Passenger Trains > TSA in Savannah

Does anyone have information on a story I heard, that the TSA was searching people (including children) after they disembarked from a train in Savannah? What is the reason and legal basis for this, if true? What is the penalty if you don't comply?

I have heard nothing about such an incident, but since TSA does not usually search rail passengers, and IF this is true, it must have been in response to a specific piece of intelligence. In other words, a credible threat.

The lawyers among us can correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that the searches can only take place if there is probable cause of discovering evidence of a crime or intent to commit a crime.

As to sanctions for refusing to be searched, I suspect the only way to find out is to refuse and see what happens.

Art House
Gettysburg, Pa.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/11 07:29 by aehouse.

Here's the video of the "credible threat."

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/36811-passengers-harassed-by-terrorists-after-leaving-train/

More discussion (and the video again) here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1186557-tsa-bag-inspections-search-after-travel.html

It's not about safety--it's about conditioning the serfs for the totalitarian dictatorship.

TSA has statutory authority to search train passengers right now, although it hasn't used the authority other than in a few test runs. Also bus passengers.

Searching people as they LEAVE the train is suspicious though. You'd think it would conducted be as they board.

I can't get the video to load, but.... If they're searching people AFTER travel, that's not right. TSA is supposed to be about Transportation Safety, hence the name, but if the travel is over, they've got no authority. And if the FBI or the local police want to do these searches, they'd better have warrants or probable cause.

NOW maybe you'll understand why that Seattle restaurant owner won't serve TSA agents and employees...as mentioned yesterday in a thread, clearly identified as "OT" (off-topic), now deleted.

The original poster on the amtraktrains forum writes, "If I can actually find the time, I'm firing off a letter to Bordman (SIC), the Amtrak board and its members (aren't they the same?), and at least Biden, but possibly Obama, my reps and senators at both levels, and maybe even LaHood!"

Well, lotsa luck. Amtrak notifies its passengers that they are subject to search as a condition of travel. That means they're in on it, as part of the overreaching security "umbrella" that is supposed to protect us.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/11 08:53 by GenePoon.

aehouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The lawyers among us can correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that the searches can only take place
> if there is probable cause of discovering evidence of a crime or intent to commit a crime.

No. As a condition of traveling on Amtrak (or the airlines, or the bus lines) you submit to search as a condition of carriage.

G
> No. As a condition of traveling on Amtrak (or the
> airlines, or the bus lines) you submit to search
> as a condition of carriage.


But it seems to me that after you've completed travel you're no longer subject to these rules. By analogy TSA could come after me today because I got off #3 yesterday (which I did).

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> G
> > No. As a condition of traveling on Amtrak (or
> the
> > airlines, or the bus lines) you submit to
> search
> > as a condition of carriage.
>
>
> But it seems to me that after you've completed
> travel you're no longer subject to these rules.
> By analogy TSA could come after me today because I
> got off #3 yesterday (which I did).

Unless someone has been extremely mouthy or made threatening remarks, I've never seen or heard of TSA pulling this crap on airline passengers who are exiting an aircraft. That family being searched looks to be about as "threatening" as my Labrador Retriever.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> G
> > No. As a condition of traveling on Amtrak (or
> the
> > airlines, or the bus lines) you submit to
> search
> > as a condition of carriage.
>
>
> But it seems to me that after you've completed
> travel you're no longer subject to these rules.
> By analogy TSA could come after me today because I
> got off #3 yesterday (which I did).


I haven't read the statute, but I'd bet it covers the train / plane, any support facilities, the stations or airport property, etc.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> G
> > No. As a condition of traveling on Amtrak (or
> the
> > airlines, or the bus lines) you submit to
> search
> > as a condition of carriage.
>
>
> But it seems to me that after you've completed
> travel you're no longer subject to these rules.
> By analogy TSA could come after me today because I
> got off #3 yesterday (which I did).


If a "credible threat" were to be found on #3 after you got off, you betcha it applies to you.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ptolemy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > G
> > > No. As a condition of traveling on Amtrak
> (or
> > the
> > > airlines, or the bus lines) you submit to
> > search
> > > as a condition of carriage.
> >
> >
> > But it seems to me that after you've completed
> > travel you're no longer subject to these rules.
>
> > By analogy TSA could come after me today because
> I
> > got off #3 yesterday (which I did).
>
>
> If a "credible threat" were to be found on #3
> after you got off, you betcha it applies to you.

That, however, is far different from subjecting everyone who exits the train to a search "just because".

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That, however, is far different from subjecting
> everyone who exits the train to a search "just
> because".


Absolutely true, and it's the "just because" searches that make the whole situation look like its a power grab, an effort to make such warrantless searches an everyday part of life.

Another question crops up: did the passengers remaining on the train (if any...it could have been the Palmetto) get searched, too?

And if it WAS the Palmetto, did the train itself get searched for a "specific threat?" Or was this, indeed, an exercise in social condtioning?

-GP

Bandito wrote: "It's not about safety--it's about conditioning the serfs for the totalitarian dictatorship." I know this sounds loony, but this is the whole point. IF the TSA wanted to be effective, they would get advice, and follow in Israel's footsteps as done at LAX and Tel Aviv. It's another reason why the TSA has just shot down the option some airports had to replace TSA with people and methods the airports themselves choose.

Once we get used to being searched, we're more pliant for being searched in other venues. It just takes a few years.

It's almost impossible to convince people of things like this by writing about it. One has to experience it firsthand, and more than once or twice, to really begin to believe it. Reading about it usually just blows fuses, and the reader moves on.

/rant

norm1153 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bandito wrote: "It's not about safety--it's about
> conditioning the serfs for the totalitarian
> dictatorship." I know this sounds loony, but this
> is the whole point. IF the TSA wanted to be
> effective, they would get advice, and follow in
> Israel's footsteps as done at LAX and Tel Aviv.
> It's another reason why the TSA has just shot down
> the option some airports had to replace TSA with
> people and methods the airports themselves choose.
>
>
> Once we get used to being searched, we're more
> pliant for being searched in other venues. It
> just takes a few years.
>
> It's almost impossible to convince people of
> things like this by writing about it. One has to
> experience it firsthand, and more than once or
> twice, to really begin to believe it. Reading
> about it usually just blows fuses, and the reader
> moves on.
>
> /rant


The Obama administration has agreed to allow the screeners and supervisors to be represented by a union. That should do wonders for improving customer service and respecting the people they're supposed to be protecting. If there's little discipline and oversight now, the situation won't be improved with a union.

Just what we need is another government employee union!!! Then we can have a Wisconsin situation at the federal level. This country and the 50 states can not afford government employee unions--just my 2cents. Flame on.

Marty Harrison
Knob Noster, MO

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone have information on a story I heard,
> that the TSA was searching people (including
> children) after they disembarked from a train in
> Savannah? What is the reason and legal basis for
> this, if true? What is the penalty if you don't
> comply?

Okay, boys and girls, Can you say "Guantanamo"?

(Doesn't look right. Sorry if the spelling is wrong.)

livesteamer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just what we need is another government employee
> union!!! Then we can have a Wisconsin situation
> at the federal level. This country and the 50
> states can not afford government employee
> unions--just my 2cents. Flame on.


To be honest, I am not that big a fan of unions, although I am leaning ever closer to favoring them, as I think collective bargaining (for all employees) is probably something that needs to make a comeback. Corporate hacks have managed, with the help of friendly politicians, to eliminate substantial amounts of pensions and retirement savings from the private sector over the past decade. The last hurdle is to gut public employee benefits. People have let this happen, even cheered it on, seemingly unaware that they are the ones being fleeced. This is class warfare and it should continue as long as this situation continues.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/11 19:01 by warren49.

livesteamer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just what we need is another government employee
> union!!! Then we can have a Wisconsin situation
> at the federal level. This country and the 50
> states can not afford government employee
> unions--just my 2cents. Flame on.

On the other hand...it may be that those employees think that this activity is as useless and insulting as we do, but they do not have a system by which they can register their concerns. A union provides this mechanism. As a long-time AFGE member I know that this is a plausible scenario.