Now, here, the woman was being just plain rude. In a way, she was provoking the police. This doesn't excuse the rough handling she then received, but neither was it designed to put the cop in a more charitable frame of mind.
Am I the only one that has noticed that the ID the guard was apparently asking to see was a Bus Pass issued by the Federal government because the bus crossed a Federal facility?Seems perfectly reasonable for a gate guard to ask bus passengers to show their bus passes. That she had been issued such a pass means that she had already been checked against a "list" and had been approved for the pass; there was therefore no need to check her against another list. That is the purpose of issuing passes, after all. For that matter, asking to see such passes is the purpose of gate guards.
Now, here, the woman was being just plain rude. In a way, she was provoking the police. This doesn't excuse the rough handling she then received, but neither was it designed to put the cop in a more charitable frame of mind.
As for what actually happened during and after the arrest, we have only the woman's side of it. In fact, the entire story seems to be single-source hearsay.
Finally:
This is just plain wrong. By entering a government facility you inherently give permission to be searched. Not just for ID, but your person and possessions.
Edited to sanitize image.
From the news report linked to in the blog cited above:
There is no sense at all in being paranoid for the sake of nbeing paranoid (whether in the "war against" terror" or whatever; legally, yes, it seems ID needs to be shown in such a situation, practically, protecting the land on which VA, the US GS and part of the National Archives have offices does not demand anything much at all, certainly not more than ID, and even that seems way overdone --- ID should be a proper grounds-entry or building-entry thing, not simply ground-crossing.news report said:
Can't see that myself --- the level of "security" demanded seems to be absurd.
The guards and the woman seem to have been both rude, and the leevl of security absurdly high.Beady said:
How, precisely, would that work? "OK, folks, I'm checking IDs as we pass into the Federal facility. If you don't show me ID, please don't get off the bus at any of the stops on the facility. Thank you." Something like that?
As I read it, they were crossing the grounds of a Fed facility. Asking for ID at the doors of a building is easy enough and would have been the only thing appropriate in this case, IMHO; asking for ID on getting onto a lawn seems excessive and a waste of manpower as well.
hey, hey, I probably don't have the agenda you seem to think I do.
Hang on here for a moment. I said it was legal, which is not the same as proper. See my reply to Manny above for more on that,
Eventually:
I just tend not to see Veterans' Affairs as being a High Terror-Attack risk.
Sue me if you think I am deeply wrong on this. But our comfort levels of "security" seem to differ vastly. 
Eh? You're wildly making a wrong comparison --- getting behind a counter anywhere is one to several orders of magnitude a different thing than simply entering a building, or worse, crossing a couple of lawns.
Perhaps. I read it as they were crossing a Federal facility and dropping (at least some) people off. Whilst I assume that there is additional security at the building entrances (there better be!), it's also not unreasonable to not want unauthorized people just wandering the grounds. It seems to me to be a savings of manpower by checking everyone at the entry point rather than increasing the number of security folk patrolling the grounds. But I don't have all the facts either; see below.
Alone, agreed. But we don't know what was necessary to get one of the passes.
Your point being? If any?
You would be wrong. Individual opinions eventually influence and amount to public opinions, and this is what makes the electorate and law courts so pertinent.
Again, you are wrong; you seem to be under the impression that you speak for the Fed security as well as the entire juridicial estamblishment there.
I like it.
I just tend not to see Veterans' Affairs as being a High Terror-Attack risk.
Sue me if you think I am deeply wrong on this. But our comfort levels of "security" seem to differ vastly.
Let's go through my response to your post first, and then I will quote more from the actual news report linked to in the blog cited.
We'll see from the news report, below.
Unless you have unusually -- very unusually -- high security procedures for obtaning bus passes, then I still see it as .... silly.
I think that was my point.
Hang on, the issue is going to the courts, who will decide on the legality, and ACLU is involved as well; and legality is never equivalent to properness
I dunno, I've seen much sillier threads.
Now, so the guards seem to have massively over-reacted, and there seems to be a point here.from news report said:
Inside the same building as much higher security risks, no? We're talking practicality and real levels of risk, not mere imaginings.
I've lived and worked in very high-risk places myself.
No, *you* are making the wrong comparison above. Behind the counter is in no way the same as entering a building, which is again different from crossing the lawn.
Am I the only one that has noticed that the ID the guard was apparently asking to see was a Bus Pass issued by the Federal government because the bus crossed a Federal facility?