a NJT train at a small commuter station.

Are you looking for a massive loss of life? Thats a bit more difficult, but far from impossible. It doesn't involve setting a single foot into a train station, either. I've seen many places on the NEC that can be easily accessed by someone at night. Install a fairly powerful bomb, wire it to be triggered by the weight of a train when that weight is placed on three adjacent tracks at once, preferably in a location where the speed limit is high. Heck, the bomb doesn't need to be particularly large or powerfull. All it needs to do is wait for three trains to pass at once, produce enough force to lift up the nose of one train a couple of feet, and you will have a spectacular wreck that will kill hundreds, or even thousands as the speed of the train accordions it, and turns the cars of all three trains into speeding missiles.


----------



## meatpuff (Feb 19, 2008)

had8ley said:


> Actually the Feds have been after Amtrak to beef up security for some time now. Change seems to be a four letter word in Amtrak's dictionary but I, personally, am glad that something finally is being put in place.


Just adding another opinion to the pot, but I am fine with this new policy. Swabbing my luggage for explosives residue is not intrusive; I would consider it less intrusive than a security officer standing right next to me _intently watching_ me board. Explosives don't belong on trains. Incidentally, they didn't belong on trains before 9/11 or Madrid either, it's just too bad that those were needed as a catalyst. This constitutes an improvement in Amtrak operations.

This is nothing like airport screening. For example, this does nothing about guns, knives, drugs, big bottles of shampoo, etc, and doesn't x-ray or metal-detect you or your luggage. Let's fervently hope it never gets like that on rail. Yes, there is a slope to these draconian measures, but it isn't all that slipperyof a slope. With flying these measures seem justified, based on all the highjackings and airplane/airport bombings that used to take place, even well before the year 2000. The restrictive airport screening procedures of today have evolved only after thousands (and certainly 1,000+ just in the U.S.) of airline passengers have been killed in these incidents stretching over decades.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 19, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Are you trying to create the most economic damage? Carry a powerful bomb in the form of, perhaps, large aluminum soda cans. The large red bull cans would work. If you detect considerable security, toss it in a garbage can before boarding the train. If you don't, take it on, pretend to drink it, place it in a trash can on the train, get off at newark. Wait until dispatch indicates the train has entered the tunnels tunnels, detonate it. Those tunnels are ready to collapse as it is, a bomb would disintegrate them and close the country's largest city to rail transport from the south. Probably kill several hundred people in the process. You might have to try it a dozen times, but it can easily be done. Especially if you board a NJT train at a small commuter station.


Those tunnels are a heck of a lot stronger than you give them credit for, and they are far from collapse even with outside interference. Most of the work being done on the tunnels is safety work, not work to "shore" them up. Safety work like fire supression, way's to evacuate people, and so on.

And since the train cars will intially contain the bulk of any explosion, it's going to take a lot more explosive than one can fit in a Red Bull can to punch a hole in the tunnel.

Yes, the odds are that most people on the train might be killed, depending on the location of the bomb. But again, I rather doubt that you'd be bringing down the tunnel. Those things were built to last back then, frankly I'd be more worried about being in a new tunnel with today's contruction and design, than those old PRR tunnels.


----------



## dpb (Feb 19, 2008)

Today as I was leaving NYP they announced, "Please do not pet or feed the K-9 units."

Aboard Acela, I asked the café car man whether the presence of dogs would affect FDA hygiene requirements. He said, "The dogs are exempt. They can even come behind the counter if they want to - they're not subject to the FDA's rules."


----------



## adam_aussie (Feb 19, 2008)

had8ley said:


> .....I would hope that some day there would be dogs screening people getting on Greyhound buses. .


Anyone else see the irony here?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 20, 2008)

Fact of the matter is, you could ride the dog more ways than once.


----------



## frj1983 (Feb 20, 2008)

had8ley said:


> frj1983 said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn,
> ...


Well let's take it even further then:

Every time a car crosses a State Border, it should be searched by bomb sniffing dogs, and before you get into a taxi, the driver will run a wand over you, and rental car companies will have the right to search your luggage before allowing you to drive off in their cars, and it just gets sillier and sillier. All the terrorists today have to do is send out messages about a "plan" to do something, somewhere, and suddenly the US is running around like a chicken with it's head cut off...meanwhile, a terrorist cell in the Middle East is laughing it's butt off!


----------



## rmgreenesq (Feb 20, 2008)

Im not sure why this is news now. I've seen the sniffer dogs and the TSA people swabbing luggage at Boston Route 128 for several months. They are generally unobtrusive and seem to focus on passengers boarding the Acela.

It must have been a slow news day.

Rick


----------



## AlanB (Feb 20, 2008)

rmgreenesq said:


> Im not sure why this is news now. I've seen the sniffer dogs and the TSA people swabbing luggage at Boston Route 128 for several months. They are generally unobtrusive and seem to focus on passengers boarding the Acela.
> It must have been a slow news day.
> 
> Rick


It's news because Amtrak issued a press release making it news. Besides this is an Amtrak initiative, not a TSA one, this will be done by Amtrak policemen. Although it may well have been due to pressure from the TSA.


----------



## yarrow (Feb 20, 2008)

increased security measures long overdue

i don't much agree with this article but read it if you wish


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 20, 2008)

meatpuff said:


> With flying these measures seem justified, based on all the highjackings and airplane/airport bombings that used to take place, even well before the year 2000. The restrictive airport screening procedures of today have evolved only after thousands (and certainly 1,000+ just in the U.S.) of airline passengers have been killed in these incidents stretching over decades.


If thousands of people dying is the actual reason for doing something, anything, no matter how inconvenient, then why isn't more being done about fatal car accidents? Nobody seems to care much that the number of people who have died in car accidents each and every month in the US since 9/11 is roughly equal to the number of people who died in the WTC, and if we truly care about saving lives, I bet that redirecting all the money that has been spent on extra airline security since 9/11 to rebuilding dangerous intersections would be more effective at saving lives.


----------



## yarrow (Feb 20, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> meatpuff said:
> 
> 
> > With flying these measures seem justified, based on all the highjackings and airplane/airport bombings that used to take place, even well before the year 2000. The restrictive airport screening procedures of today have evolved only after thousands (and certainly 1,000+ just in the U.S.) of airline passengers have been killed in these incidents stretching over decades.
> ...


or treating and feeding starving and sick kids in the third world(or any world). they have no power. the military and industry do. who gets the bucks?


----------



## Neil_M (Feb 20, 2008)

I think the biggest "danger" to the travelling public are some of the "Design your own terrorist attack" routines going on here.......

Bottom line is mass public transport is really undefenable against a random bloke with a boooomb in a rucksack, any show of security is just that, a show, unless you want hours of waiting to be screened and prodded by some hired in "Security Gimp" just to board a subway or tube train. Never going to happen, but if it makes the sheep happy then thats a good thing......

Quite sad that on both sides of the Atlantic people who should know better fall for this nonsense and see a brown man and his bomb hiding behind every corner.

Dont believe the hype.


----------



## meatpuff (Feb 20, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> meatpuff said:
> 
> 
> > With flying these measures seem justified, based on all the highjackings and airplane/airport bombings that used to take place, even well before the year 2000. The restrictive airport screening procedures of today have evolved only after thousands (and certainly 1,000+ just in the U.S.) of airline passengers have been killed in these incidents stretching over decades.
> ...


Your straw man argument ignores all the evidence that commercial air travel security screening procedures have been very successful. With the terrible exception of September 11, 2001, the airliner hijackings and shoot-outs that happened frequently in the USA in the 1970s are almost unheard of in the last 25 years. These security screening procedures have contributed to making commerical air travel the safest form of travel (by deaths per passenger-mile) there is: taking Amtrak is less safe, even walking down the street is less safe. Furthermore, the perception of safety and great market success of domestic air travel (30,000 flights per day) has eliminated many long-distance car trips, saving scores more lives indirectly, since driving is about 25 times more deadly per passenger-mile.

The fact that driving kills 40,000 Americans each year is irrelevant to airline procedures. Specfically, this is a *terrible* argument for eliminating airline passenger security screening.

FWIW though, deaths from auto accidents have also steadily dropped, with an all-time low of 1.41 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles in 2006, steadily down from 4.8 in 1970. But this certainly still is not good enough.



yarrow said:


> or treating and feeding starving and sick kids in the third world(or any world). they have no power. the military and industry do. who gets the bucks?


I find your views very cynical. American industry and the American consumer are helping to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty in the Third World every day. Just in China, American consumption has created tens of millions of jobs with wages that are rising all the time, where there simply were no jobs at any wage twenty years ago in many cases. American industry has facilitated this, and this may wind up being our nation's greatest gift to the world's poor. The federal government could spend $25 billion per year airdropping food and medicine in the Third World and would never be able to help as many people as globalization and American industry has. Whether you think globalization is good for America or not, it's hard to disagree that it has helped many millions of the world's poor.

As far as the military and government, well, the military is a mixed bag (particularly their latest interventions) and too expensive, but America will need some kind of military if they want to be heard. Meanwhile on the government side, the U.S. is the largest donor of foreign aid in the world; indeed, they probably should be as the world's largest economy, but they are. U.S. foreign aid has increased dramatically since 2000. Pres. Bush's actions to curb disease in Africa are especially exciting and hopeful. This trend needs to continue, because we do need to be doing a lot more.

Guys and/or gals, all is not as it should be in the world, I agree. But try to show a little optimism, or at least realism/rationality. Things are getting better all the time, be it in transportation safety or aid to the world's poor. I agree we have a long, long (long) way to go. But denying and not taking the time to understand the progress will lead us in the wrong direction even as we try to improve things.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 20, 2008)

The US is an apple with a rotten core, a horror show on wheels. Cynicism is a good defense against it. We aren't entering a recession, we are entering a depression. A long depression, which we will recover from. But when we do, we will no longer, and never again, be the most powerful country in the world.

Hi-jackings were common because they were profitable, highly visible, and damned easy. We removed the damned easy component, and they've virtually disappeared. Whoop-de-doo. It doesn't demonstrate the effectiveness of increased security. The security as it stood was more than enough to deter amateur opportunists. Nothing will ever prevent a coordinated, intelligent, suicidal (key point) and malevolent organization from achieving their terrible ends.

You don't know finance. Our country is in terrible shape. The average American owes over $40,000 in credit card debt alone. Unemployment is going up and there isn't much room to fill the gap. We aren't going to be heard ever again, or if we do it is going to be a result of our own delusions. We can fund things that will help us, or we can fund a delusional military and generally ineffective comforts that we are doing something.


----------



## Galls (Feb 21, 2008)

Alright, I shall speak seriously now.

This is my industry, this is it. Post 9/11 security in various public areas is me, I work specifically within skyscrapers, my design which while I am by no means the only one responsible for it, is the only post 9/11 design that is actually allowed to operate in the city, despite the various other attempts by my competitors, some have actually been installed but were forced to be turned off. However my company also is very present in the security of public transit, Buses and Subways.

Security cameras are the only form of technology, that can be currently integrated which allows a suitable compromise between the demands and safety of its users, unfortunately while there are technologies that will allow the security cameras to become active investigators they are not practical at this time. Cameras are still best for post act investigations. Truthfully, while we develop new technologies and concepts that can further strengthen the security of public transport, the high turnover rates of passengers still leave the best form of security to be the awareness of the people and the occasional hired gun on board.


----------



## wayman (Feb 21, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> You don't know finance. Our country is in terrible shape. The average American owes over $40,000 in credit card debt alone. Unemployment is going up and there isn't much room to fill the gap. We aren't going to be heard ever again, or if we do it is going to be a result of our own delusions. We can fund things that will help us, or we can fund a delusional military and generally ineffective comforts that we are doing something.


I beg to differ with all of your points, but the one I can quickly and easily discount is your credit card debt figure. A quick survey of articles regarding credit card debt give figures from $8200-$9200 average *household* credit card debt for households *with at least one* credit card. There are some households with no credit cards. Most people owe *nothing* in credit card debt; most households with credit card debt owe less than $2000; only 1 in 20 households owes more than $8000.

It's simply nowhere near the numbers you gave.

And that's by and large true for the larger economic picture, too.


----------



## Dakguy201 (Feb 21, 2008)

I have little problem with the use of bomb detection dogs in public faciilities. I've seen that kind of presence, and I do not feel it is nearly as intrusive as metal detectors or the usual airport screening. Also, I suspect the presence of ANY dog who appeared to be working would scare a would-be terriorist to the point his conduct would make him stand out from the crowd.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 21, 2008)

It would also scare people who are simply afraid of dogs, and be a major hassle for them, too.

If you want to discuss my views on American economics, I'd be glad to on AIM, my aim screen name is in my profile.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 21, 2008)

meatpuff said:


> Your straw man argument ignores all the evidence that commercial air travel security screening procedures have been very successful. With the terrible exception of September 11, 2001, the airliner hijackings and shoot-outs that happened frequently in the USA in the 1970s are almost unheard of in the last 25 years.


So if we have a great security record for the last _25_ years, why is there any need for tighter security post 9/11? Why can't we go back to whatever airline screening practices were in place in 1983?


----------



## John Bredin (Feb 21, 2008)

> It would also scare people who are simply afraid of dogs, and be a major hassle for them, too.


You won't find a person more afraid of dogs than myself, and I've never been nervous about the sniffer dogs Metra has had at Ogilvie Transportation Center (nee North Western Station) for years now, dogs I pass by probably six days a week, 50 weeks a year. I'm not afraid of them because I'm reasonably confident that they're well-trained, unlike an unknown dog I might encounter on the street, in the park, etc.. And the dogs haven't been a "hassle" to Metra commuters, who just keep walking past them in the thousands without slowing down or even batting an eye.

You keep pointing out that no security measure can be perfect. No duh, but you know what, there have been laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. for thousands of years, and the fact that they still keep happening doesn't mean to any *reasonable* person that we should disband the police and courts because they haven't been and *cannot be* 100% effective.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with *some* additional security measures, so long as they don't cost too much and don't significantly inconvenience passengers. While I don't know about the cost, Amtrak's new program sounds like it's not too inconvenient. They aren't going to be creating jam-ups of passengers by checking *everyone*, like they do at the airports, and I seriously doubt anyone's going to miss their train for the sake of a minute or two while someone rubs a wand on their bags and checks the wand in the explosive-sniffing machine. And there's no right to privacy on the *outside* of one's bags.


----------



## meatpuff (Feb 21, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> meatpuff said:
> 
> 
> > Your straw man argument ignores all the evidence that commercial air travel security screening procedures have been very successful. With the terrible exception of September 11, 2001, the airliner hijackings and shoot-outs that happened frequently in the USA in the 1970s are almost unheard of in the last 25 years.
> ...


In fact, airline safety, which is to say the probability of dying as an airline passenger, has improved since 25 years ago (e.g. Table 5 at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm ). Presumably effective security screening has contributed to this improvement. So why would we blindly use the 1983 standards? In fact, I don't believe security screening and other security practices in air travel today are drastically different from 1983. The main focus then was to keep guns, knives and bombs off of airplanes. That is still the main focus today. And it has been largely successful.

Your implicit point that post-9/11 security measures might not help much is well-taken. The kind of measures we have seen banning bottles of shampoo, penknives and knitting needles. It seems that we are seeing diminishing returns for further security measures, i.e. not as much improvement in safety for all of the inconvenience. But I would say this is in contrast to how much difference screening for guns, knives and bombs has made.

On 9/11 the hijackers attacked with box cutters. What a pathetic weapon. How much more of a weapon is that than just using fists? Obviously there is a limit to what security screening can do for you.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 21, 2008)

I can't even recall the number of standard knives, box cutters, SAKs, 6"+ knives, and firecrackers I've smuggled onto aircraft for the thrill of it, pre-911, but I do recall the one time, the last time I ever flew, that I carried a modified plastic knife onto the plane after 911. It might strike you that a plastic knife might not qualify as a weapon, but this one could cut through just about anything, at least briefly- dulls fast. And I'm not a terrorist with a multi-billion dollar machine backing me- I was just a kid who took pleasure in beating systems, whatever those systems might be.

The number of passenger deaths per mile, in a paranoid society, will always follow a downward trend. Every time a fatal accident happens, people investigate the cause and figure out a way to reduce the chance of its re-occurrence. With the ways to kill passengers decreasing, naturally the number killed also decreases. But there is a point of diminishing return. We could cut the number of people dying each year in this country by imposing a speed limit like they once had in the UK- 4 mph, with a man walking out front with a light warning of the cars proceding. I mean, it would cut it to next to nothing. Why don't we do it, then?


----------



## Irv (Feb 21, 2008)

I really don't get the 'bomb-sniffing dogs on trains' bit, unless the train in question is

going to pass under the Hudson river. If some terrorist wants to just blow up a train,

there are thousands of grade crossings totally unguarded.

Seems like there would be much more productive work for these teams - like, perhaps

guarding our borders?


----------



## John Bredin (Feb 21, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The number of passenger deaths per mile, in a paranoid society, will always follow a downward trend. Every time a fatal accident happens, people investigate the cause and figure out a way to reduce the chance of its re-occurrence. With the ways to kill passengers decreasing, naturally the number killed also decreases. But there is a point of diminishing return. We could cut the number of people dying each year in this country by imposing a speed limit like they once had in the UK- 4 mph, with a man walking out front with a light warning of the cars proceding. I mean, it would cut it to next to nothing. Why don't we do it, then?


Because there's such a thing as a happy medium.* To follow my previous example, just because the cops can't prevent crime from occuring *doesn't* mean that:

1) on one extreme the police are useless and should all be cashiered, or

2) on the other extreme, the police should be given plenary powers to punish perpetrators** without judge or jury.

Reasonable people can dispute what are *reasonable* precautions, but most people would disagree that our only two choices are perfect countermeasures or none at all.

*not just defined as a palmist who just got some sucker's money. :lol:

**sorry, had to do it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 21, 2008)

I never said that. I didn't even imply that. I have absolutely no idea how you drew such an inference, if you in fact did. I am stating that the increase in security from what it was pre-911 and what it is now on airlines was not needed, not useful, and not productive. I am saying it inconvenienced people at the cost of billions of tax payer dollars to strengthen a system that already did as good a job as any reasonable system could have done. The banning of liquids and gels was pointless, for example. Anybody who went to that trouble to try this sort of thing would be a fool- the security could be beaten in much easier ways.

I further state that the increase in Amtrak's Security was even more un-needed, un-useful, and unproductive. Trains are very easy terrorist targets because they are ON THE GROUND and thus are very easily accessible through the entire route of travel. IEDs, RPGs, or even a hand gun, from any point near the thousands of miles of unguarded tracks we have in this country. The money and other crap could have been MUCH better spent guarding that then this tommyrot.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 21, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I can't even recall the number of standard knives, box cutters, SAKs, 6"+ knives, and firecrackers I've smuggled onto aircraft for the thrill of it, pre-911, but I do recall the one time, the last time I ever flew, that I carried a modified plastic knife onto the plane after 911. It might strike you that a plastic knife might not qualify as a weapon, but this one could cut through just about anything, at least briefly- dulls fast. And I'm not a terrorist with a multi-billion dollar machine backing me- I was just a kid who took pleasure in beating systems, whatever those systems might be.


I'm not sure I would brag about behavior like that.


----------



## mercedeslove (Feb 21, 2008)

Dakguy201 said:


> I have little problem with the use of bomb detection dogs in public faciilities. I've seen that kind of presence, and I do not feel it is nearly as intrusive as metal detectors or the usual airport screening. Also, I suspect the presence of ANY dog who appeared to be working would scare a would-be terriorist to the point his conduct would make him stand out from the crowd.



LOL I am the type of girl who is all like 'awwwwww puppy' then the thing mauls me.


----------



## meatpuff (Feb 21, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I further state that the increase in Amtrak's Security was even more un-needed, un-useful, and unproductive. Trains are very easy terrorist targets because they are ON THE GROUND and thus are very easily accessible through the entire route of travel. IEDs, RPGs, or even a hand gun, from any point near the thousands of miles of unguarded tracks we have in this country. The money and other crap could have been MUCH better spent guarding that then this tommyrot.


Your assertion that the best way to kill people on a train is by attacking the train en route is not supported by the facts.

Wikipedia keeps a pretty comprehensive list of rail accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents

Perusing the list, one can count seven incidents between 2000 and 2007 of bombs detonated onboard passenger trains/rail transit with the deaths of passengers. Three of these seven incidents constituted multiple trains being blown up simultaneously. On the other hand, there was only one case of a train attacked along the route from outside with either a bomb, RPG, or gun: it was in 2005.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/12...rain/index.html

It did cause a derailment, but no deaths, and a delay of only hours.

7-1. And that "one" didn't even kill anyone. If attacking the train en route from outside is the best way to kill people, wouldn't more terrorists/criminal have carried it out? And more successfully?

I don't think the terrorists' tactics will change, as it takes several orders of magnitude more explosive force to derail a P-42 than to put a deadly amount of shrapnel into someone standing next to you. Amtrak should be doing something about the threat of explosives on board, especially on the NEC and iconic Acela.


----------



## wayman (Feb 21, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Trains are very easy terrorist targets because they are ON THE GROUND and thus are very easily accessible through the entire route of travel. IEDs, RPGs, ...


I wanna cast Magic Missile on the California Zephyr!

OK, roll to hit...

[roll]

Seventeen!

[mumble mumble THAC0 of Superliner mumble mumble Saving Throw mumble]

Ooooh, sorry, the Zephyr made its saving throw--the Magic Missile is deflected off of all the Sightseer Lounge glass.

...


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 22, 2008)

meatpuff said:


> Wikipedia keeps a pretty comprehensive list of rail accidents.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents
> 
> Perusing the list, one can count seven incidents between 2000 and 2007 of bombs detonated onboard passenger trains/rail transit with the deaths of passengers. Three of these seven incidents constituted multiple trains being blown up simultaneously. On the other hand, there was only one case of a train attacked along the route from outside with either a bomb, RPG, or gun: it was in 2005.
> 
> ...


It doesn't look to me like any of those bombings happened in the US. When I'm deciding whether it's safe to walk in some part of Boston, I don't pay much attention at all to data about the safety of walking in India (or New Orleans, for that matter). I'm not sure I understand why the safety of riding on trains would be different in this regard.

It seems to me that, in the US, more people die in automobiles at grade crossings than die from bombs in trains, and if Amtrak's focus is on reducing deaths, the safety of grade crossings would be a more appropriate place for Amtrak to spend money. (Then again, Amtrak just doesn't own very many grade crossings at all in the grand scheme of things; there are a handful on the northeast corridor, and Amtrak doesn't own a whole lot of track other than the northeast corridor.)

While it's not a terrorist attack, the worst ever Amtrak accident, with 47 deaths, occured as a result of a damaged bridge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bayou_Canot_train_disaster has the details.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 22, 2008)

The only terrorist train incident I remember in the US was this, the Palo Verde Derailment. This was caused by outside forces, no?


----------



## George Harris (Feb 22, 2008)

Sunset Limited Derailment in Arizona:

The FBI's "likely a disgruntled rail worker because he knew to keep the track circuit continuity" in reality reduced the possible list of suspects almost as much as their determination after the Oaklahoma City bombing that the person "had access to ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel in quantity and was probably unhappy with the way the situation in Waco 9and a couple other places) was handled" which basically eliminated urban apartment dwellers but included for sure almost the entire population of the rural US. There are probably only a few million people that understand the concept of electrical continuity.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 22, 2008)

Of electrical continuity, yes. Of its usage in tripping railroad track signals less so.7


----------

