I just heard on the news that AMTRAK is starting to randomly inspect carry on bags and will have security guards on the platform and possibly aboard the train, armed with automatic weapons.
Sigh. It is sad that it has come to this, but inevitable.
The only question is: Why now?
Election year!
Steve Featherkile said:
I just heard on the news that AMTRAK is starting to randomly inspect carry on bags and will have security guards on the platform and possibly aboard the train, armed with automatic weapons.Sigh. It is sad that it has come to this, but inevitable.
The only question is: Why now?
reminds me of a old movie title…
“Something Wicked This Way Comes”
As the security gets tighter, the Islamo-crazies have to pick lower priority targets. The Government probably uncovered a plot to blow up or de-rail an AMTRAK train.
I guess someone forgot to tell the Feds about a little thing called the Bill of Rights, in particular the prohibition against searches without a warrant.
No where in the bill of rights does it give you a right to ride a train!!
Under ‘common law’ one is required to present their carry-on luggage for inspection. The ‘enforcement officer’ (store detective, security guard, etc.) is forbidden to actually place his hands inside the baggage to inspect it as this will actually violate your rights under common law. He is within his rights to request that the individual, himself, move the items inside the baggage to afford the ‘officer’ a better view of the contents. He cannot request you to actually remove items from the baggage. Failure to comply with a request to look inside your baggage will result in you being retained so that a police officer may be summoned. The refusal constitutes a breach of common law and this then enables a search of your baggage by an appropriate officer, empowered under law (a police officer).
However, since most people are law abiding citizens they allow their common law rights to be violated on a daily basis. Everyone knows that if one refuses a bag search then by default they must be guilty. A quaint little human trait that if one stands up fot their rights then they must have something to hide. Security officers ‘prey’ on this trait as essentially any law abiding person would fully comply with the request of a duly appointed security officer.
The following is not a racial comment but merely a fact. I worked for 35 years at Sydney International Airport. After ‘911’ there was a marked increase in the number of security officers employed at the airport. What myself and many others found slightly perplexing was that Arabs were predominantly responsible for the 911 hijackings and yet the security company that had the employment contract for the airport had a policy of only employing Arabs. so essentially we were daily searched as we entered and left the premises by the same race of people who were responsible for the reason for the searches in the first place. Sort of like ‘job security’.
On Monday I took AMTRAK to New York City and back. The ride down was not bad at all actually quite comfprtable. Not so the return trip. The cattle call at Penn Station to get on the train was ridiculous. I don’t see how they are going to check bags there unless they get a better system to get people to the entrance then down to the tracks.
On the trip back the train cars got so hot that a bunch of us started to stand in the vestibules. Of course according to the conductors there was nothing they could do about the heat in the cars. Next time I’ll wear a bathing suit on the train.
LAO
Wouldn’t if be fun if on a certain day, everybody stood on their rights and demanded a policeman to inspect his bag. That might put a crimp in the system.
madwolf
“Even revolutionaries like chocolate chip cookies.”-Doonsberry.
If you notice a lot of places now have signs that read “By entering here you give your consent to be searched”.
Sure, but you can demand to be inspected by someone who knows WTF he is doing!
I’m not sure this is going to come out right. SO if not forgive me.
Ok. I belive and support everyones rights and there right to privacy. How ever I also belive that once you enter public space you give up some of those rights. Everyone has the right to be safe, so the question is does your right to privacy out wieght my right to safty?
Now we all know we have the right to free speech but we do not have the right to yell fire in a theater, unless there is one. Now, you can take your bag with you, you just can’t have a bomb in it and the only way to tell is to look.
Now I hope that came out right.
mark Dash.... said:And nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it says, "...unless you are on a train or boarding a plane, in which case you have no rights."
No where in the bill of rights does it give you a right to ride a train!!
There are no exceptions in the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the Ninth Amendment states that, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that we have many rights besides those listed in the Bill of Rights, and those unwritten rights are no less worthy of protection.
Here’s the full text of the Fourth Amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Searching people without a warrant and without probable cause is clearly unconstitutional – not that anyone in government seems to give a damn about the Constitution anymore. Our God-given and Constitutionally-protected rights are being tossed aside whenever they happen to be inconvenient to some supposedly noble goal. The only thing in the Bill of Rights that has not yet been violated is the Third Amendment, which prohibits the government from housing soldiers in people’s homes.
Unfortunately the politicians aren’t the only problem. Too many citizens are too willing to surrender their rights (and everyone else’s rights) for the false promise of “security”.
By the time we’ve devolved to a total police state, it’ll be too late do anything about it. There will be so many illegal “exceptions” on our rights that we’ll have no rights at all. There’ll be no second American Revolution, because no one will have free speech to incite a revolution, no one will a gun to fight a revolution, no one will be free from government snooping, and everyone will be subject to search and seizure at anytime and anyplace.
BTW, here’s a link to the full text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments
Here we are moving into a political discussion in the General train forum again - we really should take this to the off-topic forum where it can be ignored by those who choose to.
That being said I agree completely with Ray. I am not pro-terrorist, but if, in our zeal to protect ourselves, we become what we hate, then the terrorists win.
There was a line in one of the new Star Wars movies when the president of the senate asks to be voted into complete power, in order to save the union. I wish I could remember it because it was very timely and still has relevance. Something to do with the orderly demise of democracy.
Jon
Wow Ray, a real home-run!
cale
You can have security, or you can have freedom. Don’t ever count on having both at the same time. - L. Long, ca 2342.
Those who give up freedom to gain security, deserve neither. B. Franklin, ca 1776.
Is searching my bag prior to boarding an airliner or the train really an “unreasonable search?”
Hmmmmm. The jury is still out on that one.
Ray,
as quoted by you from fourth amendment -
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
Under 'common law' which is based on the English system of judgement and no doubt included in the Constitution, when the good fathers, all those years ago, wrote the Bill of Rights, surprisingly ones goods and chatels that one carries with him is somehow excluded and this includes 'carryon luggage'. The common law and Bill of rights specifically excludes one's person and goods actually carried on one's person from being subjected to unneccessary and unjust searches. A security officer cannot search your physical person or clothing actually being worn on your body. He must summon a police officer to carry out the search. A police officer is able to search your body, or belongings attached to your body, if he has 'probable cause', which means that the person must be suspected of committing a felony, such as possession of stolen goods or drugs.
One has only to travel abroad to realise that one's possessions, such as suitcases, are randomly searched and checked for the 'odour telltale' of bomb components or custom's violations. A lot goes on behind the scene, for our protection. Peace of mind is something which we value and most would not argue with a request to look at one's personal carry on luggage. However, if a security officer was to frisk a person then his rights are very much violated. Many simply see random searches as symptomatic of our current times. Random searches have been part of many cultures for generations and are accepted as being part of their lives. Any notion of a bill of rights is alien to their knowledge, it is simply how life is.Move it to off-topic, please, or I will.