TSA spreading its wings

[jis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CelticWhisper]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tricia]

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

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

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

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

 

[JoeBas]

I've never had anyone act inappropriately and

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

FIFY. HTH. HAND.

 

[WinNix]

Those who willingly sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit: spelling

 

[MrFSS]

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

 

[leemell]

[snip]

Funny I'm far more afraid of TSA (stripping us of our rights, and making us miss trains) than I am of the actual terrorists.

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

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

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

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

 

[leemell]

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

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

 

[Nathanael]

Is the TSA really that bad?

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

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

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

 

[GG-1]

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

 

[CelticWhisper]

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

 

[Ispolkom]

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

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

 

[MikefromCrete]

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

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

 

[leemell]

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

 

[amamba]

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

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

 

[the_traveler]

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

 

[Ispolkom]

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

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

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

 

[leemell]

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

 

[leemell]

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

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

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

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

 

[Coast To Coast]

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

 

[Ispolkom]

Leemell,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bob Dylan]

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

 

[the_traveler]

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

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

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

 

[amamba]

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

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

 

[pennyk]

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