Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform: he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder.
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Original Blog US Casualties Contact Donate


February 27, 2008

More Amtrak Security,
More Safety?

Charles Peña

This month, Amtrak officials announced that they were stepping up security, including random searches of passenger carry-on bags, more officers patrolling platforms and trains, and bomb-sniffing dogs. That Amtrak would want to increase security should come as no surprise given that the railway system was the target of terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004, London in 2005, and Mumbai in 2006. Indeed, one might even ask why it's taken Amtrak so long to introduce increased security measures to protect against a similar fate in the United States. According to Amtrak president and CEO Alex Kummant, "These new procedures will strengthen Amtrak's overall security, and they are vital in our efforts to deter, detect, and prevent a terrorist incident on the rail system."

But heightened security procedures do not necessarily translate into being safer and more secure. Will the benefits outweigh the new burdens?

Apparently, Amtrak's decision to conduct random searches is based on the New York City subway random search program. Unfortunately, simple analysis shows that the New York City program is a flawed design that requires a relatively high manpower effort to yield a relatively low level of effectiveness. That, however, does not seem to concern Amtrak officials, who seem to like the New York City program because it has held up in court challenges.

One thing the Amtrak and New York City random search programs have in common is that they both allow people to refuse a search and walk away. In New York City, if that person was a would-be terrorist, he or she could simply try to gain access to the same subway station via a different entrance (if there is one), which may or may not be subject to search, or go to a different subway station knowing that the NYPD does not have enough manpower to conduct searches at all of New York's 468 subway stations. On Amtrak, any passenger refusing a search is not allowed to board the train and has their ticket refunded. One question is how easy it would be for that person to simply buy another ticket and board a different train (presumably, a terrorist would be indifferent to which train they were on). It might be easy enough to identify that person if they bought another ticket from a station agent (which requires showing identification). But no ID is required to purchase a ticket from a self-serve kiosk (and a would-be terrorist might have multiple credit cards with different names for making such purchases).

Does refusing a search automatically make someone suspect, and does Amtrak then keep track of that person to ensure that they don't board another train? Many Amtrak stations have multiple platforms (each with their own access) so it would be at least possible to board a different train, especially if searches are not being conducted on all platforms. (Of course, if the answer is "yes" to the above questions, that raises the larger issue whether refusing a search should automatically make one suspect and subject to tracking. Indeed, would refusing a search put you on some sort of terrorist watch list or a "no-ride" list similar to the no-fly list?)

And nothing would prevent that person from trying to get on another train on another day. Moreover, the random search program would not prevent a terrorist from detonating a bomb while standing in line (or even in the waiting area of a terminal, such as Grand Central in Manhattan or Union Station in Washington, D.C.). Just as it is reasonable to assume that terrorists would be indifferent to which train they were on, it is also reasonable to assume that the target of the attack does not have to be the train itself but simply a large enough crowd of people.

Also worth considering is that a terrorist attack might consist of several bombers (indeed, this seems likely given the other train bombings). Thus, even if a random search stopped one would-be bomber (obviously, a good thing), what are the odds that all the bombers would be stopped by the same random search?

As is the case with many other post-9/11 security measures, there is no real analysis to demonstrate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Amtrak's random search program. Instead, there is simply assertion. According to Amtrak's CEO Kummant, "This is just the correct step to take."

But if we're worried about bombers, wouldn't it make more sense to use the manpower and money for the random search program on more officers with bomb-sniffing dogs patrolling platforms and perhaps even trains, rather than randomly searching passengers in the hope that Amtrak security guesses right about which people to search?

Finally, there is this paradox to ponder. Administration officials often tout the fact that the United States has not (thankfully) been attacked since 9/11 as evidence that their Homeland Security policies and programs are correct. Indeed, last September, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the House Committee on Homeland Security: "On Sept. 11, 2001, no one could have predicted the passage of six years without further attacks on our homeland. By any measure, this is a remarkable achievement. It is the result of our comprehensive efforts to secure our safety." And he asserted that we were "unequivocally safer." So, by Chertoff's logic, if Amtrak has not been the target of a terrorist attack, and not being attacked is evidence that we are safer, doesn't that suggest that Amtrak's prior security measures (sporadic identification checks by train conductors) were working? Then why introduce more intrusive measures that aren't demonstrably more effective?

comments on this article?
Most Recent Article

  • TSA: Tedious, Slow, and Absurd?

  • Hey, Big Spender!

  • Conflicting Visions of Security

  • Portents From the First
    Press Conference

  • Obama Wants a Surge
    of His Own

  • Terror, Torture, and Empire
    on the Silver Screen

  • Why War?

  • Why Lightning Hasn't Struck Twice

  • Not Home for the Holidays, Again

  • More Security, Less Secure

  • Missile Defense and
    the American Empire

  • You Can't Cut Spending
    and Spare 'Defense'

  • What Happens in a Police State…

  • Can Afghanistan Be Won?

  • The Pakistan Dilemma

  • What $700 Billion?

  • Georgia On My Mind

  • My Energy Plan Is
    Better Than Yours

  • Bidding War Over Afghanistan

  • Is Iran Still an Option?

  • Change We Can Believe In?

  • Having Your Cake and
    Eating It Too

  • Things to Remember on Memorial Day

  • Mission Accursed

  • Whither the Price of Oil?

  • McCain's Foreign Policy Vision: Style Over Substance

  • Hard to See the Benefits Through the Bills and the Blood

  • The Golden Rule

  • More Amtrak Security,
    More Safety?

  • Hobbled in Kabul

  • Is Bad PR Really the Problem?

  • Shocked, Shocked by Bush's Broken Promises

  • Providing for the Common Defense

  • Not Home for the Holidays

  • Bush's Surreal Iran Policy

  • An American in Paris

  • Fred Thompson and the Kitchen Sink

  • To Bomb, Or Not To Bomb

  • Not -So-New Homeland Security Strategy

  • Misunderestimating the Price of Iraq

  • Greenspan's Unsure Grasp of Economics

  • Close, but No Cigar

  • Defusing Nuclear Hysteria

  • More Troop Reduction Legerdemain

  • Memo to Rep. Ron Paul

  • Surveillance Society

  • Lucky, but for How Much Longer?

  • Cooperative Threat Reduction Is Worth the Cost

  • Unprepared for Bioterrorism

  • Rudy Giuliani and the
    Fort Dix Six

  • Good Intentions and
    Unintended Consequences

  • Still Whacking Moles in Iraq

  • Yankee, Go Home

  • Foreign Follies
    a Sobering Read

  • Reducing the Risk of Nukes

  • Our Pals in Pakistan

  • The Future of Terrorism

  • Whither the Surge?

  • 92,000 More Soldiers?

  • Requiem for a Dictator

  • Another Year,
    Another Iraq Plan

  • Two Pair of Twos

  • Worse Than Staying the Course

  • The Mother of All Defense Supplementals

  • Fish or Cut Bait in Iraq

  • Photo - George Cole

    Charles V. Pea is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, a former senior fellow with the George Washington University Homeland Security
    Policy Institute
    , an adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project, and an analyst for MSNBC television. He has also appeared on CNN, Fox News, NBC Nightly News, ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and The McLaughlin Group, as well as international television and radio. Pea is the co-author of Exiting Iraq: Why the U.S. Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War Against al-Qaeda, and author of Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism.

    Charles Pena's new book is now available. Order now.

    His articles have been published by Reason; The American Conservative; The National Interest; Mediterranean Quarterly; Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy; Journal of Law & Social Change (University of San Francisco); Nexus (Chapman University); and Issues in Science & Technology (National Academy of Sciences).

    His exclusive column appears every other Wednesday on Antiwar.com.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2017 Antiwar.com