TSA Invades Chicago's Union Station

Youtube ^ | 7/8/2012 | 1776umphreys

[Kirkwood]

How does harassing the passengers at one station protect passengers? It doesn’t. This is theater. You should understand that.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

“They don’t ride Amtrak, they take the subway/El system.”

I realized that after I posted, but seeing how the TSA (and most all other federal agencies) are all about mission creep and expanding their power, it won’t be long before we see the blue shirts on commuter trains and subways in major cities.

[DoughtyOne]

You have a point there. It’s the same one that I would raise when we’re talking about fixes that government refuses to do, that then cause us to focus on citizens vs the foreign nationals who for the most part are causing the problems.

We won’t seal our border
We refuse to deport illegals
We allow people from terrorist states to come here
We allow Islamic leaders to denigrate the U. S. and advocate violence
We find out Islamic trainees are demanding to be taught how to fly a plane, but refuse to be taught how to land, and we do nothing

It’s a valid point to mention the road stops that are already authorized here. The vehicle code and sobriety checkpoints are another instance of this.

However, how many laws are on the books that force mandatory ten to twenty year prison terms due to a first or even second drunk driving conviction?

We have people on the road with six and seven convictions. then we have illegals on the road doing what they do. And we don’t deport them.

The federal government is going postal with draconian regulations, and the fix is to assign a military division to internal military maneuvers.

We all know where this leads. The public is being seen in terms of being Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other terrorist organization, if they dare speak up about unconstitutional matters, and the real terrorists get a free pass, which means we have to be the focus of even more scrutiny.

[Travis McGee]

[BigpapaBo]

Search VIPER chckpoints.

Highway searches are already here thanks to the goon squad and Janet

[Iron Munro]

I it ain’t broke the feds will fix it ‘til it is.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the mention.

Here’s an article I ran into:

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide

It documents VIPR reams working in Tennessee to prevent terrorism. So far as I know, there aren’t any roads blocked to stop all private vehicles headed in a certain direction. There may be articles about that I missed. I’m not sure.

I found this excuse for focusing on trucking to be down-right laughable.

“The random inspections really aren’t any more thorough than normal, according to Tennessee Highway Patrol Colonel Tracy Trott who says paying attention to details can make a difference. Trott pointed out it was an Oklahoma state trooper who stopped Timothy McVeigh for not having a license plate after the Oklahoma City bombing in the early 1990s.”

Elohim City close to the Arkansas/Texas border, had at least three undercover informants on the premises. Terry McVeigh came through and one of the informants did tip off the authorities. She was quite specific too, giving the names of two possible bombing targets, one of them the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.

Didn’t need truck stop VIPR teams to prevent that bombing. We don’t need them now either.

There are no viable grounds for creating a federal police force. End of story...

This will not end well. You start seeing normal citizens as the problem, and you’ll become paranoid beyond belief. We’re seeing that. Reason has left the building...

[1rudeboy]

There ya' go. Your bias against the TSA (that I share, incidentally), prevents you from seeing that the comment was ignorant of the all the attacks, attempted and actual, against train facilities across the world.

The only difference is that, despite my bias, I saw the comment for what it actually is.

[1rudeboy]

Fifty Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11: The Homegrown Threat and the Long War on Terrorism. [Free Republic]

[DoughtyOne]

There ya' go. Your bias against the TSA (that I share, incidentally), prevents you from seeing that the comment was ignorant of the all the attacks, attempted and actual, against train facilities across the world.

A lot of things happen around the world. Most of them don't take place here. And despite not having a federal police force on our soil prior to this time, nothing happened here with regard to trains.

I see this as merely more of a power grab, more union members, more Democrat votes.

The only difference is that, despite my bias, I saw the comment for what it actually is.

So did I. And I see it as quite logical on the face of it.

We do not need a federal police force. What we need is law enforcement and immigration enforcement that reduces the level of threat we face, so that contrivances are NOT required.

[lowbridge]

Bump

[JohnKinAK]

Fifty Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11: The Homegrown Threat and the Long War on Terrorism. __________________________________________________________ According to DHS believing in Liberty, quoting the Constitution or the Bible and being a veteran makes you a Homegrown Threat Not to mention all of the so-called plots that were instigated by the FBI;it seems whenever 4 people meet to plot at least 2 of them are FBI informants. As for the the legitimate threats not one has been stopped by TSA. In fact TSA goes out of its way to target those LEAST LIKELY to be involved in terrorism.

[Sarajevo]

Good Lord. I mean, really. When I get home, I’ll post a link to the Heritage study. Subways (in the US) have been targeted multiple times. I’m on a cell phone, now.

Is that the same think tank that decided that single-payer health care system was the way to go?

[1rudeboy]

Uh, no. Got a link?

[1rudeboy]

How common is train hijacking? How often do terrorists drive trains into buildings?

Not your comment, I understand. But you find it logical. So explain the logic.

[Sirius Lee]

I simply stated a fact, and everyone feels the need to point out the slippery slope that I already see. Yet they cannot see how dumb post #6 was.

No, you vomited an uninformed opinion and started attacking other FReepers. Everybody sees how dumb your response to post #6 was. Keep whacking yourself in the head with a hammer though. It's entertaining to watch.

[1rudeboy]

Nothing pisses a FReeper off more than informing them that they engaged in a knee-jerk reaction. Denial, and defensiveness . . . that’s all you see. Do you want to defend the stupid comment, or not?

[1rudeboy]

How common is train hijacking? How often do terrorists drive trains into buildings?

Let's take apart the above comment, shall we?

How common is train hijacking?
Rare, if ever.

How often do terrorists drive trains into buildings?
Never. Duh.

But the fact of the matter is that terrorists target all things train-like, and they have been doing so for decades. So you will deny that fact to go after the TSA? Ffs, choose another horse. Because the above (italicized) argument is a loser.

[DoughtyOne]

Typically trains go through right through stations, but that isn’t the exclusive rule. At the end of lines, and places where line spurs head off in different directions, trains can and do wind up in stations where they can in fact run into buildings. The poster could just as easily have talked about running trains off the tracks causing severe disasters. He didn’t, but we haven’t had train become terrorist targets here yet.

The point is, we don’t need a federal police force. The FBI has traditionally carried out that role when there needed to be an investigation carried out over state lines. There is absolutely no need to go beyond that.

I still say, we should eliminate clear threats, and leave the general public alone.

[1010RD]

I was unaware of the "special needs" exception to the 4th Amendment until reading this article. Here's the case from the NY Subway: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1252582.html As set forth more fully below, we hold that the special needs doctrine may apply where, as here, the subject of a search possesses a full privacy expectation.   Further, we hold that preventing a terrorist attack on the subway is a “special” need within the meaning of the doctrine.   Finally, we hold that the search program is reasonable because it serves a paramount government interest and, under the circumstances, is narrowly tailored and sufficiently effective. Here's more on the "special needs" exception: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm The special needs exception covers testing which 'is not designed to serve the ordinary needs of law enforcement [because] . . . results may not be used in criminal prosecution.' Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 666 (emphases added). Even so, a search in the special needs context almost always requires individualized suspicion. See, e.g., Portillo v. U.S. Dist. Court, 15 F.3d 819, 823 (9th Cir.'94) (requiring individualized suspicion for urinalysis testing under the probationer special needs exception). The rare special needs cases which do not require individualized suspicion involve persons who voluntarily participate in a highly regulated context. See, e.g., Von Raab, at 671, 677 (noting that 'certain forms of employment may diminish privacy expectations' for the 'employees who seek to be promoted' to certain positions); Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton, 1995 WL 373274, *6-*7 (U.S. June 26, '95) (noting that schools are highly regulated and 'like adults who choose to participate in a `closely regulated industry,' students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy'). Nonetheless, routine searches that intrude into prisoners' bodies without probable cause may be upheld only when the search is undertaken pursuant to a valid prison regulation that is reasonably related to a legitimate penological objective. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 87-91 ('87); see, e.g., Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 387 (9th Cir.'90) (remanding for evidence of a specific penological objective because 'general protestations of concern for the welfare of the citizens of Nevada and the prison community are simply insufficient to render the involuntary seizure of blood specimens, even from prison inmates, constitutionally reasonable'). ********************************************************* The Courts' reasoning is very faulty and a true slippery slope. Essentially they argue two items: A. The NY Subway system is large, critical and an icon therefore the VIPR teams are not violating the 4th and B. A highly regulated system allows for this type of search. So essentially they're green lighting more government regulation because of government regulation/ownership and ignoring A. by applying it to just about everywhere. What if the transportation company is private? At what point do they have to post guardians/protectors everywhere? The best prevention of terrorist acts proven by both Great Britain and Israel is effective intelligence work. Random testing cannot work and doesn't. It is a vast waste of resources and security theater.