Air Marshals on trains and buses?

[FearofFutility]

Just heard on MSNBC that air marshals will be used on trains and buses. I'm trying to find a link. :scared: Has anyone else heard of this before?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10456738/

Edited to add link

[MadHound]

1. Yes, heard about it this morning on NPR

And did a thread on the Yahoo article here<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5596027>

Very, very scary thought. Given the number of mentally ill and other wierd folk who travel these less expensive forms of mass transit, sounds like the ol' Greyhound is going to become a rolling shooting gallery:scared:

[FearofFutility]

3. Sorry about the dupe

I looked, but didn't see it. My search skills aren't very sophisticated.

[MadHound]

6. On, no problem, no offense taken

My posts tend to sink rather quickly:hi:

[verse18]

18. Your right

I work as a mental health crisis assessor and I have seen a few mentally ill people kicked off the Greyhound buses here in Memphis for being "highly agitated."

This is not a good sign.

[Marie26]

34. Bad news

My sister-in-law is a mental health counselor and says that her clients ride the Greyhound bus all the time. Mentally ill + armed police is not a good combination. And I'm not sure I understand the point. Is there really a big epidemic of terrorist hijaking buses?

[MercutioATC]

2. Why not? They have a better record of dealing with the public than most

police forces. (I'm assuming this is in reference to the Miami incident)

In the past four years, FAMs have discharged their weapons exactly ONCE. How many large police departments can make that claim?

[MadHound]

5. And given their track record, that isn't very comforting

One time discharge, one dead mentally unstable innocent individual. And now they're proposing to put this poor track record into ground based mass transit, which transports many more of the mentally ill and unstable population. Not a real bright idea there.

[MercutioATC]

10. One discharge in four years. How many situations have they faced where

they dealt with things WITHOUT discharging their weapons?

It's actually a GREAT track record.

[Horse with no Name]

14. You are ignoring the obvious

The people that make it on the airplanes have already been screened and the likelihood of anyone carrying an explosive device is really quite small.
On an airplane they exist in a vacuum with pre-screened passengers and still shot one. A mentally ill one at that.
On a bus or train full of unscreened passengers--more of whom are likely to be suffering from mental illness than they would encounter on an airplane, you can bet it will be open season.

[MercutioATC]

15. Don't kid yourself...the TSA "screening" is a joke...

...and the FAMs know it.

"Recent tests of airport security to determine whether screeners would discover concealed guns, knives, and simulated bombs had failure rates comparable to tests done in the 1980s and 1990s, says Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who was briefed in April on the classified results. The earlier tests showed that screeners missed roughly 20 percent of the prohibited items at checkpoints and that screeners using X-ray machines to examine luggage missed 2 of every 3 bags carrying simulated explosives."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/07/06_400 ...

[FearofFutility]

16. Well, there's screening of luggage vs.

screening of passengers. A known terrorist would have a hard time getting on a plane, but ANYONE can get on a bus.

[MercutioATC]

24. If a "known terrorist" gets on a bus, wouldn't security be a good idea?

[FearofFutility]

27. My point was that

on airplanes, people are weeded out providing the air marshals with a line of defense, so to speak. I would imagine that they would be a lot more "jumpy" and possibly more trigger happy on buses. This, coupled with the Pentagon spying on groups like the Quakers labeling them a threat, makes me believe that we are living in a police state.

[MercutioATC]

28. They don't trust the TSA screening and they're not "jumpy" now...

...what makes you think they'd become suddenly jumpy now?

[FearofFutility]

30. Pure speculation.

They may not trust TSA screening, but there is screening. On buses, there is zero. Maybe that's coming next.

[MercutioATC]

33. If they're putting Marshals on buses, that's a definite possibility.

I fly...I don't take the bus. I already go through that "security" stuff. What's the problem with making bus-riders do the same goofy stuff?

[Marie26]

36. But why do it?

What exactly is the danger that these marshals are protecting us from? On a plane, terrorists have hijacked the plane & used it as a weapon. So, there's a good argument for having marshals on flights. When's the last time a terrorist hijacked a Greyhound bus? Why would they? You could go anywhere faster in a car; there's nothing a bus can do that wouldn't be easier in a car. The only danger I can foresee is if a terrorist comes onto the bus w/a hidden bomb, like in London, but a marshal wouldn't be able to stop an explosion. So how would armed marshals really help?

[MercutioATC]

38. I DON'T think it's warranted.

I do, however, take issue with the suggestion that FAMs are somehow unfit because of their record.

I don't see why they have to be on buses and trains in the first place. If they are put there, however, I'd argue that their history shows more restraint than most major metropolitan police departments when it comes to shooting.

[Marie26]

39. It's not that I think they're unrestrained

But if there's no reason for them to be there, it doesn't matter how restrained they are, right? Even restrained officers pose more of a risk than no officers, especially when you admit there's no real reason to have them there. It seems like you're kind of fighting a different battle (over air marshals on planes) rather than the issue here. And I have to wonder why we're apparantly willing to spend millions over a non-existant problem. According to the 9/11 commission, we haven't even addressed the basic problems, like emergency communications, since that day. Yet we're willing to invest millions of dollars to stop the epidemic problem of bus hijacking. :eyes:

[MercutioATC]

40. That's an issue on which we agree.

I don't see a reason for them to be there either. I also agree that a large police presence on buses and trains would potentially increase the likelihood of an unjustified shooting.

[Marie26]

54. Well,

then my work here is done. :)

[FearofFutility]

47. It does make one wonder

What's the reason behind this? Apparently, there's also an unseen epidemic of Quakers and other peaceful anti-war groups making threats against the state.

[MercutioATC]

37. Maybe that IS what's coming next...

I don't think it's warranted, but that's a completely different issue.

[Horse with no Name]

17. Don't kid yourself. This is a classist issue.

People that fly are for the majority middle to upper class.
People that ride buses are not.
This is ripe for an abuse of power and an introduction into a police state.

[MercutioATC]

21. Everybody I know flies at times...

...flying is no longer an experience reserved for the wealthy...it hasn't been for years. Frequently, I can fly for less tan the cost of a bus or train ticket.

[Horse with no Name]

23. I didn't say wealthy

I DISTINCTLY said middle or upper class.
Very seldom will you see a very poor person flying.

Also, people without ID's cannot fly, however they can get on the bus.
Not many of the mentally ill that were turned out into the streets in the 90's carry current ID.
Most don't take medications because they don't have the money.
If these Air Marshall's can't handle ONE obviously mentally ill man, I can't even imagine what they will do somewhere like New York City on a bus where there are likely to be several a day.

[MercutioATC]

26. A couple of points:

1) "Lower class' people fly too, precisely because it's frequently less expensive to fly than take a bus or train.

2) People without IDs are a separate issue. Either the standard will be different or we'll start getting them IDs.

3) FAMs, by reason, have successfully "handled" MANY mentally ill people in the past four years. There's no indication that that wouldn't continue to be the case.

If you want to disagree with the idea thattrains and buses need any increased security, that's fine. Objecting to the added security on the basis that the personnel are FAMs, however seems, to me, unfounded.

[Horse with no Name]

31. "Lower" class is your phrase

I prefer poor. "Lower" denotes that someone is beneath me, I find it actually very offensive.
I will beg to differ with you.
Poor people do not make flying a habit.
I'm speaking of real poor people.
Perhaps not what you or any other elitist might consider poor.
It might be cheaper if you book your flights ahead and use your frequent flier miles, but not many REALLY POOR people have access to Expedia.com or credit cards in which to purchase an airplane ticket at a reasonable price.
I don't argue the point that there needs to be increased security on public transportation.
My point is that it doesn't need to be federalized.

[MercutioATC]

35. You made this a "class" issue.

I'm not demeaning anybody...just continuing the sequence of "upper, middle, lower".

The last time I checked, ANYBODY could get into a library. Libraries have computers. You aren't computer literate? No problem. Are you able to use a telephone? Great. You can still frequently book a plane ticket for a comparable or lesser price.

As far as federalization, I don't understand your concern. Is security better trained if it's a state agency instead of a federal agency? I'd think it'd be exactly the opposite. I'd also think that the reason for federal Marshals would be the fact that they're crossing multiple states over the course of a trip. Somebody with national jurisdiction would be a benefit (not to mention, I'd LOVE to see a state willing to pay to send its personnel to a completely different state to do their job...it just wouldn't happen).

[Marie26]

41. As a general rule

If you did a survey of a plane of people, most would be upper-to-middle class. I'm betting you & the friends who have booked tickets also fall into that catagory. One thing you missed in the little library scenario is that many poor people don't have a credit card, or Internet skills to search for bargains, not to mention the money. A bus is still cheaper than a plane almost all the time. If you did a survey on a Greyhound Bus going to CA, the majority would be working-class or poor. That seems kind of obvious. Trust me, most people wouldn't take a long-distance bus unless they had to.

[MercutioATC]

43. One of the friends I'm referencing...

...is a single mother who makes about 10K per year. Even in Ohio, that's hardly "middle class".

[Marie26]

46. Assumptions

Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed that person's income level. But usually, there will be far more people w/>20,000 income on a bus than on a plane.

[MercutioATC]

48. Agreed. I just don't feel that air travel is the sole domain of the

middle ans upper class.

There are plenty of people with lower invomes who fly.


That said, a lot more of the financially disadvantaged take buses or trains.

[mattclearing]

25. Seconded. Subways and buses are loaded with people

doing things you'd never see on a plane. And any terrorist would be likely to try to blend in, not act crazy.

This is more police state shit.

[FearofFutility]

7. I could be wrong

, but I suspect that the incidents of shooting would go up quite a bit if they start riding trains and buses. I've encountered quite a few unusual people who are harmless while riding buses, and believe that their behavior could easily be misinterpreted resulting in tragedy.

[crikkett]

19. Any numbers from before the last 4 years?

If it's 0 (zero) discharges in the entire history of the org, then 1 discharge last month, then we might have a problem of increasing magnitude. There's simply a problem with anybody's "training" when an innocent man ends up shot in the back.

But I wonder about the overall motivation behind this push. Why federalize busses and trains by putting federal marshalls on them? To shrink government? To further limit freedom of travel? So that more people can be ID'd, arbitrarily shot or detained without recourse...?

:scared:
This reminds me of the stories we were told as kids about the USSR.

[MercutioATC]

22. I'd warn against kneejerk judgements...

Unless there's another shooting, we are still left with a very safe system. There is NO indication, at this point, of a "problem of increasing magnitude".

I have no idea what the motivation is behind this push, but I'm betting it's all political. Faced with miserable poll numbers, Bush HAS to do something...providing an illusion of security can't hurt.

[notadmblnd]

29. but it does hurt

it creates a false sense of security. What people don't seem to understand is that no matter how much of our personal freedoms we passivly give up to these facists, they can not make us safe! all it does is advance the police state.

[FearofFutility]

32. Exactly!!

[WLKjr]

4. Confusus say air marshal on train

very silly. Should be called rail marshall.

[FearofFutility]

8. Good point! n/t

[buddysmellgood]

45. Agreed...unless they float.

[Horse with no Name]

49. Or call them simply what they are

Federal Marshalls.

[WLKjr]

51. I thought that as well. Why don't they call them

Federal Marshals anymore? Does it sound to "official"? or something?

[ProfessorGAC]

50. That's The First Thing I Thought

An air marshall on a train is, by definition, NOT AN AIR MARSHALL! Well, if he or she can fly around the train constantly, maybe!
The Professor

[dkofos]

9. Is it fear of flying??

Or is it that the govt knows another attack is coming
and they want fewer air marshals on the planes to make it
easier for the terra-ists??

Where is my tinfoil hat??

[FearofFutility]

11. My tinfoil started to buzz

when I heard about this and that the Pentagon is spying on groups like the Quakers and considering them a threat. I'm really starting to believe that we do in fact live in a police state.

[FearofFutility]

12. Oops!

I got website not responding when I tried to post my response so I thought that it didn't go through.

[Parche]

13. Terror

Just one more thing to scare the people into not taking Amtrak, as they want to
send the money to Iraq instead of funding the rail system here in the US.


TERRA ON GREYHOUND................????

[RebelOne]

20. They will be patroling all mass transit systems here in Atlanta.

http://www.wsbtv.com/travelgetaways/5531077/detail.html

[Marie26]

44. I love this line from the article

The article describes this massive deployment of air marshalls to trains, buses, ferries, & subways all over the country. Then it adds off-handedly, "Federal officials told the paper there is no new intelligence indicating that terrorists are interested in targeting transportation modes." So why are they there now? What's the real motivation for launching this major operation?

[Walt Starr]

42. I do hope they get some training in the protocols for recognizing

behavior patterns which indicate mental illness, as many police departments do.

It is far more likely they will encounter passengers who suffer from mental illness on trains and buses since there is no screening process and genreally speaking, persons with untreated mental illness will more likely be traveling via bus than via plane due to costs associated with each. Poor people are more likely to suffer from untreated mental illness than middle class and rich people.

[goodhue]

52. Questions Raised: Are Air Marshals Prepared . . .

From Airline and Airport Security News . . .

http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?id=4620&siteSection=5

Questions Raised: Are Air Marshals Prepared to Handle Mentally Ill Passengers?

Posted: December 13th, 2005 05:25 PM EDT

DOUGLAS E. BEEMAN, PAUL HERRERA AND MICHAEL FISHER
The Press Enterprise

The death of a bipolar airline passenger at the hands of federal air marshals has raised questions about whether the people charged with preventing violence in the skies are adequately trained to handle mentally ill passengers.

Several experts on mental illness and police training said they did not fault air marshals for fatally shooting Rigoberto Alpizar at Miami International Airport. But they suggested the Federal Air Marshal Service should re-examine how it trains marshals to deal with people who act erratically or irrationally due to mental illness or other brain disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease.

"This guy was mentally disturbed; he wasn't a terrorist, and he didn't have a bomb and the air marshals took him down, which is what they are trained to do," said Andrew Thomas, an aviation analyst at the University of Akron in Ohio.

"As it is right now, if an air marshal sees something that he perceives to be a threat to the aircraft, be it a hijacking or a potential explosive, the response is to shoot first and ask questions later," said Thomas, author of two books on aviation security.

* * *

http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?id=4620&siteSection=5

[FearofFutility]

53. Thanks for the link

In medicine, MD's are told that when diagnosing a patient, if you hear hoof beats, don't assume it's a zebra, or something to that effect. My concern with federal marshals is that everyone will look like a zebra to them.