Senator Rand Paul Detained By the TSA 941
cervesaebraciator writes "Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has been detained by the TSA in Tennessee for refusing a pat-down. Apparently an anomaly appeared when he received the full body scan. While he offered to undergo the body scan once more, he was informed that only a pat-down would be sufficient to clear him. He has since been detained and the story is developing."
Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Funny)
"A senator would make a great mule," Simmons tells me.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Funny)
Last time I asked if it was fine to have an erection while being patted down. They let me go.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a good thing, the more awareness about the TSA from lawmakers will bring about a much needed reigning in.
-nB
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately I bet most other congresscritters whip out the 'shall not be obstructed on their way to and from congress' (paraphrased) clause of the Constitution and just bypass TSA's checkpoints altogether.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that your paraphrasing fails to uphold the word or the meaning of the clause you refer to. If they could invoke that clause so easily, they could justify ignoring traffic lights too. In fact, that clause only provides limited protection from arrest. Being denied access to a secured area is very different from being arrested.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Informative)
Congressman Justin Amash on his facebook wall:
Justin Amash
âZThe Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.
- Art. I, Sec. 6, Cl. 1 of the United States Constitution
Free Senator Rand Paul.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Informative)
So, GP was right about how the Congress Critters would react, but that doesn't make the Congress Critters right. This one is both wrong (the clause does not apply) and misinformed (Paul is free and caught a later flight.)
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
That is exactly what happened in this case. Paul was turned away, not held. SOP: anyone that refuses a pat-down is free to leave. Our rights haven't been eroded quite that far yet.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
Shed some light on this power hungry department.....
Pretty much all of the radiating equipment and invasive searches, could be done away with and replaced with having bomb sniffing dogs at the checkpoints...combined with simple metal detectors, this would save a lot of money, and give a bit of dignity back to travellers, and be MORE effective.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Informative)
The Pauls have always been opposed to the TSA, and I doubt this incident will change anything. I wish it would. There are certainly far better ways to protect the nation and its freedoms.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't remember who came up with this thought experiment:
- How many lives are being saved by the current system?
- How many lives would be saved if there were no security measures at all, but instead free blood pressure screenings at the airport?
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is the answer to this question is a secret. Nobody is talking about it.
More than one (nameless) FBI folks I have talked to have said there have been multiple incidents where TSA stopped someone actively bringing harmful materials onto an airplane. Obviously, they might have been making it all up, but probably not. So where are the news reports on this? How come the TSA didn't shout this from the rooftops about what a great job they are doing?
The story seems to be that the TSA (and a lot of other law enforcement agencies) feel that if this information were made public it would assist people in understanding how these people got caught and be able to more easily evade detection. As we have not had a successful terrorist incident since 9/11 in the US the question is really whether it is such a bang-up job being done by law enforcement at all levels that is preventing things from being successful or is it that there have simply been zero competent attemps? Right now, the folks that know aren't talking for the record.
I think this is extremely damaging. Either the TSA is a complete and utter waste of time because there is nobody there - other than grandmothers and small children being harrassed in the name of Political Correctness, or the TSA is keeping its role a secret and allowing people to think it is useless and pointless. In the latter case the only proof we will ever have is after the TSA is shut down and disbanded and aircraft start falling out of the sky. Kind of a rough way to prove a point, wouldn't you say?
What is absolutely needed is a lot more disclosure.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
There are certainly far better ways to protect the nation and its freedoms.
Don't you mean "There are certainly far better ways to protect the nation than taking away its freedoms?"
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
The beauty of it is that by flying airliners into buildings the 9/11 terrorists effectively ended hijacking. Now when someone tries to take over an aircraft the passengers leap over seats to attack them. It used to be they flew you somewhere, might kill one or two people during negotiations, then eventually it all settled out maybe with a gun battle and the majority of people on board made it home a few days late. Now, knowing the fuckwads are gonna fly you into a building, it's in your best interest to rip the fuckers head off or die trying.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
That's always been my view as well. The best post-9/11 security measure has been psychological. Every passenger is psychologically trained to refuse to believe they will land safely if they 'cooperate' with hijackers. That was the only real weapon a hijacker had, not boxcutters, not a gun, but the illusory promise that all will be fine if everyone just cooperates. That weapon, the psychological stranglehold, has been screened out, and that "solves" the problem of 9/11 ever repeating again. Case in point, flight 93. It never flew into a building. All it took was some passengers to have learned that the hijackers will not release them safely.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, at least the TSA 'may' have done this to the wrong person finally...
The "wrong person" would probably be one of the ardent supporters of giving the TSA all the power they desire, not a borderline-libertarian who probably already has a list of profanity-laden things that "TSA" stands for.
Re:Far more effective (Score:5, Funny)
But don't you feel so much more secure now that these morons are watching over you?
If it takes a thief to catch a thief, does it take a moron to catch a moron? Clearly people who blow themselves. up are morons.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Informative)
A former co-worker of mine did something innocent that aroused a lot of suspicion at a checkpoint a few years ago, she left an unused round of ammunition in a bag (following a hunting trip) and the TSA detected it. She was unarmed and it was an honest mistake. After a long ordeal she was let go, but she claims to have been put on a list that basically guarantees additional screening every time she flies.
I wonder if Paul will be put on the troublemaker list?
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
Should have been counting those things. Treat them like they are what they are: explosives with the detonator built in. I've never misplaced a cartridge.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but even if accidental, shouldn't someone who might accidentally take explosive compounds on an airplane possibly be screened more closely to avoid a repeat performance? Just because it was a stupid mistake doesn't mean that it doesn't show a lack of responsibility or a gross amount of stupidity that might deserve further scrutiny in the future?
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Funny)
Well, bang stick comes to mind. But I used to read a lot of survivalist material. I've since decided that survival is too much work to be worth the minimal rewards.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
A former co-worker of mine did something innocent that aroused a lot of suspicion at a checkpoint a few years ago, she left an unused round of ammunition in a bag (following a hunting trip) and the TSA detected it. She was unarmed and it was an honest mistake. After a long ordeal she was let go, but she claims to have been put on a list that basically guarantees additional screening every time she flies.
I wonder if Paul will be put on the troublemaker list?
Pics or it didn't happen. This happens to lots of people. Happened to my wife (my ammo, one round of .223 at the bottom of a duffel bag). They looked it at, looked at her, told her she couldn't keep it, threw it in a pile with a bunch of other things. Happens all of the time. She hasn't been hassled since. Maybe your friend shouldn't have been hunting with a .50 caliber BAR...
Oh, and Ron Paul (both of them) is/are on the troublemaker list. They are, after all, troublemakers. Don't rock the boat, especially when your sloshing around in water up to the gunwales.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Informative)
>>>SOP: anyone that refuses a pat-down is free to leave.
False. The "don't touch my junk" guy was fined $10,000 for leaving the airport. The fine was later waived but that law still stands on the books. You are NOT free to leave unless you're prepared to be punished with that fine, and the subsequent inconvenience of fighting it in a court of law.
As for the TSA Spin on Senator Paul:
Remember the TSA is still claiming, "We never strip-searched three elderly women at Reagan Airport," even though all 3 women signed affadavits attesting to being stripped.
The TSA can not be trusted to tell the truth.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Funny)
Airport security was done by cheap, thug, thief, rent-a-cops before TSA.
Now it's done by expensive, thug, thief, federal cops in the TSA.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
Believe me, I used to proctor the TSA exams, and you're far more right than you know. The vast majority of applicants looked (and acted) like they were driven to the test facility by their parole officer or drug dealer.
The bulk of these people receive less training than the average assistant manager at Taco Bell...
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
Then dont fly commercial.
I fly group charter and return flight Corporate. It's the same price as a normal airline ticket. No, not the deep discount priceline prices. but I rarely get those as I cant book it months in advance.
Company sent 10 of us out to Vegas for a event, They wanted us to fly Delta. I saved the company $1500.00 on the tickets by chartering a small jet for us. Worked great, we brought a lot of booze and none of us went through any security checks. Hell I drove the minivan up to the airplane to unload luggage.
yes it takes more work to FIND the charters and fill them, but I already have a list of 5 companies that will give me a discount so I dont have to look hard.
Plus a Learjet from Chicago to Miami, from stepping out of the cab to waiting for the cab you called for when on approach, in 3 hours is worth every penny.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Informative)
The fine is not automatically applied for refusing a pat-down. [boardingarea.com]
I do, however, acknowledge that TSA employees have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Funny)
My point is that one can refuse the pat-down and leave. Our rights have been eroded, but we can still do that much.
Try it and let us know how that works out for you. I'm sure they will simply let you walk away...
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
anyone that refuses a pat-down is free to leave
...except when they aren't. I've heard of people being detained _at gunpoint_ for doing nothing more than refusing a pat-down. Here's one, slightly less extreme, example from _a freakin' pilot_ (if he wanted to bring down the plane, he wouldn't need a bomb to do it...):
http://www.expressjetpilots.com/the-pipe/showthread.php?39523-Well-today-was-the-day [expressjetpilots.com]
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Informative)
Why? If I set off a metal detector at an office building they can't hold me, the worst they can do is call the police while I walk away. Hell, I've gone into government buildings with prohibited items (knives and such, accidentally) and set off the metal detector. And when that happens, your options are: show them and have it confiscated if it's prohibited, show them and leave if it's prohibited, or just leave. If you try to enter the White House with a hunting knife, they'll let you just walk away. Why is an airport any different? Hell, the security at government buildings are actual police officers. TSA agents aren't. They have no legal authority to hold you. They can certainly call the police if the scanner clearly shows a gun, or you are in some way acting suspicious, or they just feel like it. But that's all they legally have the authority to do. And that's all they SHOULD have the authority to do.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Informative)
That's not exacty correct. TSA can and has threatened people with $10,000 fines for failing to comply.
So while yes, you can walk away. They can hit you with a $10,000 fine. Yes, our rights have eroded that far. :-(
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Informative)
If you're going to be an smart ass and try to belittle someones intelligence with a statement like "In words of one syllable or less....", at least follow that up with one syllable words.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
No, No, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!.
Standing up for your Rights is NOT "weird".
It's people like you who are contributing to the downfall of America.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Insightful)
And the government doesn't have the right to do "searches" that contribute nothing to security. One of the scanner makers admitted that their equipment wouldn't have caught Captain Underpants. Top Israeli aviation security expert Rafi Sela called the scanners "expensive and useless".
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't have a right to fly in commercial aircraft without getting our freak on with TSA only because we have allowed the government to get away with it. The 4th Amendment says the government may not perform an "unreasonable" search without a court approving it, and even in that case the search is for specific things on specific persons in specific locations -- it does NOT apply to "everything every traveler brings to any airport anywhere in the nation -- or even overseas, if the airliner is traveling to the U.S.". Every court in the country would throw out a request for a warrant that was that broad. You can perhaps make the point that a metal detector is not "unreasonable"...but if you seriously think that the crap that's been happening in airports for the last 14 months is "reasonable", well, I hope you've enjoyed the Kool-Aid.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes we do....
And let me explain to you why we are wrong. If an airline made such decision, it could do so. And it would suffer the consequences of capitalism; go out of business due to a lack of passengers as another airline would offer "ball groping free flights" (probably Southwest).
However, the unconstitutional mandate requiring such of all airlines is just that. This is not the private airlines making an uncoerced decision. Rather it is a mandated and coerced affect by the government in violation of the government's Constitution.
So yes, I have the right to choose to fly on an airline that does not grope my balls, and the government's interference in preventing airlines from offering such a service is illegal.
Were it not illegal, someone would have already started a new airline to offer just that, ball groping free travel and would be selling more tickets than all the other airlines combined.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, walking past the sign that says "anyone passing this point is subject to search" is waiving his fourth amendment rights.
If I put a sign on my lawn that says "anyone passing this sign can be detained indefinitely" does that make it so?
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
You must've failed civics class. Rights CANNOT be waived.
You must have failed civics class. Of course rights can be waived. You can waive your forth amendment right against search by simply saying "yes" when a cop asks you if they can search your vehicle. You can waive your fifth amendment right against self incrimination by simply answering a self-incriminating question.
Where did you get the moronic idea that you cannot waive a right? If your civics class taught you that, then you must have gone to a cracker-jack school. And I mean that literally. It came out of a box of Cracker Jacks.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
Karma? Yes, I do have some to burn...
As do I, but I don't waste it trolling. You not only have no right to safety, there is no such thing as safety. When my safety interferes with your rights, your rights trump. What makes your comment even worse is that there have been 3,000 deaths from terrorism in the US in the 21st century, while 45,000 people die on the highways each and every year. It's been over two years since anybody has died on an airliner over US soil.
They should spend that Transportation Safety Administration money on safer highways.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
This smacks of "if you're not a terrorist you shouldn't mind not having privacy."
Sorry, but no.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that he would rather leave and rebook his flight than take a pat down is a bit weird.
Are you serious?!?! It's no wonder our country is in such sad shape, if this mindset is any reflection of the attitudes of the American people. I don't even know where to start dissecting this comment, but I'll give it a shot, anyway.
First, when faced with a choice of believing that a senator is doing something illegal or that the TSA is attempting to harass one of the few critics who actually has any kind of power over the agency, you side with TSA? Second, when someone actually shows some backbone and tells the TSA where it can shove it's (illegal) pat-downs, you think it's weird that he takes a moral high ground? Third, are you truly so focused on your goals that you are willing to give up the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to achieve them -- even if that goal is simply arriving at your intended destination at your intended arrival time, rather than taking a longer route rather than be a good sheep as you pass through a TSA check point?
I acknowledge the possibility that you consider the pat-downs less onerous and less of a violation of civil rights than I do. And if that's the case, then it may truly seem like a simple choice between a pat-down and rebooking your flight for a later time. However, not all of us feel that way. Apparently Sen. Paul believes more like me than like you (possibly) do. That does not, however, suggest that Sen. Paul actually had anything to hide, nor does it suggest that he was up to anything weirder (i.e., "more suspicious") than taking a stand for something he obviously believes in.
I also acknowledge that trying to decide whether a senator or the TSA is less corrupt is rather like arguing whether a pirhana or a tiger shark is more voracious. However, despite the fact that I think that most politicians are at least somewhat corrupt, I rather doubt that any of them are likely to smuggle weapons through an airport checkpoint so that they can hijack or blow up an airplane.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Informative)
Incorrect. Speaking a the March of Life was on his agenda, but the Senate was reconvening a Session at 2:00 p.m. today and this was his return trip to D.C.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Informative)
The Session convenes at 2:00 p.m. and the flight time from Nashville to D.C. is 2 hours. He was rebooked just before noon.
I seriously doubt he will make the opening of the session, but should comfortably make the 4:30 scheduled vote.
Regardless, the TSA should be exempting Representatives and Senators due to that clause in the Constitution. All jokes aside, those people are not in any way remotely a threat to an aircraft or the other people on board.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Funny)
Well, they aren't going to make the flight go "boom", but they certainly are a threat. These are the people that damn near passed SOPA and PIPA, after all.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Insightful)
"Arrest" is legally defined to mean restraint under color of authority. He was restrained under color of authority from utilizing a common carrier. That is, the TSA represented claimed legal authority and physically prevented him from proceeding to the Senate for a session.
The fact that they later allowed him passage and he was able to book a different flight has no bearing on their original action.
The purpose of the clause was originally to prevent the interference by the Executive branch with the Legislative branch doing their job. Arresting MPs and legislative members before going to disputed votes was -- and still remains, in some parts of the world -- a common tactic that this clause was explicitly meant to address.
As for the threat to people on the aircraft. The TSA is there to prevent physical threats of violence, not address ideological disputes.
Exactly what do you propose replacing Congress with and when will you have a draft of your Constitutional Amendment available for review?
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Funny)
A. They probably picked the most anti-TSA guy in the Senate... ...who is the son of the most anti-TSA guy in the House of Representatives... ...and sits on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security.
B.
C.
Oops?
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Informative)
according to this:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/23/ron-paul-campaign-statement-concerning-tsa-abuses/ [ronpaul2012.com]
the entire TSA just got added to Ron Paul's list of things to eliminate:
quote: "in additional to cutting $1 trillion dollars in federal spending in one year, eliminates the TSA."
woooot!
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Informative)
read TFA to be certain:
"Like his father, Rand Paul has libertarian leanings and has been a fierce critic of TSA’s pat-downs of passengers at airports, which he views as government overreach. The senator grilled TSA Administrator John Pistole last year after a 6-year-old girl from Paul’s hometown, was patted down by airport security."
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Funny)
An old friend of mine's father was in the Pope's press pool. Talk about exempt from screening; those guys got away with everything. Not to mention the reporters!
well this should be entertaining (Score:4, Informative)
"we detained you during campaign season. whoops."
yeah, this should be fun.
So what they've done is... (Score:5, Funny)
... they've pissed off a Southern Man and a Republican, in a position of political power.
Yeah. I can't see this ending well whichever way you slice it.
Re:So what they've done is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So what they've done is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is, now they've given him an anecdote. And anecdotal evidence is quite convincing in politics, even if it's logically invalid.
Re:So what they've done is... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure that Rand Paul is irritated by the TSA without even interacting with them. The existence of the TSA is enough to irritate him. And me.
Standard Procedure (Score:5, Insightful)
I know we all hate the TSA, but under the existing rule structure, his detention should not be surprising or treated with contempt. The alternative is that the TSA screener decides on his/her own who gets to walk through without a pat down if the scan shows up something suspicious. I'm not commenting on the overall efficacy or "correctness" of the procedure; if we're going to have rules, they should be enforced fairly and consistently. That said, I am in favor of some types of profiling, but I don't think being an elected official gives you any sort of waiver. They've already proved that they can't be trusted.
US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (Score:5, Informative)
(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you should think about it some more.
That clause is designed to prevent situations like what recently happened in the Ukraine, where leaders of opposition factions in the government are arrested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/world/europe/09ukraine.html [nytimes.com]
Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep, the whole point of this is to prevent the party in power from squashing the opposition through bullshit moves. Call a vote and then have the president make sure that the opposition can't get there. Doesn't even have to be arrests, there could just be "checkpoints" and "blockades" on the road that they all have to pass through and get held up for a couple hours while the vote can happen unopposed.
As such the Constitution prevents that. Unless you are arresting them for a felony or worse, you can't impede congress on the way to a vote. Could a congressman abuse it? Sure, but of course in this day and age that's a great way to get all over the news in a bad way. However the potential for abuse going the other way is far too strong, hence we have this provision.
Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (Score:4, Informative)
The First Amendment was ratified by people that are all dead too, and there's plenty of people that disagree with it's interpretation. Should we toss that one out while we're at it?
Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (Score:5, Funny)
He's not arrested, just "indefinitely detained"
Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no difference. If you are not free to go, you are under arrest. That's the definition of arrest:
Authoritarians like to play this game where they call things by different words and pretend that they're not the same. Don't fall for it.
Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, if he wasn't a senator he probably would have been arrested for refusing to complete the security process.
This this this.
See:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/24/rape-victim-arrested-refusing-tsa-pat/ [rawstory.com]
additionally...
https://www.google.com/search?q=arrested+for+refusing+tsa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a [google.com]
This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
US Constitution Article I section 6
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Senator Paul was apparently on his way to Washington, where the Senate has votes scheduled for this afternoon. It appears that the Executive Branch (TSA) just violated Article I section 6 of the Constitution.
Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, except for the part where he was. He wouldn't have missed the flight if he wasn't detained. A detention is merely a euphemism for arrest that allows the cops to circumvent your constitutional rights. Therefore, he was arrested. QED.
Civil Disobedience (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Civil Disobedience (Score:4, Informative)
I like this (Score:5, Insightful)
I think both Rand and his father are nut jobs. No, let me rephrase that - I think they have a very simplistic, but consistent, core values from which they derive a series of logical positions which vary from downright practical to socially unworkable. It's that latter part that makes them nutty. I like their logical approach; I am disappointed in their finesse and (in)ability to understand practical application of social policy.
Still, this is how things get changed, and if anyone is going to give the middle finger to our new establishment - and get away with it - it's likely to be someone like the Pauls. I'm surprised he was even required to go through the screening process; I was under the impression that members of congress - those that don't skip it entirely by flying private - would essentially be waved through or would have been provided an alternate entry point.
I presume he was flying business or first class, and was not subjected to the long queue.
According to TSA, Paul was not detained (Score:5, Informative)
According the TSA, Paul was not detained at the checkpoint by the TSA, but was not allowed to proceed into the secure area because he refused the pat-down required by TSA procedure, and was escorted out of the checkpoint by police. He subsequently rebooked on a different flight and was rescreened without incident. This seems to be covered in most of the news stories on the incident (
CNN [cnn.com], MSNBC [msn.com], Reuters [reuters.com].)
Will Rand Paul now be fined $10k? (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember in previous incidents the TSA has fined people people who fail to complete screening and decide to go the other way and leave the airport instead. Will they do the same to Rand Paul? If not why?
Vacation in US? No, thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
And other than that... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh dear. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, will some TSA "agent" lose their job or is Rand Paul not big enough fish to throw that kind of weight around?
Even if he isn't, his dad probably is.
Re:Oh dear. (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess which branch funds the TSA and ask that question again.
Re:Oh dear. (Score:4, Funny)
Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That (Score:5, Informative)
I LOVE IT! Not only is a nutjob getting harassed, but they finally decided to harass someone that can do something to shut their asses down.
Both Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul have been very vocal opponents of the TSA (I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is running on a platform to completely dissolve the TSA as well as a number of other agencies and departments of the federal government -- although that depends on where he's speaking and to whom). Even if you don't believe he would go that far, Ron Paul has introduced the American Traveler's Dignity Act [house.gov] which specifically addresses being treated like cattle. I would wager most of this was coolly calculated by his son as beneficial to Ron Paul's campaign efforts -- bringing attention to such policies and putting them on the debate table.
Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That (Score:5, Informative)
Both Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul have been very vocal opponents of the TSA (I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is running on a platform to completely dissolve the TSA as well as a number of other agencies and departments of the federal government -- although that depends on where he's speaking and to whom).
It doesn't depend on who he's speaking to, the guy's one of the more consistent politicians ever in Washington. Here's the plan you're talking about documented in writing: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/ [ronpaul2012.com]
You may not like his ideas, but he doesn't flip flop on them.
Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That (Score:5, Insightful)
"Flip flopping" just means changing your mind, right? Changing your mind should only be viewed negatively when it is done with dishonest intent - to deceive and manipulate others, or to act against one's own core beliefs. We live in a complicated world, and there are genuine, complex issues that educated adults can disagree on. The ability to comprehend and reason from multiple points of view, and modify your own position accordingly, ought to be seen as a strength rather than a weakness.
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That (Score:5, Insightful)
The Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.
Now, I suppose you could make an argument that this wasn't technically an "arrest" but the point of that clause is to make sure that elected officials aren't prevented from doing their duty. The TSA quite clearly violated that part of the constitution by unlawfully detaining senator Paul.
Re:MUAHAHAHAH (Score:5, Informative)
Rand is Ron's son.
Re:MUAHAHAHAH (Score:5, Informative)
Ron Paul has been groped, due to a metal brace from an old war injury. He says, "I HATE it, but what choice do I have?" - Other Congressmen have also bitched about it as well. One of them even called a hearing last fall to determine if the TSA is really necessary.
An ignorant person over on Facebook wrote:
"If you don't like TSA then don't fly. You can drive, take a train, or walk." Problem: The TSA has expanded their operations to trains and pulling-over cars along interstates. Also post offices and unemployment/social security buildings.
You. Can't. Escape. the police state.
Re:MUAHAHAHAH (Score:4, Informative)
Your citation, as requested: http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/10/28/1921254/tsas-vipr-bites-rail-bus-and-ferry-passengers [slashdot.org]
Re:MUAHAHAHAH (Score:5, Informative)
Citations provided:
TSA expands to trains. Union Station in DC is popular, along with several of the larger subway stations. However, there were also high-profile incidents in Savannah, GA as well.: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/27/from-planes-to-trains-tsa-expands-spot-searches-to-union-station/ [cbslocal.com]
TSA expands to bus stops in Maryland and D.C. Additional incidents have been noted in Indianapolis.: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/17/tsa-comes-to-your-bus-stop/ [washingtontimes.com]
TSA partners with Tennessee for portable scanners at Interstate weigh stations: http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide [newschannel5.com]
VIPR [wikipedia.org] is versatile.
Re:MUAHAHAHAH (Score:4, Informative)
TSA: Rail Security [tsa.gov]
TSA: Highways [tsa.gov]
TSA: Maritime [tsa.gov]
TSA-style security coming to major sporting events... [usatoday.com]
But by all means, keep convincing yourself that the TSA isn't spreading throughout society. If we allow it to get to the point where we're getting patted down to get on the fucking bus to work in the morning, or pulled over in our own car just because we're on a fucking public highway, we've already lost everything worth fighting for and it's time to start flying our flags upside-down.
Re:MUAHAHAHAH (Score:5, Informative)
how's this?
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220 [latimes.com]
"TSA screenings aren't just for airports anymore
Roving security teams increasingly visit train stations, subways and other mass transit sites to deter terrorism. Critics say it's largely political theater."
Actually, entire Adamantium skeleton (Score:4, Funny)
Ron Paul wanted to give his kids all the advantages.
Re: (Score:3)
I used to be a senator; then I---
on second thought, too easy.
Re:knee metal from previous injury (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, being 'confrontational' when standing up for your rights is certainly not a bad thing.
Re:knee metal from previous injury (Score:4, Insightful)
Hanlon's razor : Never attribute to malice (Paul) that which is adequately explained by stupidity (TSA).
Re:Not enough bias? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An anomaly?! (Score:5, Funny)
He was carrying a Crystal for -30% radiation damage and a Spring for +30% impact resistance, good combination for today's air travel experience.
Re:not detained at all... (Score:4, Interesting)
I could have sworn that, in previous cases (not involving a US Senator), people were told that, if the scan found something odd, you could either accept the pat-down or be arrested.
In fact, here's an article that makes it clear what the TSA plans on doing to you if you refuse the pat down: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/11/23/those-who-refuse-tsa-patdown-will-be-denied-airport-entry/
Granted, that's over a year old so the policy may have changed. However, under that policy, Rand Paul should have been escorted out of the airport by police officers. Then, if he tried to get back through security (via rebooking on another flight), the entire checkpoint would be shutdown and the terminal possibly evacuated.
I wonder what would happen if a non-Congressfolk tried doing exactly what Rand Paul did. Would they be arrested for refusing the pat down? Would they be kicked out of the airport with a police escort? Would their rebooking and attempting to go through security again require a shutdown of the security checkpoint?
Re:We are too politically correct... (Score:4, Informative)
Let the TSA and police do their jobs without having to equally check everyone so we can pretend like terrorists don't all come from the same background. Racial profiling might not be politically correct but it works.
Except, you know, when it doesn't. Like the shoe bomber, Richard Reid whose father was Jamaican and mother was white British. Or the underwear bomber who was Nigerian. And there is Colleen LaRosa, aka Jihad Jane [philly.com] and her friend Jamie Paulin-Ramirez. [telegraph.co.uk]
Yeah, that racial profiling really works great. Great for the terrorists that it would let sail right on through.
Re:We are too politically correct... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let the TSA and police do their jobs without having to equally check everyone so we can pretend like terrorists don't all come from the same background.
How about we let the TSA fuck right off and we leave the issue to previous security measures augmented with secured pilot cabins and increased air marshal activity?