Slashdot Mirror


Senator Rand Paul Detained By the TSA

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."

941 comments

  1. Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "A senator would make a great mule," Simmons tells me.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by alphatel · · Score: 4, Funny

      No one expects the Aqua Buddha!

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by networkBoy · · 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

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by magarity · · Score: 3, 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.

    4. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      I'm not certain, but given the rest of his politics, I'm pretty sure this one is one that doesn't support TSA

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 4, 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.

    6. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by mveloso · · Score: 3, 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!

    7. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by tokul · · Score: 2

      "A senator would make a great mule," Simmons tells me.

      Don't confuse Republicans with Democrats.

    8. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 1

      Oh really? Lets see if you are able to leave said area without being arrested or searched. Take your pick.

    9. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      Um, except that he was prevented from making his way to congress and ended up missing a session while otherwise he would have been on time without breaking any law.

    10. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · 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."

    11. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      UPDATE:

      Senator Paul was kicked out of the airport because he refused to be sexually groped by the SA. He's still sitting in Nashville and trying to figure out how to get back to D.C.

      By law they are now supposed to fine him $10,000 (for leaving the scene after being scanned), though I suspect it will be waived - as it was waived for the 'don't touch my junk' guy.

      .

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    12. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by somersault · · Score: 0, Troll

      How do you know he wasn't breaking any laws? The fact that he would rather leave and rebook his flight than take a pat down is a bit weird.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by notgm · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      you're right. that IS weird. he should have been arrested for that alone.

    14. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Um, he was was escorted out according to the fine article, and has already re-booked a flight, gone through security (clean scan this time), and is on his way to DC.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    15. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · 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.

    16. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by SomePgmr · · Score: 4, 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.

    17. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sneakyimp · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm curious to see how he reconciles his libertarian I-don't-approve-of-patdowns with his stated desire to dismantle all foreign aid and relapse into an isolationist policy. As I understand it, the TSA is necessary due to foreign policy failures and the intrusion of these failures on domestic affairs.

    18. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, except that isn't what happened. He was on his way to speak for the March of Life, not to participate in any sort of congressional proceedings. I don't like the TSA's procedures, but this situation was handled exactly the way it should have been handled, and there is absolutely no reason that the law should have given Paul the ability to bypass the safety requirements enforced for everyone else.

    19. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    20. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This smacks of "if you're not a terrorist you shouldn't mind not having privacy."

      Sorry, but no.

    21. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Well, at least the TSA 'may' have done this to the wrong person finally....I would sure like to see this incident be escalated in the public and governmental eye more.

      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.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    22. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Good to know.

      I will never be groped at an airport. Good to know it's easy to just rebook a second flight and continue on my way.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    23. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Since the Vatican is it's own state I would think the pope travels on a diplomatic passport, so yea he should not be scanned groped or otherwise molested.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    24. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by magarity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, I looked it up. The exact phrase is 'privileged from arrest'. 'Arrest' has several meanings. One is what the police do when hauling one off to jail. It can also just be a more generic meaning of stopping someone, and I'm pretty sure that's the more important definition. The purpose of this clause is to keep political opponents from preventing representatives getting to official meetings, not to keep them out of jail for legit crimes.

    25. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 4, 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.)

    26. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the TSA is provided a pretext by things attributable to foreign policy failures.

      It's not necessary even with our current crop of failures, and frankly the fact that we're currently trying harder at foreign policy than the Paulites would have us doesn't mean we're not failing harder as well.

      It seems a lot of foreign countries and people just might prefer an isolationist US to one that props up whatever local strongman the CIA likes, yes?

    27. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 4, 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.

    28. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in principle, but we don't have a right to fly in commercial aircraft without being searched.

      Rand Paul's case might prove to be an exception because he's a congressman.

    29. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · · Score: 1

      There was no outstanding felony warrant for his arrest. Nor was he accused of actively Breach of Peace The rest is moot, and does not apply.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    30. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sexconker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OK, I looked it up. The exact phrase is 'privileged from arrest'. 'Arrest' has several meanings. One is what the police do when hauling one off to jail. It can also just be a more generic meaning of stopping someone, and I'm pretty sure that's the more important definition. The purpose of this clause is to keep political opponents from preventing representatives getting to official meetings, not to keep them out of jail for legit crimes.

      Arrest has one meaning - stoppage.
      You can be arrested in many ways. Being detained is a form of being arrested. They just call it being detained so people don't see the word "arrested" and start to think they have rights.

      Just like taxes, fees, and fines.

    31. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    32. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, 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?

    33. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Redundant
      Exercising your rights should not be cause for alarm or suspicion. Per the constitution, Senator Rand has an explicit right not to be delayed by the TSA:

      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.

      Exercising your rights is just that, a right. It shouldn't be cause for suspicion or concern.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    34. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'm not qualified to comment on legal application of that, just that they did bust that clause out.

      And that Amash guy posted that about an hour ago. I'm not sure what time the RP incident went down.

    35. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I know you're an AC troll, but Hillary Clinton has spoken about how she has never once had to go through the TSA process because she is always on charter/private flights.

      Obama is not the only individual in the country that gets to skip the TSA process.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    36. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      And what kind of name is Rand? It sounds middle eastern to me -- perhaps even communist. Thank goodness for our alert TSA, now it's time for them to get back to patting down infants.

    37. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 1

      But, contrary to GP's assertion, the session was not missed, and Paul did make another flight.

    38. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the 'secured area' is between the Congressman and their going to/from Congress, then the Constitution trumps the TSA.

    39. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      If putting Ted Kennedy (a Senator for decades and brother to one of the more famous Presidents) on the no-fly list didn't get their attention don't hope for much.

    40. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guilty until proven innocent.

    41. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this what Ron's son Rand, who can live a very happy long life with the resulting cancer.

    42. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yeah, really weird. I can't possibly imagine why a man wouldn't want another man to fondle his crotch in public.

    43. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by cpu6502 · · 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.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    44. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ChrisGoodwin · · Score: 4, Funny

      A. They probably picked the most anti-TSA guy in the Senate...
      B. ...who is the son of the most anti-TSA guy in the House of Representatives...
      C. ...and sits on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security.

      Oops?

      --
      Pretend there is some witty statement here.
    45. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. I dispute the idea that any member of Congress should be granted a free pass to go anywhere or do anything in the name of reaching the session. It is their responsibility to ensure that they have the means to reach the session. If a Congress member chooses to avail themselves of the advantages of air travel, then they should be prepared to comply with the same requirements as the rest of us, or they should be prepared to find an alternative method of travel. Congress members still have to stop at a red traffic light - they do not get to bypass the light in order to reach the session in time, nor should they.

    46. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No it isn't different from being arrested. The point of that clause was to make sure that someone couldn't prevent an elected official from going to congress so that it would be fair to their constituents and the entire democratic principles. The idea is that you can't use red tape to prevent a congressman from carrying out his duties. If you interpret it to simply just mean arrest, almost any bureaucrat could prevent congress from working by putting up red tape and making them jump through hoops. Worse yet, it could be used maliciously to prevent supporters or opponents of a bill from casting their votes. The idea isn't that they can't break any laws, but rather any prosecution and detainment has to wait until they are done with their official business, except in very extreme circumstances.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    47. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sycodon · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    48. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 5, Informative

      Last time I flew I had to get a pat down and the screener fully groped my balls. Please try to tell me getting your balls groped in public is not an erosion of our rights with a straight face.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    49. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by galaad2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      according to this:
      http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/23/ron-paul-campaign-statement-concerning-tsa-abuses/

      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!

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    50. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fine is not automatically applied for refusing a pat-down.

      I do, however, acknowledge that TSA employees have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.

    51. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · 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.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    52. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by element-o.p. · · 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.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    53. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    54. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, 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".

    55. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by skywire · · Score: 1

      So the constitutional clause can be perfectly legally subverted by the ploy of designating as a "secured area" a bottleneck along a member of Congress's path of travel to the capitol? The intent of the clause is NOT to prevent an MC from being charged with a crime. It is to prevent him from being blocked from traveling to the capitol by means of arrest. By the way, in that era, everyone understood that depriving a person of his liberty to travel on the King's highway was to arrest him.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    56. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Some would call that a privilege.

      My point is that one can refuse the pat-down and leave. Our rights have been eroded, but we can still do that much.

    57. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Before they touch you, they ask you if you would prefer a private screening.

      Nobody forces you to be groped in public, at least.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    58. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm curious as to why you think a libertarian would support a high level of foreign aid. That requires giving government more money and power.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    59. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Hey... in some places that sort of treatment comes with a high price tag. You got for free what others pay for!

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    60. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · 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?

    61. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Obfuscant · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Standing up for your Rights is NOT "weird".

      The right time to stand up for your rights is before you've waived them. Yes, walking past the sign that says "anyone passing this point is subject to search" is waiving his fourth amendment rights.

      It would be a lot more interesting if this wasn't someone who felt he had special privileges by being a member of congress. Yawn. Member of congress claims specials privileges. Film at 11.

    62. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yea, well. Felony and "Breach of the Peace" are just a little bit broad, don't you think?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    63. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "they could justify ignoring traffic lights too."

      That works until you run the red light in front of the garbage truck. Claiming it with the TSA at least doesn't get your car crushed. And you can try with the TSA again and again, but physics will hear your argument once in the car.

      And say 'no'. Once.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    64. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by dainbug · · Score: 1

      Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear

    65. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · 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.

    66. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, 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.

    67. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullcrap.

      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.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    68. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most cases you are escorted to the terminal exit and told if you re-enter, you will be arrested for treaspass. The law is very crooked. If you refuse you can be arrested. If you leave you can be arrested and fined. If you re-enter to continue your travels, you can be arrested and placed on a no fly list.

      Basically the current combination of laws are unconstitional and the only thing that gets people pissed off are laws which makes stealing more difficult. Where were they when Obama signed into law illegal and unconstitional detainment and inprisonment? Where were they when Obama signed into law allowing him to create his own federal police force (think Germany's brown shirts, pre-WWII)? Where were they when Obama signed into law illegal registration gun laws for legal US citizens - only possibly because he violated federal law and is now a criminal. Where were they when Obama broke federal gun laws to which it is not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder against federal employees, US and Mexican citizens? See previous question. Technically, Obama can now be classified as a terrorist under the law. Where are all these angry mobs about things that actually matter? Oh that's right...the only important thing is watching American Idol and making it easy to steal shit from other hard working Americans. Holy shit the American people are fucking worthless. And if you did something about SOPA and PIPA and have done nothing about these other things, YOU are what's fucked up in this country. YOU literally are the biggest part of the problem.

    69. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      To be fair, when Captain Underpants isn't hypnotized, there isn't much to catch....

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    70. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PTBarnum · · Score: 2

      Yes, but the rent-a-cops (of which I was one for a couple summers in college) were paid by the airlines, and the airlines, hard as it may be to believe, at least had some incentive not to piss off too many of their customers.

    71. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Feyshtey · · 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...

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    72. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 5, Funny

      Last time I asked if it was fine to have an erection while being patted down. They let me go.

    73. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1
      Well that is some back peddling there. From -

      Our rights haven't been eroded quite that far yet.

      to

      Our rights have been eroded

      I wasn't claiming I couldn't refuse and then not fly, I was just asserting our rights are definitely eroding. I never used to have to get felt up to fly.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    74. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    75. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      And having another man grab my crotch in private is better why?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    76. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by wealthychef · · 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?

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    77. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you're mistaken. The TSA's rule is that once you begin the process, you must complete it or you will be arrested. There was an article on slashdot about that very subject.

    78. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Well, that's kind of the case, and kind of not. Re-booking just gets you a second chance. If whatever set of the alarms the first time sets them of again, you're still out of luck. In this case, whatever set it off didn't do so the second time, no doubt at a cost of $100-200 (or more) for Paul to change his flight. Now, for a congressman who likes to rail against the government, that's really, really cheap publicity. For me, $200 and a flight change would be a real pain in the ass.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    79. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think having a German Shepherd sticking his nose up your butt is dignified?

    80. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 1

      No back-peddling... to put it in a single phrase: "they have been eroded, but not quite that far." We are in agreement.

    81. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain why it should have been handled this way and please don't say "because it's the law". If the law required them to shoot people in the head your argument would look silly.

    82. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      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.

      Well, yes, it's certainly weird. It's not 'bad'. But it is unusual.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    83. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please get on the next plane to North Korea. We don't need you here dragging down our elections with your stupidity.

    84. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by locopuyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This article is about Rand Paul. Ron Paul always refuses the scanners.

    85. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Urza9814 · · 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

    86. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      and there is absolutely no reason that the law should have given Paul the ability to bypass the safety requirements enforced for everyone else.

      Agreed. And, if he had been allowed to bypass security, who's to say he couldn't have been testing them (or performing a stunt) to embarrass the TSA? Now, I'm not a fan of people blindly "following the rules" - like when the name Ted Kennedy was on the No-Fly list and Senator Ted Kennedy was denied a boarding pass (for a flight he had taken about a thousand times over his career, no less), but, in the defense of the TSA officers in the airports, they are given a lot of responsibility to enforce the rules with little authority to interpret them intelligently. Still, I won't shed any tears for the TSA or their employees.

      To be blunt, we all would like to believe that everyone is and should be treated equally, but that is simply not the case and a reasonable argument could be made that it should not be the case. Senator Paul is not going to hijack or down an airplane - though with his Libertarian leanings, he might not help prevent an incident but rather allow the Free Market to decide the plane's fate. :-) Neither are celebrities. And, on that note, will go on the record saying that I *want* Samuel L. Jackson on the plane in case there are snakes...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    87. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to admit this, but I did something similar. I have a conceal carry permit. I was dropping my girlfriend off for a flight. Before entering the airport I unloaded, locked my weapon in the trunk of my vehicle, and tossed the magazine in my jacket pocket. Long story short, there was room on the plane, wouldn't it be romantic if I took an unplanned flight? Completely forgot about the magazine in my pocket until after I tossed the jacket into the xray machine.

      An FBI agent appeared with an index card that had everything there was to know about me jotted down on it, I was questioned and ten minutes later was advised I would not be arrested at this time. I was advised that if something like this happens again, this incident WOULD bite me in the ass. And I made the flight with plenty of time.

      I've taken flights since without any extra screening whatsoever.

      Say what you will, but in this instance things were handled better than expected.

    88. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. Arrest means arrest, being hauled off to jail. When the police just stop someone, that is called being detained. When stopped by an officer, you are suppossed to ask questions like, am I under arrest?, then am I free to go? then, why are you detaining me?

    89. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by AngryDeuce · · 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...

    90. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the metal detector going to detect ceramic knives?

    91. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Flying is a privilege..he could have planned ahead and driven himself back to DC. Might take a while, but sorry, it's not a 'right' to fly....

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    92. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must've failed civics class. Rights CANNOT be waived.

    93. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Congratulations, captain ahole

    94. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would love that wouldn't you??? I am sure you are the President of the Bomb Sniffing Dog lobby aren't you?? It is all about lining your pocket.

    95. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · · Score: 3, 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. :-(

    96. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by lightknight · · Score: 2

      The TSA is unlikely to be disbanded before the economy improves, if at all. Putting that many people out of work (it is a jobs program) is probably seen as politically untenable.

      I long for the days when buying votes from the public cost the politician(s) in question money, not the taxpayer.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    97. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Regardless, the TSA should be exempting Representatives and Senators due to that clause in the Constitution.

      Which "that clause" might you be referring to? The one regarding arrest? Since this wasn't an arrest, that clause doesn't apply. Do you have something more on point? Is there a clause that says that congressmen are not subject to the same laws that they apply to the rest of us? Not even the "arrest" clause makes them exempt, it just delays their arrest until after the congressional session is over.

      All jokes aside, those people are not in any way remotely a threat to an aircraft or the other people on board.

      You must have karma to burn, since the standard /. opinion is that congress is one part of a three part attack on our constitutional rights and freedoms. How can that not be seen as a threat, remote or direct, to the people on board an aircraft?

    98. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      She maintained a straight face while groping your balls? I'd call that pretty professional conduct.

    99. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course: if it is written in legalese, it is as binding as the US constitution.

    100. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I prefer to walk into an airport which doesn't look like it's a third world country in the middle of a civil dispute (guys with SMGs wandering around in plain sight).

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    101. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by tthomas48 · · Score: 2

      Well except that he's a libertarian. Which means he is only opposed to this because it's the government doing it. If it was a private corporation's policy to do cavity searches libertarians say (at least in theory) that they're down with it. Which is why I think most libertarians would stop being libertarians the minute they got the government they say they want.

      I prefer the government defined by our founding fathers that means we have to debate these things in the public sphere and the government does its best to come up with something that works for everybody.

    102. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Um, except that isn't what happened. He was on his way to speak for the March of Life, not to participate in any sort of congressional proceedings. I don't like the TSA's procedures, but this situation was handled exactly the way it should have been handled, and there is absolutely no reason that the law should have given Paul the ability to bypass the safety requirements enforced for everyone else.

      The Senate is in session TODAY starting at 2pm and votes are scheduled at 4:30pm TODAY, so that excuse brought to you by the TSA is out the window. The part of the constitution where the TSA may be able to squeak by is that he was not held, was he allowed to leave immediately after the scanner failed or was he taken to a room, if it can be proved that he was not free to leave then the TSA was in violation of Article 1, section 6 of the constitution.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    103. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by djdanlib · · Score: 2

      We have two problems in this situation.

      1) Live munitions being forgotten about.

      2) Invasive searches with severe repercussions even if you're innocent of intentional wrongdoing.

      So, let's remember that these are two separate and equally valid issues.

    104. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      DHS as a whole is full of liars. Just look at how Janet N. and her underlings at CBP/ICE have lied up and down about conditions on the border, all while ex-BP agents and local sheriffs report otherwise. They have made lies and non-enforcement into policy in the field, all to serve the agenda of the administration.

      It's disgusting, and I'm anon because I'm contractor to DHS/TSA. If it weren't for the fact that I have a wife and kids, I would have quit a long time ago. As it is I think I can get out in a year or so, and it will be a great relief. Even though I rationalize it with the fact that I do not directly support screening operations, no other job has made me feel as dirty or guilty as working with DHS, and a lot of others in the agency, including the TSOs (screeners) themselves, feel the same way. Somebody is going to get paid to do this work, whether it's us or some nameless replacement from the pool of unemployed, so I try not to beat myself up about it too much. It's better for everybody in the end that the work is being done reluctantly and with some degree of conscience than by nihilist automatons. This too might be more rationalizing.

    105. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · · 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.

    106. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was. But I negated the whole of sjames' comment, which was phrased in a way to make the public groping seem mandatory.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    107. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by somersault · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm not American. I also have no idea about my right when it cons to stuff like pat downs. I don't however like the idea of paying for 2 flights just to avoid having another person touch me, especially since I have nothing to hide.

      I wasn't thinking weapons, I was more thinking drugs as so e other guy said. I definitely think politics attracts that sales/management type asshole who is into his coke and hookers.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    108. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

      That's a pretty serious accident regardless of whether it was honest or not. There's only a thousand signs, warnings, etc everywhere about the do's and don't. I get a dwi and I will watched by cops everytime my license plate comes across their vision. Same shit, different day.

    109. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to suggest a libertarian would actually support a high level of foreign aid. On the contrary, I suspect he wouldn't. If his plan is to dismantle the TSA, eliminate foreign aid, and revert to the isolationist policy of the United States before World War I, the natural concern would be that this might be folly in the face of geopolitical reality. That we had two World Wars in the span of 30 years tends to suggest it might not be a good idea. On the other hand, a retreat to isolationism might provide substantial benefit in that it eliinates a lot of geopolitical frictions, thereby obviating the need for the TSA.

      Just curious. I doubt I'll ever hear any sensible discussion of the matter from any politicians, though.

    110. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a perfect example of "roll over and let the government do what they want... you have nothing to hide right?"

    111. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      SA

      Godwin-invoking Freudian slip? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    112. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by The+Askylist · · Score: 1

      I feel sure that the provision of foreign aid to at least one country is at the root of the perceived need for the TSA - if the US had been more isolationist and less in thrall to that particular country, they would not have been the target of the Islamists ire.

    113. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      You're right...

      I mean seriously, why would the Honorable Senator not want his balls groped against his will and in violation of the Constitution.

    114. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · · Score: 4, 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?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    115. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by somersault · · Score: 1

      Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you need to use it, especially if it means sitting around in an airport for hours just because you're worried someone might touch your junk as they pat down your legs. I understand that most slashdotters are probably introverts, but I just find pat downs amusing. Maybe I've watched too many action movies.

      Now cavity searches I'd have a problem with, but not a simple pat down.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    116. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      Yea, I agree the response to an innocent mistake is heavy-handed. Reminds me of all those 'zero tolerance' bullshit things back in school. There's not too much you can do with a single cartridge, for example. Maybe blow up your hand?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    117. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      I don't like the current screening methodology, or the reasons behind it. If I have to go through it, then Rand and his dad have to go through it, too.

      Rand probably called a corporate contributor and just walked out the other exit onto the tarmac, and into a private jet so that he could make it in on time-- who knows, maybe flying into a neary AFB.

      Did he get searched on his way to the private plane? Unlikely.There are two standards: one for the 1%, and the rest for you and me.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    118. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Hey stupid...let me explain why...

      Today we're having a vote to decide if America is going to round up all Italian-Americans after the recent bombing of the cruise ship by Italian terrorists.

      The vote takes place at 2pm. War mongers want to round up the Italians-Americans and put them in camps to ensure the safety of the rest of America as America has just declared war against Italy in retaliation.

      Oh, these 5 Senators opppose the round up. Please detain them and prevent them from voting.

      ---

      That law is to ensure that political use of arrest can not be used to prevent democratic voting by elected officials.

      To give you another example, recently the Vice-President in Iraq has had to flee after the President put out a warrant for his arrest IMMEDIATELY following the U.S. pullout from Iraq.

      That's what this law is meant to prevent.

      Without it, we'd be in danger of a powerful charmismatic and tyrannical President eliminating and silencing the voices that oppose him.

    119. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, 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.

    120. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    121. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      Ugh. Hold up there professor of populist law. Arrest and detention are legally different. In the first place, detention doesn't count when an employed asks if you have ever been arrested and does not appear in arrest records. People can be detained without being Mirandized, which usually works against those detained. The standards of evidence for detention and arrest are different. Detention is predicated upon RAS (reasonable, articulable suspicion) of being involved in a crime. Arrest is predicated on probable cause, which must exceed suspicion to include some kind of material evidence/witness. Furthermore: Tax: A government surcharge on a transaction that does not necessarily involve the government directly. Fee: The cost of a government service rendered directly to the fee payer. While the service may or may not be mandatory, the fee payer initiates the transaction. Fine: A punitive charge for violation of a government ordinance/law/regulation/etc. While all are revenue generating constructs based on the legislative authority to tax, that does not remove the distinct nature of each. I am not a lawyer, and the previous should not be considered legal advice.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    122. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would go further and suggest that this is a right that ought to be enjoyed by all Americans. Freedom of movement is as vital to a functioning democracy as freedom of the press.

    123. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Well, the dogs may only give some dignity back, they do, after all, tend to be crotch sniffers as well.

    124. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If someone really wants to destroy an airplane laden with passengers, or more generally, perform an act of "terrorism," there is no way to prevent someone from eventually carrying it out. The human mind is capable of planning an unknown number of possibilities to achieve whatever it determines its ends might be. No computer, with no known algorithm, can keep up with the human mind and its ability to imagine / design / calculate here.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    125. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there. So clever.

    126. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fundamentally, Privacy is a protected right. That is the whole basis of the Roe v.s. Wade decision. Personally, I think it is a bit of a stretch that a right to Privacy == a right to kill an unborn child HOWEVER, there are many many things that are not nearly as big a stretch. The Republicans have looked a gift horse in the mouse Re: Roe v.s. Wade and are WAY too focused on the abortion issue. Just imagine all the times you would love to tell the government that it is none of their damn business and it is pretty much covered by Roe v.s. Wade.

    127. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      "Arrest" is legally defined to mean restraint under color of authority. He was restrained under color of authority from utilizing a common carrier.

      That's just nonsense. Using that logic, he wouldn't have to pay bus fare because the bus company would be "arresting" him if they didn't let him on without paying. The same for a cab company. The same for YOU, if he demanded to use your car to get to congress. You'd be "arresting" him because you didn't let him use your car.

      He wasn't arrested, any more than anyone else who passed through that screening line was arrested by the process. They are delayed, perhaps, but "delay" isn't arrest, any more than the delay you face when you are stopped by a traffic cop is an "arrest".

      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 fact he wasn't arrested has every bearing on the matter.

      Exactly what do you propose replacing Congress with and when will you have a draft of your Constitutional Amendment available for review?

      You have nothing to say but nonsense, do you?

    128. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by unrtst · · Score: 3, 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.

    129. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Politico is firewalled off here, but The Guardian isn't.

      I wish all 500 of the damned congresscritters and Spentaturds would go through TSA hell, we'd get rid of that worthless abomination. Too bad they didn't arrest him, you'd see a shitstorm then!.

    130. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      I long for the days when buying votes from the public cost the politician(s) in question money, not the taxpayer.
      Wow, you hung out w/ Marcus Licinius Crassus and Gaius Julius Caesar? Or do you long for days you have never experienced yourself.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    131. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by spasm · · Score: 2

      He wasn't arrested, he was 'detained'. You know, that handy status we've invented to get around constitutional niceties about arrest and due process.

      On another note "shall in all cases, except .. breach of the peace" - the TSA could argue he was breaching the peace by refusing to adhere to their security theatre.

    132. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by rilian4 · · Score: 1

      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.

      The TSA will probably harass both Ron and Rand Paul ad infinitum unless and until Ron is elected President and does away with the entire department. The TSA is unconstitutional and should not exist (4th amendment, 10th amendment for starters).

      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
    133. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by RussellSHarris · · Score: 2

      Arrest, in its original version, means "to bring to a stop". Its next definition is, "to take or keep in custody by authority of law". I.e. an officer of the law stops you and then keeps you there. The amount of time you are kept there is immaterial.

      If an officer of the law stops you, he has arrested you. If that officer then keeps you there, he is arresting you.

      "Detain" is a word that was invented to mean "we don't have enough cause to arrest you, but we believe we're justified in forcing you to submit to an unconstitutional search, during which we hope to find cause to arrest you".

    134. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure private isn't worse since there's nobody to witness the abuse, so the amended statement is:

      Yeah, really weird. I can't possibly imagine why a man wouldn't want another man to fondle his crotch in public OR WORSE

    135. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 0

      You're each partly right. It is certainly a privilege to fly on a plane that someone else owns. The Senator could have avoided this debacle with a private plane.

    136. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Would allowing people to walk away be pretty stupid? If you could just walk away instead of being patted down then there would be no risk of being caught if you attempt to get through a checkpoint with something concealed on your body.

      I'm not here to apologize for the TSA in general -- I believe those who say that very little of what they do actually makes us significantly safer -- but on this point I think they might have it right. If they people walk away, we would ridicule them for being incompetent. If they don't, we call them oppressive.

    137. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by rilian4 · · Score: 1

      The US Government doesn't have the right to do searches PERIOD without a warrant (see 4th amendment).

      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
    138. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by dogmasponge · · Score: 0

      I agree with you in principle, but we don't have a right to fly in commercial aircraft without being searched.

      Rand Paul's case might prove to be an exception because he's a congressman.

      Well lets have a TSA free airline. Fly at your own risk.

    139. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course: if it is written in legalese, it is as binding as the US constitution.

      No, it's not.

      If you put a sign in your best legalese on the front of your car that says "driver is not responsible for damage inflicted to others while intoxicated", and then you get drunk, hop in your car, and proceed to kill a pedestrian, you will be arrested and charged.

      Legalese doesn't make an action legal. Walking past a sign is not a waiver of rights.

    140. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing against the law as it is written. I fully realize its purpose. The Senator was not arrested, and it was his responsibility to secure passage back to Washington in order to be present for the session. If he was not prepared to comply with the requirements for flying on a commercial aircraft, then he should have made plans to get there by some other way, be it by private aircraft, car, Segway or whatever other method fit his needs.

    141. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like someone needs to look up the different between 'arrest' and 'detainment'.

    142. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isolationism and Non-Interventionism are different ideologies, you insensitive clod.

    143. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      I agree that we catch plenty of ill will for our hefty support of Israel and that appears to be the stated reason for the September 11 attacks -- although the professed reasons for the attacks by the terrorists don't ever seem to have been properly discussed here in the United States so it's kind of hard to be sure. I often wonder why we provide Israel with so much aid. Also, does "foreign aid" as defined by a libertarian include sales of advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia? That would no doubt piss off Saudi Arabian terrorists who oppose the rule of the Saud family.

      Personally I'm inclined to think it's wishful thinking to think that eliminating foreign aid will solve our security problems. Just because you stop lending your tools to your neighbor doesn't mean he will stop beating his wife or that his dog will stop shitting on your lawn. Having read extensively about WWI (Tuchman, Simonds, etc.) it's my understanding that the stated reason for US involvement in WWI was to protect free trade on the seas and defend the rights of neutral countries. More skeptical observers say that it was in part to make sure Britain and France survived so they would repay loans and debts owed to the US and also out of fear of a dominating German Empire that stretched unbroken from the North Atlantic to Africa and Asia. In any case, foreign belligerents inevitably tread upon the rights of neutrals. It's better to defuse this problem in advance than to try and solve it after the fact.

    144. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking more "pussy" than "terrorist" in this case.

      I don't mind the checks themselves, I mind the mindset that puts them there - and the stories I've heard from friends and read here of foreigners being treated like shit by US border officials.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    145. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are the people that damn near passed SOPA and PIPA, after all.

      As horrible as those bills were/are they have not ever been "damn near" being passed.

    146. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by trdrstv · · Score: 1

      All jokes aside, those people are not in any way remotely a threat to an aircraft or the other people on board.

      I had an airline PILOT in front of me going to work when TSA asked him to take off his shoes, and I was like "Really? If he wanted down the plane, do you think he'd have to use a shoe bomb ? He's the pilot for Christ's sake ... " the pilot did take off his shoes, but I got him to laugh, and pissed off the TSA guy so it was a Win-win.

    147. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure anything you can arrested for at a TSA checkpoint is a "Felony".

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    148. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · · Score: 2

      Easy you unscientific troll.

      Take a DNA test of the mother, the father and the unborn infant.

      Now tell me, does the latter match the DNA of either of it's parents? Is it part of the mother's body?

      Nope...

      Hence in Paul's eyes, he is protecting another human being. Agree or disagree. There is no conflict in his view.

      This is probably one of the only gray areas in Libertarian viewpoint. Namely, because the side one comes down upon is determined by the individual's interpretation of life.

      Let's just assume for Paul's sake, that he is indeed right, that a baby is a human life. Than he is on the right of it.

      Now let's assume he is wrong. Well then, he is in the wrong against the mother's rights.

      At least Paul has chosen to err on the side of life. Which I feel is the better choice.

    149. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jeez, my blood pressure is through the roof anytime I get near an airport, and the airlines are to blame way more than the TSA. I love how we get all bunged up about pat-downs at the security check points and we totally ignore the abuse we get from the friggin airlines!

      I'd go through checkpoints twice if I knew it meant that I would get a seat that didn't feel only slightly bigger than a shoe box, and an in-flight meal that didn't taste like the shoes that came in the box.

    150. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by rilian4 · · Score: 1

      I don't like the current screening methodology, or the reasons behind it. If I have to go through it, then Rand and his dad have to go through it, too.

      1. You shouldn't have to go through it. It violates the 4th and 10th amendments for starters
      2. Rand Paul did, in fact, go through it. That was the entire point of the article.

      Rand probably called a corporate contributor and just walked out the other exit onto the tarmac, and into a private jet so that he could make it in on time-- who knows, maybe flying into a neary AFB.

      You obviously didn't read the article. Senator Paul did not make it to his session on time. There was no private plane. He was rebooked on a later flight and passed screening the second go round.

      By the way, the Constitution guarantees US Representatives and US Senators right of travel to and from legislative business w/o being subject to arrest...so yes, they do have a few special rules that don't apply to the rest of us.

      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
    151. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asshole. Worthless, cock-sucking, America-destroying asshole. Your attitude is EVERYTHING that is wrong with this country today.

    152. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Firehed · · Score: 1

      TSA members are not law enforcement officers. They are still rent-a-cops, like the guys at the mall: they may have additional security privileges but still have to call in actual LEOs if there's an incident they believe warrants someone being arrested. This is a common misconception; it's apparently bad enough that a House bill has been proposed so they won't be able to have cop-like uniforms: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/12/strip-act-targets-tsa.html

      Because airports have lots of real cops that are easily accessible, they can still make your life (or at least your day) pretty miserable with ease, but on their own they're just expensive thugs.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    153. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by somersault · · Score: 1

      Duh. That's the entire point of security checks in the first place.

      All the rules about fluids are BS, but I don't understand the ire over pat-downs.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    154. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 1

      What we have here is not a Senator that was intercepted intentionally to keep him from his duties. We have a Senator that refused to comply with the law, as passed by Congress, that currently regulates air travel. He was not arrested, as the law defines it. This situation was created by a combination of past acts of Congress and the Senator's own shortsightedness. The particular clause of the Constitution that you refer to is not intended to protect members of Congress from either of those things.

    155. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · · Score: 2

      Neither the bus company, cab company nor you (I think) have legal authority to restrain or arrest anyone. That is the difference. Claimed legal authority, legitimate or not.

      The bus driver, you and the cab driver are private citizens and are committing crimes if you physically restrain someone. And no, not paying for a service and a private citizen not providing that service -- even one representing a common carrier or public transit provider -- is not the same thing.

      Feel free to read Black's Law Dictionary or even The Free Dictionary for a definition of arrest.

      You have nothing to say but nonsense, do you?

      I could say the same thing about you. Your snarky comment about Congress being one of the main threats to our Constitution was poorly worded. You implied Congress *ITSELF* was a threat, hence my query about your replacement ideas.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    156. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Actually, congresscritters HAVE used that clause to avoid being charged with a crime related to a motor vehicle. I recall one congresscritter who was pulled over on a suspected DUI, then claimed to be on the way to Congress. The cops had to let them go without being charged.

      Looked bad in the media though.

    157. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sosume · · Score: 1

      refusing to cooperate in full with the TSA could be seen as both treason and a breach of peace..

    158. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      an in-flight meal that didn't taste like the shoes that came in the box.

      Hey, at least you got a meal. The last few times I flew, I got two peanuts and a thimble of soda.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    159. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Well, in this case, you don't have to go the broader definition. The story's summary says he was "detained". That would most certainly seem to fit the stricter definition of "arrest".

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    160. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The general idea, in so far as I can divine, is that that particular privilege was granted to Congressmen so that a Governor (or anyone with state-granted authority to impede) could not prevent a Congressman from participating / voting for a particular piece of legislation that they have a difference of opinion on.

      If a Senator from NY wants to outlaw radishes, and the Governor does not, the Governor cannot think of a way to lockup or otherwise stop the Senator from traveling to Congress, and voicing his desire to ban radishes. Me thinks in olden times, at the beginning of the Union, the people involved didn't think that the then Governors of the colonies were above applying a little pressure to their new Congressmen to "see things their way, for the good of the Union." People in power rarely like to share power, even if it's in their own best interest.

      In today's terms, the design is to prevent someone from issuing a Congressman a speeding ticket, and requiring them to spend a night in jail while an important vote is on the floor of one of the houses. Anything short of a Capital crime shall not impede them, if I remember correctly.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    161. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      You think having a German Shepherd sticking his nose up your butt is dignified?

      A German Shepherd ? No.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    162. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think using the phrase "congress critters" exempts you from taking part in any serious discussions for the rest of your life. Political or not.

    163. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 1

      I should add that the Senator was free to do what Congress tells us all we should do: just accept the damned pat-down and get on the damned plane.

    164. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      What, our members of congress aren't out of touch enough for you? They aren't a security threat, but I don't want them insulated from the effects of the laws they pass either. If the TSA makes travel difficult for regular people it should make travel for them difficult too.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    165. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      I'm totally going to steal that. It's a great way to illustrate the relative cost of the screening.

    166. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by superwiz · · Score: 2

      Well, I am sorry, but since your friend could have been just as easily probing TSA for weakness, it makes sense to take an extra step in looking at her a bit more. That's just effective counter-intelligence.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    167. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Firing hundreds of thousands of other government workers during even the worst parts of the recession hasn't been politically untenable so far.

      Granted, IIRC, those are mostly state and local jobs.

    168. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, since they specifically for that reason contain metal.

    169. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      I expect that clause, or just general senatorial privileges, is what Paul invoked to refuse rescreening without actually being detained the way a civilian would have been. Instead he was just allowed to leave the airport. Most people would be interrogated for hours, and locked up indefinitely - actual detention.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    170. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      There is the actual solution to this problem. Change the law so ALL flights require TSA checks. Even charter flights.

      Suddenly all these priviledged pre-madona's boarding charter and private jets would change the law real quick.

    171. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a frequent customer of the airlines I'm uncomfortable leaving the security of their flights up to them. Given the potentially catastrophic consequences of a security breach, my criteria for choosing an airline would not be "who gropes the least" but who can keep me the safest. I'm unwilling to wait until after a catastrophic event to get the information I need to make an informed decision as a consumer.

    172. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Probably from Liberia or something? ;-)

    173. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      Without a firearm chambered for that round, you couldn't do anything with it.

      In response to the prior post, it was in the early 2000s, and I don't have contact with this person anymore so I can't ask for any further details.

    174. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      ...unless and until Ron is elected President

      *rim shot*

    175. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Actually it was already on the list and the campaign just issued the PR as yet another example of why. Odd that you read it as "just got added", as the first half of the sentence you quoted made that fairly obvious: “That is why my ‘Plan to Restore America,’ in additional to cutting $1 trillion dollars in federal spending in one year, eliminates the TSA."

      http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ plans for a DHS spending freeze, including "Transportation Safety Administration Privatized".

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    176. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Urza9814 · · Score: 3, 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.

    177. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by AJH16 · · Score: 4, 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?

      --
      AJ Henderson
    178. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA has long been on Ron Paul's wishlist of things to eliminate.

    179. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by forkfail · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the TSA would like you to think so.

      --
      Check your premises.
    180. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by somersault · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm not American.

      I used to be pissed off at Americans always going on about rights/constitution-this, right-to-bear-arms-that online 15 years ago, and since then you've let your government rape you repeatedly. So it would seem to be you and all your buddies that are the "worthless, cock-sucking, America-destroying" assholes.

      Here in the UK people don't seem to get so irate over stupid little things like CCTV systems. I get annoyed about the fluids limit on planes since that's clearly retarded, but I don't have much problem with some of the other things that you guys go batshit-crazy over (all talk, mind you). If it got to the stage where something was clearly on a slippery slope, then I'd consider getting involved in politics, but I don't consider all slopes so heavily slippery as everyone else does.

      The protests against SOPA/PIPA are just about the only effective protest I've even heard of in a decade. And I wasn't even that bothered about it, because I thought if the US government really want to segregate themselves from the world and fuck over their own economy that badly, let them learn the hard way.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    181. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    182. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And now let's see how often a TSA goon actually bothers to stop a senator, right or no right.

      Seriously, imagine you're a person who has no marketable skill so you're a TSA goon. There's this politician who probably knows god himself or at least someone close enough to him that can make your life even more useless by firing you. Said politician refuses to let you pat him down and cites some law you never heard of.

      Do you question it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    183. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by forkfail · · Score: 1

      Cart before the horse on the breech of the peace argument, as there would be no issue if the TSA weren't flagrantly violating fourth and fifth amendment rights.

      --
      Check your premises.
    184. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by syousef · · Score: 1

      No one expects the Aqua Buddha!

      Nor the Spanish Inquisition, or some I'm told...how appropriate.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    185. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who looks at the backscatter scanner and wants to stick a label on it saying "Orgasmatron"?

    186. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by mcgrew · · Score: 4, 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?"

    187. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      The bus driver, you and the cab driver are private citizens and are committing crimes if you physically restrain someone. And no, not paying for a service and a private citizen not providing that service -- even one representing a common carrier or public transit provider -- is not the same thing.

      Yes, according to your logic, being prevented from doing something is "arrest", because someone was "restrained" from doing it. TSA didn't let him through a security checkpoint because he wouldn't comply with the requirements to pass. That's being delayed, and that's following the same rules that are being applied to every other person of lesser quality who tries to pass.

      But that's not being arrested. In fact, he was allowed to walk away, something that most people in that situation would not have been allowed to do. He got a free pass, and you're trying to claim he was treated worse than everyone else.

      You've fallen hook, line, and sinker for this publicity stunt.

      Your snarky comment about Congress being one of the main threats to our Constitution was poorly worded.

      I said that the standard /. OPINION was that congress is a threat. I pointed out that the fact that someone said that a congressman was not a threat was contradictory to that opinion. I didn't say they were, in fact, a threat. Please look up the words you don't understand.

    188. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Aerynvala · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen in-fight meals in a long time and I refuse to pay $5 for a bag of M&Ms or whatever 'snack' they try to sell.

      --
      http://transformativeworks.org/
    189. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the Pauls oppose those bills

    190. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but based on your sig I'm going to guess that you had a cucumber wrapped in tinfoil down your pants...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    191. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, when faced with a choice of believing that a senator is doing something illegal

      Actually, I think it's entirely believable that senators are doing something shady & illegal most of the time.

    192. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      ...
      Senator Paul is not going to hijack or down an airplane - though with his Libertarian leanings, he might not help prevent an incident but rather allow the Free Market to decide the plane's fate. :-) Neither are celebrities. And, on that note, will go on the record saying that I *want* Samuel L. Jackson on the plane in case there are snakes...

      Given the kind of stuff Adam Savage regularly uses in his job, I think it makes sense for him to go through screening to make sure he didn't forget and bring his work with him. Although I do remember the TSA missing something when they searched him on a previous trip ...

    193. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 1

      Well played, sir.

    194. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I don't find the idea funny that the TSA will exist in eternity.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    195. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I'm paying for it.

    196. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Of course they do, the TSA people are dealing with people, on the other hand the assistant manager deals with the important stuff, money.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    197. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA goons threw an unspent round into a pile of 'other things', and didn't see that there was any problem of doing that?

      Nope. Not feeling any safer!

    198. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Since when does your right to "fly on a plane without being subjected to a thorough search" outweigh my right to "fly on an airplane with a reasonable certainty that the homicidal maniacs on board are NOT armed"?

      Karma? Yes, I do have some to burn...

      Given the actual number of homicidal maniacs in the world vs. the number of flights, I'm reasonably certain none are on my plane with or without a search of any kind.

      I'm also reasonably certain that if I buy a lottery ticket, it won't win me big money.

      We have security theater for the same reason lotteries are in business: general lack of understanding of probability and statistics.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    199. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by lgw · · Score: 1

      Freedom is more important than safety. That's the whole argument really - if you don't find it convincing, you haven't read enough history (hint: after they take your freedom, they follow up by taking that safety too).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    200. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by lgw · · Score: 1

      The counterargument is: we've actually tried it both ways, and in the real, actual world governments do this shit and corporations didn't. Only the government can get away with fucking over its customers for long, corporaitons can only do that with government backing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    201. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by daktari · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I, for one, would be very interested to see how the elimination of airport security measures impacts passengers' blood pressure.

      --
      A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees. -- Willam Blake
    202. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 1

      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.

      I like this guys idea: http://www.cracked.com/blog/if-awesome-lunatics-ran-airlines/

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    203. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too, but I choose the ball grope over the skin cancer every time.

      On the plus side, the TSA agent looked as uncomfortable as I felt.

    204. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is, a person should be able to opt out, when it becomes too invasive (Unless authorities have a search warrant). This does not effect your safety in any way. Also, a government mandate is not the only way to ensure flier safety. This could be done on an airline-by-airline basis, then everyone could choose their safety/privacy tradeoff. The purpose of TSA(as I understand it) was to prevent airplanes from being used as a missile (which doesn't allow everyone concerned a choice). But it seems to me this problem can be solved by using a strong lockable door, and giving the pilot a gun. TSA is a huge, and ineffective, overreaction IMO.

    205. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a Senator is high enough on the food chain to bring the beast down.

      Could this be the beginning of the end for the TSA?

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    206. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Suddenly all these priviledged pre-madona's boarding charter and private jets would change the law real quick.

      Yeah, the idiotic law that would require TSA screening on charter and private flights would be changed. If you wanted to find a way to destroy the general aviation industry in this country, that would be the law to do it.

    207. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sakshale · · Score: 1

      My point is that one can refuse the pat-down and leave. Our rights have been eroded, but we can still do that much.

      Given that I have a pacemaker ensures that I only have two options;
      * never fly again
      * submit to a pat-down.
      Not much of a choice in a country the size of ours.

      --
      For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.
    208. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ball groping free flights? i'll let anybody grope my balls for free flights.

    209. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Were you not alive in the 80's and 90's? Sniffer dogs and metal detectors have pretty much always been present. If the government thought that was adequate we wouldn't have the Transportation Safety Gestapo.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    210. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      you are correct. the "fraidycat" american way is popular.

      The TSA has not caught ONE terrorist. They are 100% ineffective and needs to be removed as an expense that the american people do not need to carry.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    211. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Employers can't ask if you have ever been arrested. They can ask if you have ever been convicted of a felony. So [UUUUUgggggghhhhh]! you have violated federal law and just admitted to it. That or you are just another HR dweeb who thinks they can ask questions like that to employees. Have you ever been married? Do you plan on getting married? ... FU

    212. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Please try to tell me getting your balls groped in public is not an erosion of our rights with a straight face.

      Not being groped is like yelling fire in a crowded security theater!

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    213. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by antdude · · Score: 1

      Shia/Luke, is that you? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    214. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      How exactly does it not apply? The definition of 'arrest' as it pertains to the law is to be restrained under color of law. Uniformed officers of the federal government detaining you comes pretty damn close to that definition.

      Oh, and they detained him while "going to" "attendance at the session of [his] respective house" in the Congress.

      Sounds like a case could be made, at the very least.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    215. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by galaad2 · · Score: 1

      (oh... i guess it shows that i'm european here... haven't visited US since 1995 and actively avoided it since the TSA craziness started.)

      however, "privatized" doesn't mean the same thing as "elimination".

      this is what i see when "privatization" comes up, and such a "privatized" TSA is no different than the current one IMHO

      http://consumerist.com/2010/11/armed-walmart-guard-swipes-my-property-because-i-wouldnt-show-receipt.html

      http://consumerist.com/2011/07/lawsuit-walmart-falsely-arrested-me-made-me-lose-my-job-had-husband-deported-over-290-worth-of-chick.html

      http://consumerist.com/2011/10/child-seized-after-fainting-mother-forgot-to-pay-for-sandwich.html

      and many others...

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    216. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Lumpy · · 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.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    217. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Given the kind of stuff Adam Savage regularly uses in his job, I think it makes sense for him to go through screening to make sure he didn't forget and bring his work with him.

      Sure, but simply having something potentially dangerous with you doesn't mean you're going to (or would ever) use it. I'm sure Adam is not interested in hijacking or downing an airplane either - unless he rejects our reality and substitutes his own ... :-)

      Having knitting needles doesn't mean you're going to knit an afghan on the flight ... so to speak.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    218. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by magarity · · Score: 1

      We have a Senator that refused to comply with the law, as passed by Congress, that currently regulates air travel.

      Ah, here's the real problem with federal agencies: the Congress didn't pass any law about groping procedures. They created the DHS and simply said the director shall determine what is needed. The director then comes up with the groping procedures, which are agency policies, not really laws in the proper sense of legislation created and approved by representatives. The bulk of the federal government runs roughshod over us in this way.

    219. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "My point is that one can refuse the pat-down and leave."

      no you cant. you have to do what they tell you or get arrested. if they ALLOW you to leave then you can.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    220. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      When did we "try it both ways" exactly?

    221. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given the story is about Rand Paul I'm not sure what poor taste jokes about old people have to do with it. On Fox News they're no doubt reporting this as, "Republican presidential candidate's son detained for terrorism."

    222. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Or, y'know, zero-syllable words. Since he did say "or less".

    223. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by mcgrew · · Score: 4, 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.

    224. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      .50 caliber BAR. Hmm, never heard of it because it doesn't exist.

    225. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It didn't seem to make much difference when Sen. Ted Kennedy was on the no fly list. He got it fixed with a phone call and life went on.

    226. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · · Score: 1

      You're right, but when Congress gives power and fails to exercise control, it is responsible for what is done with that power.

    227. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Lumpy · · Score: 0

      "If I put a sign on my lawn that says "anyone passing this sign can be detained indefinitely" does that make it so?"

      Yes, if certain conditions are met.

      You have enough guns and armed goons to enforce this. For example your local police has plenty of goons that happily violate citizen rights to enfirce unjust "laws" that have no more worth than a random sign posted on a street corner.

      So if your local police has 10,000 cops, get 20,000 of your own and arm them with automatic weapons and body armor. Your local police will certainly back down as cowards and let you detain anyone you wish.

      Any cop that does not uphold the constitution is a coward.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    228. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by amiga3D · · 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.

    229. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      If this is true, then why does congress not call for the arrest and imprisonment of all TSA employees involved in the incident?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    230. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by amiga3D · · Score: 3, 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.

    231. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by lgw · · Score: 1

      Before 9/11, airport security was run by the airlines, not by a government agency. The airlines certianly weren'tafraid to piss off their customers, but they never wen't that for. In the 1980 movie Airplane! there's a security checkpoint where the security scanner shows the boobies of every woman who walks through: that was an absurdist joke in 1980.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    232. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well, you can strike the primer if you have something sharp and sturdy enough. Hold a metal pen against it and slam a book down on it. The most that's going to happen though is a small explosion in your face, ruining you and your neighbor's days but not doing very much at all to the plane itself. Without the barrel to contain the pressure, it's just going to pop the cartridge body like a teeny grenade.

      Perhaps you could blow out a window, if you did this against it - but that's not going to do anything except cause a few soiled pants and a diversion to a nearby airport.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    233. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think bringing up the Constitution like that qualifies you as a troublemaker too. They don't really like hearing from that old document, it's too old fashioned.

    234. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I was just in line at the TSA checkpoint in Miami (MIA) coming home from a work trip yesterday. After throwing my stuff on the conveyor belt for the carryon X-ray machine, I told the TSA agent managing the line I wanted a pat down if they were going to send me through the body scanner. He just waved me through the metal detector instead. Security my ass.

    235. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And pussies like you are the cause of the mess that we're in...

    236. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by pdabbadabba · · Score: 2

      Let's separate questions of wisdom and power. I was arguing that allowing people to refuse pat downs and walk away was a bad idea. You seem to be suggesting that they don't have the power.

      So, for the sake of argument, let's agree that the TSA's policy of not letting you walk away is a good one from a policy perspective. In that case, indeed, we should then ask if the TSA has the legal power to do this. But it seems clear that they do; as agents of the executive branch acting pursuant to federal law and within the confines of their constitutional power...why exactly doesn't the TSA have the power to require that you be screened if you enter a screening area?

    237. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... More importantly, these are the people who continue to permit the TSA's entirely pointless existence. Along with much of the DHS's useless existence and the DEA's very expensive useless existence...

    238. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      My point is that one can refuse the pat-down and leave. Our rights have been eroded, but we can still do that much.

      O RLY? And that was just a random Google search; the case I was thinking of was a man.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    239. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before they touch you, they ask you if you would prefer a private screening.

      No.

      (O'Hare, a few months ago)

      But then again, I'm a dirty foreigner. Can't trust us Swedes.

    240. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Since when does your right to "fly on a plane without being subjected to a thorough search" outweigh my right to "fly on an airplane with a reasonable certainty that the homicidal maniacs on board are NOT armed"?

      That would be the minute that the Federal Government authorizes non-warrant searches that include choosing between grabbing a fistful of my nards or irradiation. I would be tickled pink for you to purchase your tickets from Full Monty Airlines where you and your craven ilk can drop your boxers completely for that extra ounce of your security illusion. I will be happy to take my chances on an airline with pre 9/11 security searches. I feel safe enough with reinforced cockpit doors.

      Let the customer decide how much "security" he is willing to pay for/put up with.

    241. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      So a Non-Disclosure doesn't waive my right to free speech? Actually, isn't that the direct definition of a Waiver?

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    242. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by MasterLock · · Score: 2

      No, they shouldn't exempt them clause or not. Every time Congress exempts themselves from a law, there is no way that law is going to get changed in the future. If Congress is laying out the law of the land, they should be subjected to it as well (also see Insider Trading laws).

    243. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you will find you know jack and shit about this, since I did not limit it to private employers. Guess what anon-tard, when you seek a federal security clearance, as I have, you get asked about your arrest record, and you must disclose it all under penalty of perjury or NO JOB FOR YOU. State and local LE jobs are the same way, and there are probably other exemptions.

      What does that have to do with marriage anyway? Or are you trying to demonstrate that your reading comprehension is as poor as your knowledge of employment law and practices?

    244. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paul said he was taken to a cubicle, and told to stay. When he tried to leave, he was surrounded by armed guards and told to go back. That sounds like being held. I don't know if it counts as being "detained".

    245. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Actually you will find you know jack and shit about this, since I did not limit it to private employers. Guess what anon-tard, when you seek a federal security clearance, as I have, you get asked about your arrest record, and you must disclose it all under penalty of perjury or NO JOB FOR YOU. State and local LE jobs are the same way, and there are probably other exemptions.

      What does that have to do with marriage anyway? Or are you trying to demonstrate that your reading comprehension is as poor as your knowledge of employment law and practices?

      (Reposted due to accidental AC.)

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    246. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You can't even make snyde remarks to the groper...or at least that is what they were claiming over the intercom when I was passing through the Houston, TX airport back in August..

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    247. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      It came out of a box of Cracker Jacks.

      That's a school for ants. How was he supposed to learn anything about civics when he couldn't even fit in the building?

    248. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the judges sitting in courtrooms disagree with you. They have decided that policemen have the right to rip your car apart if a dog talks to them and tells them that you have drugs.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    249. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Consider the following:

      1) TSA consistently fails to find contraband when tested unaware. (And we're trying the same ol' same ol' in our tests. Nothing new or unsuspected like explosive breast implants.)

      2) The threat of a U.S. airline EVER being used as a missile again is next to nothing. Americans are now aware of that threat. In fact, I estimate the time from a man standing up with a gun or a box cutter and declaring he is hijacking the plane until he is beat to death by passengers to be approx. 2-4 minutes. That threat only occurred because we were unaware. We are no longer unaware. In fact, by the time the 4th plane received news, the hijacking attempt was foiled.

      "I'm unwilling to wait until after a catastrophic event to get the information I need to make an informed decision as a consumer."

      You are neither getting said information nor said safety. So wouldn't it be better to not be groped?

      And isn't it better to sacrifice a little bit of individual safety, for far greater safety and liberty of the nation as a whole?

    250. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by modecx · · Score: 1

      Except smokeless powder isn't explosive. It's not even close, otherwise they wouldn't permit ammunition fly in the cargo hold under any circumstance. Yet guns and ammo fly all the time.

      People with considerable firearms experience greatly overestimate the physical phenomena involved with these devices; so, it's not surprising that someone completely ignorant of the topic has grandiose visions of hand grenades going off when they imagine terrorists using cartridges to take over a jetliner--but that couldn't be much further from the case.

      The worst it could do, even with something as large as a .50 BMG round is this: it'll pop the bullet out at some small velocity, make a loud noise and spray a bunch of unburnt powder all around.

      Even if you brought something like a nail and a hammer onto the plane (in order to set off the round), both the hammer and the nail would be considerably more dangerous. I'd be more worried about zip guns to fire a cartridge, but even those are pretty useless in a terrorist scenario.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    251. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be said he is pointing "SouthWest"....

    252. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Lobachevsky · · Score: 4, 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.

    253. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Toby+Tucker · · Score: 0

      I am boycotting air travel.

    254. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      All jokes aside, 99% of the world population is not in any way remotely a threat to an aircraft or the other people on board.

      As for our elected representatives, I would argue that they are more likely to draw the attention of a terrorist (or a nutcase with a political agenda). Their mere presence on an aircraft is at least a minor threat to the people on board.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    255. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by blindseer · · Score: 2

      He allowed himself to be scanned with the mm-wave full body scanner, had his bags searched, went through the magnetometer and bomb sniffer, but drew the line at a pat down. He was obviously not armed and yet the TSA wanted to search further for... what exactly? If this is "breach of the peace" then the federal government can arrest people for farting in an elevator.

      The TSA could argue that if they like. I'd like to see them do so in a court of law.

      Oh, and the TSA is claiming the Senator was not "detained". I believe the words were "denied access to the secure area" and "escorted out by local law enforcement". Being "escorted" unwillingly by police sounds like detainment to me. This is something else I'd like to see them argue in a court of law.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    256. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 1

      In other news, one individual has found a way around the TSA that works in his individual case.

      Is that Learjet on standby in case a family member is sick and you need to visit them at short notice?

    257. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Kennon · · Score: 1

      anyone that refuses a pat-down is free to leave. Our rights haven't been eroded quite that far yet.

      You are incorrect. The law says once you enter the security screening area you may not leave without completing the security screening process. Google around there is a bunch of blogs and articles about people being slapped with fines and what I consider to be unreasonable periods of detention if they refuse to "complete the security screening process" as they are ordered to. They are certainly not free to leave.

      "Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process," says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami. - http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-11-20/business/sfl-airport-scans-pat-downs-refual-20101121_1_tsa-airport-checkpoint-sari-koshetz

      There are a lot of examples the above link is just the first one Google ponied up.

      --
      "All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."
    258. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to one of the restaurants past security and order a meal to go. Price is a little above normal, but still cheaper than on-plane, and better quality.

    259. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I've seen squib rounds to considerable damage to someone's hand...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    260. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      O'Hare is not in the USA, and does not have TSA agents.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    261. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by haruchai · · Score: 1

      (Overly?) restrictive rules have longed since been applied to foreignors. A colleague who's a Canadian citizen once had a problem at a border crossing with some messed up paperwork 15 years ago - even though he's now made over 100 crossings ( and dozens before that ), he still gets questioned EVERY time about the incident. According to his version of the story, it was just a paperwork problem, no arguments with the guards and no arrest / search. Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    262. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      .. wait, wtf is wrong with me? Chicago. Why did I think you were talking about the London airport?

      Grr. I'm all for not editing comments, but you should be able to delete your comment if nobody has replied.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    263. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was there honestly a real danger to the airplane? Sure, she broke the rules, but was there any real DANGER?

    264. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      A. They probably picked the most anti-TSA guy in the Senate...
      B. ...who is the son of the most anti-TSA guy in the House of Representatives...

      Then its not going to make it any worse, is it?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    265. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Aerynvala · · Score: 2

      I bring my own food so I can afford to pay the $5 for a drink.

      --
      http://transformativeworks.org/
    266. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by alexo · · Score: 1

      I would think the pope [...] should not be [...] groped or otherwise molested.

      What's good for the goose...

    267. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Treat them like they are what they are: explosives

      No. Smokeless power does not explode. It burns and the expanding gas pushes the bullet out of the barrel.

      The cash in my wallet also burns? Should I be arrested and beaten like my friends were that had a single 22LR round? That is what you're suggesting.

    268. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      If the primer got triggered in turbulence and it cooked off, sure there is. If not to the airplane itself, then to the people in it.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    269. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      1. He was escorted by police.

      2. He was instructed (ordered) to remain in a cubicle.

      3. Definition of Detain
      "to keep from proceeding; keep waiting; delay."

      Oh and one of the definitions of "arrest" is to stop.
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrest

      4. "they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

      Hmm, sounds like questioning to me. As much as the TSA would probably like to blur this event. It sounds to me as if even a bad lawyer can make a pretty clear case that they were in violation of the Constitution.

      SECTION 6 of the Constitution reads "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."

    270. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fully agree.

      Now take a guess how much of a fuck those criminals give (or gave) about what we think is right?
      Here's a hint: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxwxsnz7VR1qcvi3f.gif

    271. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by hedwards · · Score: 1

      A lot of folks don't know what an arrest is. Any time a person is detained by law enforcement they are arrested. In most cases the officer will either issue a citation or decide that there's no crime committed and allow the person to leave. It's important to understand that as one is never allowed to leave the scene until told that they can leave. Otherwise you can face charges even if there were no basis for charges in the first place.

    272. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by The+Askylist · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't suggest that eliminating foreign aid would get rid of current issues - my own country seems to think that spending billions in aid as a means of "soft power" is a better use of resources than keeping our Harrier jets, for instance. Not being an expert on foreign policy like our esteemed Prime Minister, I tend to differ, but then again I'm a cynic and see most aid money going into Swiss accounts of various third world leaders anyway.

      On WWI, I think you're half right - but the threat of German attacks on Atlantic shipping was certainly a factor, and it was in America's interests to keep trade going even at the cost of war.

      Unfortunately, I see the current Iran policy leading inevitably to a war - whether the economies of the West will be strong enough to survive the inevitable oil crisis is debatable, and I worry that the response of governments will be to impose totalitarian rule on what will be an increasingly angry citizenry.

    273. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Happens to the best of us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f3zMU-hro0

    274. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I wonder if Paul will be put on the troublemaker list?"

      He has been on mine for a loooong time.

    275. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Live munitions are what the TSA is looking for. Despite what the GGP suggests this would be a victory for TSA. The TSA isn't responsible for investigating such things, they're responsible for finding those things. It would be up to the FBI or local law enforcement to determine the rest of the story.

      And I definitely agree with the GP. I remember in Boy Scouts spending some time at the rifle range and they were very particular about you returning with the same number of cases as you bought. If you didn't then they'd have to shut the range down and climb down under the platform and find those extra cases.

      I'm not sure if they ever had to do so as we all knew to not screw around with the ammo and to just put it in the cup when we were done, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had to do so at some point. In retrospect it's somewhat surprising that the platform had cracks through which cases could fall.

    276. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for these, I laughed and laughed!

      Any time there is an article about something geeks are emotionally invested in, I ignore everything marked Insightful, Informative, or Interesting and go right for the Funny. I get it all anyway and avoid some preaching.

    277. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      What do you think a low explosive is?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    278. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      So your options are: public groping with witnesses, or private groping without independent witnesses.

      Yep, that's a win-win right there.

    279. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      and there is absolutely no reason that the law should have given Paul the ability to bypass the safety requirements enforced for everyone els

      Not many here seem to be disputing that. Instead, the emphasis is (as it should be) on whether those safety requirements should exist in the first place

    280. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the law is illegal. Private security doesn't have arresting powers in any state except under very specific conditions. Around here Joe Blow has authority to arrest than private security does. The airports are not Federal property and anybody operating on it has to comply with state law on the matter.

      Around here indecent liberties are a forcible felony, which means that legally speaking you have authority to use deadly force if they force you to let them touch your genitals for any reason.
      http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.100

      I don't personally recommend trying anything like that as I doubt that the courts would recognize the behavior as legally justifiable, but it is one of your rights around here.

    281. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Your argument begs the question.

      TSA is simply a response. There are many who still argue it was not the correct or necessary response. Senator Paul is one of those people.

    282. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Even if they didn't get to skip it, do you think it would matter?

      No, they'd just smile for the camera, smile patiently as they dumbshow the process of going through security for the camera -- just to show us how *simple* and *effortless* it all is, what is all that *fuss* about - and carry on.

    283. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Suck. What slim chance he had is out the window.

      They don't seem to realize that most Americans think this theater is not only necessary, but essential to their safety.

    284. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. If the standard screening process was enough to catch it, it'll catch it next time too.

    285. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Elbereth · · Score: 1

      She refused to leave. She was trespassing.

    286. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      I don't feel like I'm begging any questions. I'm willing to believe the TSA may be unnecessary. I'm just curious what sort of plan messieurs Ron and Rand Paul have to combat terrorist attacks if they get rid of both the TSA and foreign aid. I would imagine that foreign aid is a great way to buy friends in the world. It's one thing to bitch and moan about how bad things are. It's another thing to offer realistic solutions. I would like to see it spelled out.

    287. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by modecx · · Score: 1

      A squib round (at least in US firearm jargon) is one that doesn't even have enough juice to leave the barrel. They only do damage if the operator elects to ignore the obvious warning signs, then chamber the next cartridge and fire. Colliding a bullet with the better part of a kJ into a nigh-immovable piece of lead, inside a pipe.... Not going to make for a good day.

      Perhaps you mean an overcharge/double load? Yeah some hand loaders like to use faster powders, which reduces the amount of powder they need to load, usually to make loading a teensy bit cheaper. The consequence is: with some cartridges and powders you can get twice or more of the appropriate powder and things get harry. If you make a mistake in your loading process, you can make a very bad mistake. When the bullet engages the rifling, the pressure spikes and things tend to come apart, still through deflagration.

      If you ignited the same cartridge in an unsupported state, it would still most probably push the bullet out, make a loud pop, and spray propellent all about. You can get smokeless powder to detonate, but usually only with a primary explosive, or much higher pressure than normal--e.g a real blasting cap.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    288. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      The screening process is beyond full of holes. It frequently makes glaring mistakes. This is why they make a list to have go through additional screening to try and make sure that known problems don't slip through unknown in the future. As I recall, there are cases of people getting through with full blown fire arms without it setting off any bells or whistles and regular stories of people going through with substantial knives that were accidentally left in luggage.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    289. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Considering that his father is the arch libertarian, I would imagine that he's named after Ayn Rand.

    290. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      then either ask to be placed on an exit row (are you a bad enough dude to help pry open a door in an emergency?), or pay a little more for a bigger seat.

      they don't call it cattle class for nothing - you can't expect red carpet if you're paying bargain bucket prices.

      that said, i've found having a baby on you gives you immediate access to the business class toilet, no matter where you're seated. especially if the baby is cute and there's hostesses around.

      disability access gets you through the checkpoints much faster, too. though you have to either be disabled, or willing pushing around someone who is.

    291. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      A low explosive requires some sort of containment to make a good explosion, unlike high explosives.

      That confinement is sufficient with a cartridge supported by the chamber of the firearm, but insufficient for just the cartridge. The burning powder quickly causes the brass case to expand, releasing the bullet.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    292. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Cederic · · Score: 1

      There's a whole internet subculture based around just that.

      Not just his nose, either..

    293. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      if everyone on the plane carried one bullet and an unidentifiable thingy (part of a disassembled gun), you could take the plane down.

      but with a plane full of terrorists and nobody else but crew, they could just all push hard against the cockpit door anyway, or do any number of other things without needing a gun.

    294. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "Arrest" is legally defined to mean restraint under color of authority.

      No, it's not. Where is the source of your "legal" definition? If you're going to lead off your post with a falsehood, it's probably not worth reading the rest of your post.

      Here's a better definition, with clarification.Key section for this situation:

      The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go. A reasonable person is one who is not guilty of criminal conduct, overly apprehensive, or insensitive to the seriousness of the circumstances. Reasonableness is not determined in light of a defendant's subjective knowledge or fears. The subjective intent of the police is also normally irrelevant to a court's determination whether an arrest occurred, unless the officer makes that intent known.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    295. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by baegucb · · Score: 1

      There would be a lot fewer complaints if the TSA were smart about it. Use attractive fondlers of the opposite genders, for adults.

    296. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's different kinds of libertarians. Some are just social libertarians, thinking drugs should be legal, the govt should stay out of the bedroom, etc., while providing government services is OK. Others are economic libertarians, which seem to be the opposite in most cases. Others are extremist libertarians, thinking we need basically no government at all except the barest minimum necessary (cops, courts, import/export, military), wanting even the road in front of your house to be privately owned and paid for with tolls.

      The Pauls seem to be more like Constitutionalists rather than libertarians, though there is a lot of overlap there. Ron, for instance, is anti-abortion, which is usually not a libertarian position, and generally is a big advocate of States' Rights, which isn't entirely libertarian either, although it is a very understandable position if you're a big believer in Free Markets (i.e., if the States had more power to make totally different laws, then instead of everyone trying to lobby Washington to make new laws on every little issue, angry citizens who feel they're not making any progress in getting the change they want where they live would simply move to a State that fits their mindset better; people wanting gay marriage would move to states allowing that, people wanting religious-based laws would move to Mississippi, for instance. Over time, it'd become more apparent which policies are more successful as some states advance and become economy powerhouses, and others become backwaters.

    297. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They should offer pretty female screeners for men... of course, they probably would have a hard time finding pretty women to take that job.

    298. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by tftp · · Score: 1

      .50 caliber BAR. Hmm, never heard of it because it doesn't exist.

      Perhaps; but it is a very popular illusion (it is made in .50 BMG and in .416 Barrett.)

    299. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How on earth is the TSA's actions necessary by any means? It doesn't matter if there really were tons of terrorists attempting to hijack airplanes here, their actions don't do anything to stop that. If you want to stop terrorists, all you have to do is hire the security experts from El-Al; they've already told us that the TSA's security procedures are total crap and ineffective. That means the TSA's mission is not to stop terrorists, but really something else, such as capturing people transporting drugs (which are not a threat to airline passengers).

    300. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by euroq · · Score: 1

      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?

      That's one way of thinking about it... on the other hand, I would have thought it horribly corrupt if the senator had been allowed to pass through security WITHOUT being searched, because that's what happens to everyone else. No, I would not have expected him of doing something illegal - but I doubt they did, either.

      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?

      You say that so nonchalantly. Hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens who fly on a plane do that every time they fly.

      Sorry, but you don't have a constitutional right to fly on an airplane without being searched. Listen, I'd have major problems if there was anything the government was doing to me when I don't have the potential to harm others. For example, if they searched me as I was entering and exiting my private home. But hell, they have the right to prevent me from driving a 2 ton car on the roads which is dangerously lethal - if I don't have proper training.

      The point is, the government shouldn't prevent us from doing something that harms no one else like having non-missionary sex in the privacy of my own home or smoking pot in the privacy of my own home. But driving a car on public roads and getting on an airplane without being searched DOES have the potential to harm other people.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    301. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were not a lazy bastard it would work for you as well.

      But go ahead and do things your way and ignore alternatives.

      Me? I like his idea, I am going to research it this evening. And from the looks of how it's modded, Most people agree with him and disagree with you.

    302. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      So shoot me....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    303. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Hatta · · Score: 1

      getting on an airplane without being searched DOES have the potential to harm other people.

      Where's the proof? There's good reason to believe that these TSA screenings are killing people, because they encourage people to drive which is far more dangerous than flight.

      If you don't think the government should be able to prohibit harmless acts, you have to force them to collect data proving the act is harmful before hand, otherwise what's the point? They can just make shit up, like they did with pot, and the TSA.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    304. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, that clarifies things greatly. I understand the rationale that if the person who refused the pat-down and was escorted out of the airport, and then they return to the security checkpoint and (according to policy) the security area is shut down and the terminal possibly evacuated, that's a lot of hassle. It deserves some kind of fine to make it clear that they shouldn't return.

      However, what I don't get is what this has to do with security. If someone WAS carrying something dangerous to the checkpoint and refused the pat-down (let's say they have explosives), why the hell wouldn't they detonate them right then and there, long before being escorted out? What possible additional risk is there if they re-enter and approach the checkpoint again? They went back to their car and got the explosives they forgot to take in the first time? Or what? I don't get it.

      In other words, why do they shut the place down in the first place rather than just arresting the person because of ordinary trespass? The policy of over-reacting creates the huge hassle, not someone re-entering an area that they have been barred from entering. Also, are they banned from the airport terminal forever, 24 hours, or what? If it's "refuse the pat-down, be escorted out of the airport, and never come back", then it wouldn't be much of a choice.

    305. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by dbIII · · Score: 1

      anyone that refuses a pat-down is free to leave

      I thought that one was disproved a few years ago when some people that refused were detained, and then eventually charged because they used strong language to complain about it.

    306. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      I'm familiar with Paul's views. What I'm saying is that in the completely free market world, or even in the state's rights world where each state got to establish their own security clearances you would end up with states with air service that would probably have a much more stringent security standard than we have now. You could probably fly between New York, California, Washington, and Texas (which for all its rhetoric is a very regulated state when you're not talking about oil and gas), and the rest would have no air service. Or they'd implement even MORE invasive standards to one-up the New Yorks and Californias to try to lure their airports and thus businesses away.

      I see zero market based outcomes where searches become LESS invasive in a free-market system. 1 blown up plane is a lot more expensive to an airline than even 1,000,000 grumpy customers.

    307. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK people don't seem to get so irate over stupid little things like CCTV systems.

      You should be. How much crime have CCTVs actually stopped? How much do you think your government has paid for CCTVs? Are these numbers in a reasonable proportion to one another?

      You might be surprised to find that there is no correlation between CCTV installations and crime prevention. So, whether you care about your privacy or not, you should care that your government spent millions of dollars on useless toys.

      I don't consider all slopes so heavily slippery as everyone else does.

      Do you have historical evidence to back up your opinion here? As far as I can tell, every law that can be abused will be abused. I have not found one exception. If the potential for abuse exists, abuse is a certainty. If you have a counterexample, even just one, I'd be most interested in it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    308. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting way to deal with it. The zirconia that makes up the blades is very similar to the zirconia used as filters on some x-ray equipment and is likely to be less visible than even glass on the image.

    309. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by meltyman2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe, except that forgotten cartridge was of no danger to the aircraft or anyone in it.

    310. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by pclminion · · Score: 1

      So a Non-Disclosure doesn't waive my right to free speech?

      No, it doesn't. You can sign an NDA then spill the beans. The government won't do a damn thing about it. Now, the guy you signed the NDA with will probably sue your ass off, but if you didn't want that maybe you shouldn't have signed the contract.

      I wish I could ignore contracts without people suing me. For instance, my mortgage agreement. That would be a great one to just forget about.

    311. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding your sig... What you're missing is that islam is the religion of peace(tm).

    312. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      OK, I agree it's not really an explosion. But depending on how early the brass ruptures (cheap brass would breach 'early') it can be anywhere from a hot jet to something closer to an explosion. Either way, not something you want in your hand, and not something that will do much to an aircraft.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    313. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Posts like the above show that it really is theatre if it's so easy to get around airport security. I'm not saying the above poster shouldn't be able to do it, I'm saying that having the TSA put on an expensive show in the terminal is a massive waste of resources.

    314. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      So? I'm not saying it's good. I'm saying sjames comment was was a bit of hyperbole.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    315. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well, I might be wrong - but I've heard 'squib' used to describe slow-burning bullets as well - meaning the primer doesn't make it go bang, at least not for a few seconds. Enough that the impatient might have it go off in their face while they clear it.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    316. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by cdrguru · · Score: 3, 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.

    317. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think Rand Paul is a liberterian? You're adorable!!

    318. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I put a sign on my lawn that says "anyone passing this sign can be detained indefinitely" does that make it so?

      It does if you live somewhere on the coast of the north end of Cuba...

    319. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by strikethree · · Score: 1

      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

      Bomb sniffing dogs? roflmao

      There will be drug sniffing dogs only. They only care about those couple of joints you have in your pocket. None of this is about security.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    320. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you don't have a constitutional right to fly on an airplane without being searched.

      That's true. But you do have a constitutionally protected right to fly on an airplane without being searched by the government.

      The government is prohibited from searching unless there is probable cause. With millions of people flying on airplanes every year without trying to blow them up there is no cause for the government to search every passenger. The airlines can search passengers if they like as a condition of flying but the government cannot. If an airline employee performing the search finds something potentially illegal then that employee can report that to law enforcement if they like. They can also choose to ignore the illegal act. TSA employees do not have that choice, if they see a potentially illegal act they must report it.

      With the TSA doing the search the government now has checkpoints all over the country with a blank check to search for anything. This turns the assumption of innocence until proven guilty upside down. Now everyone is assumed to be guilty of breaking some law and therefore the government can now search for evidence to use against you in a court of law. This has gone beyond keeping the aircraft safe and is now a dragnet to search for drugs, deadbeat dads, fake ID cards, child porn, and other stuff. I'm all about finding deadbeat dads but I don't like being treated like one because I chose to fly.

      Also, this is not a consensual search. A consensual search means that the consent can be revoked at any time. What the TSA has done is removed that possibility by forcing people to be searched under the penalty of jail time and/or severe fines. Once the search starts the TSA will not allow you to remove your consent. If the TSA allowed people to revoke their consent to the search this might be tolerable but this has reached into madness. This is obviously no longer about keeping the aircraft safe since if it was they should be pleased with themselves that a potential threat just walked away from the airport. If the threat walked away they did their job. But their job is no longer about keeping the aircraft safe. I'm not even sure how to define their job any more.

      What the TSA has done here is delayed a Senator from attending a congressional session. They delayed him even after he's gone through a search of his luggage, passed through a magnetometer, and has generally proved he was not armed. This was a violation of the Constitutional powers granted to the executive branch many times over.

      Listen, I'd have major problems if there was anything the government was doing to me when I don't have the potential to harm others.

      Then I am confused as to why you are defending the TSA. Senator Paul was not a threat to that aircraft. They knew this. If they really thought he was a threat he would not have been allowed on a later flight. If they really thought he was a threat then he'd have been charged with attempted murder right now.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    321. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Neither the bus company, cab company nor you (I think) have legal authority to restrain or arrest anyone. That is the difference. Claimed legal authority, legitimate or not.

      The bus driver, you and the cab driver are private citizens and are committing crimes if you physically restrain someone.

      Ever heard of a citizen's arrest?
      We all have the legal authority to arrest someone.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    322. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't part of my logic. I specifically stated that it had to be done under the claim of legal authority. Click on the definition I linked. It elaborates on that part.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    323. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · · Score: 1

      My legal definition was from that same source you linked. I linked it in a different post.

      Quote Sen. Paul:

      "But Sen. Paul told TheDC that he certainly felt like he was detained. âoeIf you're told you can't leave, does that count as detention?" Paul asked.

      "I tried to leave the cubicle to speak to one of the TSA people and I was barked at: 'Do not leave the cubicle!' So, that, to me sounds like I'm being asked not to leave the cubicle. It sounds a little bit like I'm being detained."

      This is consistant with TSA policy in the past. They've threatened criminal action if a person leaves after refusing a patdown. Ergo a reasonable person under those circumstances would believe he or she was restrained and NOT free to go.

      http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/23/rand-paul-on-tsa-detainment-i-was-barked-at-do-not-leave-the-cubicle/

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    324. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · · Score: 1

      I've heard of it, but it isn't recognized in all jurisdictions. And many people end up charged with false imprisonment if they try that. You have to actually have directly witnessed a crime and no other legal authority, like the police, is available.

      Be careful with that one.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    325. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a tactic that was first used in this country (the United States). Remember that the president who first suspended Habeus Corpus to prevent senators from voting on the floor was Abraham Lincoln (he had his congressional opponents from Maryland arrested and detained in jail to prevent them from voting to secede from the union).

    326. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by dbIII · · Score: 1

      From the outside of the USA I find it amusing that the party that started this stupid security theatre ball rolling (Republicans) are now getting it in the balls themselves. Of course I won't be flying there until after both major parties see the TSA as the useless leech it is and replace it with a much smaller, more effective and cheaper group of professional law enforcement as seen in places with more experience of dealing with terrorism.

    327. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I hope he continues to make noise on that issue and gets a lot of public support for it. That may then grab the attention of somebody that actually does have a chance to be in a position where they have the power to abolish the TSA and may convince them that it isn't political suicide after all.

    328. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Phil Mocek. He was charged with breaking local/state laws like disobeying a lawful order, trespass, etc. for doing essentially the same thing. I've been trying to figure out what the charges were against John "don't touch my junk" Tyner. As far as I can tell it would have been a civil penalty that the TSA can levy for basically anything they don't like. Back when these incidents happened, the TSA blog asserted that they have the legal authority to do so.

      But now that a member of Congress is challenging the screening process, there's a friendlier spin on the consequences of refusing a pat-down. The new line goes, "passengers who refuse to complete the screening process can’t be granted access to the secure area. TSA notifies law enforcement when this happens, and law enforcement officers can* escort them out of the checkpoint."

      *CAN must be the operative word here. The police CAN escort you out of the checkpoint. At that point TSA CAN fine you, and the police CAN charge you under any convenient law. I'm guessing that if the police decide not to escort you out then TSA CAN detain you. After all, the law hasn't changed.

    329. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by kiwimate · · Score: 0

      How many lives would be saved if there were no security measures at all, but instead free blood pressure screenings at the airport?

      Probably significantly less than are being saved right now by the free blood pressure savings at every neighborhood pharmacy shop I've ever visited in my life.

      As thought experiments go, it's not a very good one. People who object to screening and patdowns would probably scream bloody murder at the "massive invasion of privacy" in having your medical ailments revealed in such a public place.

      Here, let's make it simple. Everyone who doesn't want to be screened - take your chances with flight A. Everyone who doesn't care (like me) - go on flight B. I'll let them pat me down, x-ray me, search my luggage, whatever.

      Now - which flight is Mr. Terrorist or shoe bomber going to target?

    330. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Erect+Horsecock · · Score: 1

      yet

      --
      I hope you die painfully and alone.
    331. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      got my vote... but of course, that was the whole setup right?

    332. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have these signs already they say "Welcome to America" but nobody reads the fine print.

    333. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to look up the difference between alienable and inalienable rights.

    334. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I've not flown anything but Southwest in a LONG time....never had to pay for that crap, and I make sure and check in early enough to get first boarding group...and I go for the emergency row seats...so that I have plenty of room to stretch out....seems to work for me.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    335. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by siddesu · · Score: 1

      one can refuse the pat-down and leave

      Can you? If you do a job that requires emergency long-distance travel, and you consistently refuse to be patted down and leave every time, how long will you hold your job?

      Will your employer be sympathetic to you standing up for your rights?

      Will your customers be?

    336. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by siddesu · · Score: 1

      The small difference is that you're asking for it when you pay ;)

    337. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I was back then..hell, I remember when you went up to the GATE to meet your flights coming in, or seeing people off.

      I never saw any types of dogs at the airport...then or now. Not in the US.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    338. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by modecx · · Score: 1

      And to some people *any* firearm is an AK-47, and the thing that goes in it is a "clip". AFAIK, the condition you described has been called a "hang fire" in the English world ever since the days of flintlocks, and later percussion cap, when that happened with much more often.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    339. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I think I figured out where I got 'squib' from - if you have a misfire, and indeed it is a hang fire as you described... if left in the chamber it would squib, as it wouldn't burn fast enough to propel the bullet properly.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    340. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      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?

      Well, I'd say that the TSA now have a method of proving their usefulness. (Not that I blame you; it is a simple thought experiment, after all, and the "false flag attack when disbanded in order to prove the agency's worth" can also be found in plenty of historical examples.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    341. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by TWX · · Score: 1

      She shouldn't be surprised because while *she* might not have had anything beyond the cartridge round, someone else or someones else might have had the firearm or pieces. It's the exact same reason why the old, young, and the infirm are subject to seach; that individual might not intend to do anything or might not even be capable of doing anything, but they could be a mule for the real perpetrator, unwitting or not.

      On the other hand, I think that the way the old, the young, and the infirm are searched needs drastic modification. Those in relatively standard wheelchairs should be transferred to airline owned and provided wheelchairs and have their chairs stowed, and then go through security in a chair that can't be used to conceal. The young need to be spoken to by someone with teacher-style training to ask them questions about things that they might have been asked to carry, rather than patted down the way they've been without any just cause. The old need to be screened by staff that have received special training in ailments and treatments that the elderly could be dealing with, and ways to screen people with these conditions with more respect.

      But, at this point, I'm thinking that it's time to throw out the baby with the bathwater and literally start over.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    342. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      The TSA has not caught ONE terrorist. They are 100% ineffective and needs to be removed as an expense that the american people do not need to carry.

      Exactly; last week, they didn't even detect a gun until the passenger had already gotten past the checkpoints!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    343. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that there's anything wrong with being named after Ayn Rand, but Rand Paul is not named after Ayn Rand. "Rand" is simply short for Randal.

    344. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember thinking: oh, wow, now flying is infinitely safer. my observation was essentially true. airline hijacking is over. of course, airline bombing may still happen.ps my code word to prove myself:pacifism

    345. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Aerynvala · · Score: 1

      I always check in as early as possible for just that reason. I don't pay for drinks/snacks on the plane on any airline. But I do get something to drink in the terminal since I can't bring liquids in anymore.

      --
      http://transformativeworks.org/
    346. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Believe me, I used to proctor the TSA exams

      Um, eww?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    347. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Soiled pants are the goal of terrorism, so I guess you could call that a win.

    348. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever since a former president was in power, the Americans have been conditioned to live in fear. And that fear has given rise to a phenomenal bureaucracy. Pat downs mean that wmd or whatever will find its way to whereever by another means. (Carrier Pidgeons, for example, since pat'downs are for very small items).

    349. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      The x-ray, millimeter wave, backscatter x-ray, and pat down will.

          When I was younger, I had a couple of these. They were good for self defense in places that had walk through or handheld metal detectors.

          Of course, the way they do pat downs these days, you could probably walk through with a dozen of them. I strongly advise against trying. If you get caught with one, you'll likely find yourself in handcuffs, and on the no-fly list.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    350. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Wow, thanks for that -- I need to watch those again. And, to be topical, at least to the subject (which amuses me to no end that it's the subject of hundreds of posts in this article!): "I picked a bad week to quit shooting heroin!"

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    351. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weapons firing pin is the detonator, the primer is the primary explosive.

    352. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Actually, a zip gun is easily concealable. A tube, rubber band, and thumbtack.. Individually, they aren't dangerous. Assembled, they aren't dangerous. Assembled with a single cartridge is dangerous at a short range. You won't hit a target at 50 yards, but you'll hit a target at a yard pretty accurately.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    353. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by rhook · · Score: 1

      There is no detonator built into a round of ammunition. Your weapons firing pin is the detonator. The primer is a primary explosive.

    354. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by rhook · · Score: 1

      the TSA are not police officers. In fact they have no more power of arrest than you do.

    355. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That scene actually was from Airplane II: The Sequel (1982)

    356. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      read TFA to be certain: [...]

      Wow, I actually groped my brain to disambiguate that acronym, and had gotten as far as "Transportation Fondling" before the other side said "nonono, it's The Fine Article". Thanks, brain!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    357. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Well, that theoretical case is invalid. Passengers can (and do) put weapons and ammunition in their checked luggage. Air Marshals carry their weapons in the passenger cabin with no problems.

          TSA information on transporting weapons and ammunition

          I've checked my sidearm plenty of times. The TSA requires that the weapon is unloaded, in a locked hard shell case. Ammunition cannot be stored in the same container. So my sidearm goes in the locked case, and two loaded magazines go in another. All I have to do is declare them at the counter. They ask a few questions, have me sign a paper that states the above, and I get a personal escort over to the baggage scanner. It's a very quick and polite procedure, that doesn't involve any secret rooms or lube.

          I've never had any ammunition accidentally discharge. I've never heard of it happening. There are some flights that would have serious problems if there was any chance of it, such as flights to/from military installations.

          I've also mail-ordered ammunition. Sometimes it's shipped ground. Sometimes it's shipped air. Either way, the boxes arrive without any extra holes. Again, I've never heard of any discharging. The only "accidental" discharges I've heard of involve fires.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    358. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      pre-madona's

      (Note: this is supposed to be informative, not negative; please correct my words if you think it was inflammatory.) The way that you wrote that makes it look like "before the mother of Christ", but that is not what the phrase is supposed to mean. It's spelled "prima donna", which is Italian for the operatic "first lady" (and, I suppose one could argue that Eve happened before Madonna, but that's a bit of a stretch). It refers to the way that Italian actresses used to act back in the day, which is similar to how Hollywood actors require "no blue M&Ms" and such (see "Modern Usage" in that Wikipedia link).

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    359. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is twice in the past 24 hours that I've seen references to ancient Rome on /. (the first being a reference to Sulla). Bizarre.

    360. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I thought it was Rue Paul. Nevermind.

    361. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      Well then, clearly the screeners aren't trained properly, thus the screening process isn't working properly. That basically gives people a free pass the first time, if they are lucky enough to get through unnoticed. One trigger squeeze can kill someone or detonate an explosive, right?

      I have a feeling that the majority of "potential repeat offenders" are probably not the terrorists the original plan set out to stop.

      The process isn't working right for whatever reason if we need to do things this way.

    362. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Then you're the exception. The number of times I've found .22 cartridges in the bottom of the washer after a trip to the range - days or weeks later - is fairly high.

      The last time I visited my parents, i went through a box of my stuff from childhood. I found an unspent .22 cartridge in it, at the very bottom, floating around with dirt and fur from the cat that liked to sleep on the boxes.

      I have a friend who took meticulous care of his car. Vaccuumed it religiously, etc. He almost got 'permanently' detained while entering Mexico because they found a single .22 cartridge underneath one of the seats. .22 cartridges, in particular, seem easy to lose. They cost a couple cents each so aren't really missed, come in packs of 500+, drop easily due to their size, and so on.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    363. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that the TSA (1) found something dangerous and (2) are keeping tabs on people ignoring the signs and bringing explosives onto the plane?

      This is a level of competency and coordination that surprises me.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    364. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      A gross amount of stupidity, like leaving a penny in your pocket when being screened, or a Federal Marshall carrying a firearm onto a plane?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    365. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I remember in Boy Scouts spending some time at the rifle range and they were very particular about you returning with the same number of cases as you bought. If you didn't then they'd have to shut the range down and climb down under the platform and find those extra cases.

      I'm not sure if they ever had to do so as we all knew to not screw around with the ammo and to just put it in the cup when we were done, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had to do so at some point. In retrospect it's somewhat surprising that the platform had cracks through which cases could fall.

      They did it to help instill respect for the potency that firearms possess, not due to any actual danger resulting from losing a cartridge. Those boards probably had tens or hundreds of thousands of spent cartridges underneath, routinely collected for their metal value.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    366. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      The system isn't working. That I'll agree with 110%.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    367. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further upthread, I thought you were a sperg. Now it turns out that you are just a Brit. Thanks for the clarification.

    368. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1

      Pretty screeners? This is Slashdot. We'd be happy to have a pseudofemale humanoid biped (or triped or quadruped) grope our junk!

    369. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Flight B, if for no other reason than the fact that terrorism is about scaring the masses, and the option of either flight means assuming a successful terror attack people would merely cluck their tongues and say they should have taken the screened flight. More importantly, give the climate after 9/11 where people realize the purpose of a hijacking is to kill as many people as possible, in all likelihood of an attack that is not instant on flight A would result in the terrorist being beaten to death.

    370. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you can hold a bullet, at least if it's a pistol caliber, in the palm of your hand and have it go off with little to no injury to yourself. Moreover, neither the bullet or casing will have enough velocity to penetrate anything important.

    371. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Only if they are grabbing it. Assuming it's just laying in the palm there would be maybe some minor burns and scratches. With pistol rounds at least.Obviously as the round gets larger this no longer applies.

    372. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by thej1nx · · Score: 1

      You seem to be logic impaired... or are not much familiar with USA. In USA it is completely legal to possess guns/weapons, unlike some of the other countries. In fact, it is a constitutional right. It is perfectly fine, for the government/TSA to however, not allow you to bring weapons in areas like airports or the white-house. But they cannot arrest you for merely carrying a legal registered weapon in USA. Much like smoking is legal, but you are not allowed to smoke in a plane from safety point of view. But you seem to be suggesting that TSA should supersede the constitution itself and arrest you for merely carrying weapons(registered or otherwise). (If not, then on what basis are you asking for TSA to detain people?).

    373. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by euroq · · Score: 1

      Where's the proof? There's good reason to believe that these TSA screenings are killing people

      You mistook me to think that the TSA screenings are a "good thing". I don't think that, I'm arguing a theoretical point here.

      I'm just saying that as far as "rights" are concerned, a citizen shouldn't have the right to do whatever they want which harms other people. Sorta like how you don't have the right to scream fire in a crowded theater - your right to freedom of speech CAN be curtailed by the government in the interest of protecting others from harm.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    374. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by thej1nx · · Score: 1

      Right... because US sentaors are well-known for wanting to blow up planes, they are flying in.

      Are you seriously this daft?

    375. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by thej1nx · · Score: 1

      He was put under arrest in a cubicle and was prevented from leaving, when he wanted to.

    376. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by euroq · · Score: 1

      You make good points. If the government is prohibited from searching without probable cause, how would you have our society be protected from airplane terrorists?

      Also, as far as the dragnet goes, I wholeheartedly agree that it sucks. I certainly don't like the fact that I could get pulled over for speeding and be checked for "illegal" drugs like pot. However, from what I understand it's legal.

      Then I am confused as to why you are defending the TSA. Senator Paul was not a threat to that aircraft. They knew this. If they really thought he was a threat he would not have been allowed on a later flight. If they really thought he was a threat then he'd have been charged with attempted murder right now.

      Oh I'm not really defending the TSA... what I said was that if they allowed HIM to go through unsearched but not ME, then I would think that would be corruption and abuse of power.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    377. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      Well, never ask for numbers, you should know by now they always can come up with whatever numbers, and studies to "prove" those numbers as well.

      As to your questions:
      - All ( :) )

      - Actually this would do more good to people than current TSA practices, since they might actually catch a lot of people with high blood pressure which they didn't know they had, so this might even be positive :))

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    378. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. The primer is the detonator. Crushing the primer with the pin is how you trigger it. (eg, the clacker is not the detonator, it's the trigger. the detonator is stuck into the plastique)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    379. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't often use .22 - when I did, I'd fire a whole box in one go, which happened to line up perfectly with the number of targets I'd take and the number of shots at each bull.

      These days I only have my 30.06, and with the cost and size of those I'm not likely to misplace them.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    380. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mouse? I really hope that was a typo... but then again...

    381. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but how long does the cab ride from Miami to Vegas add to your total travel time, huh?

    382. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Xest · · Score: 1

      I can't take credit for any such thing but on a similar note I've made the point before that in the UK and US, despite the billions that have been spent on airport security, the only terrorists that have actually tried to sneak a bomb on the plane since 9/11 have actually succeded at that, and only failed overall because their explosives were shit - the shoe bomber, and the underpants bomber.

      To date I do not believe we have one single case of all this expensive enhanced airport security catching a single terrorist red handed trying to smuggle explosives on the plane, the success rate of these technologies and techniques going by the attempts that have got through is currently 0%. We're spending a hell of a lot of money achieving nothing, and eroding civil liberties.

      We have had people stopped en-route to the airport, after being discovered, followed, and arrested by the security services, but by airport security itself? Nope.

      There's an argument it's helped with other crimes, like drug smuggling and so forth, but that's not what we were sold these security features on, and frankly I'm not convinced drug smuggling is worth giving up so much money and so many civil liberties to prevent.

      So not just free blood pressure screening, in general, if the money spent on security was spent on absolutely anything even semi-related to health care or well being, it'd undoubtedly be more effective at saving lives.

    383. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by iphinome · · Score: 1

      There are people who think nail clippers and bottles of water are harmful materials.

    384. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Getting your balls groped in public is not an erosion of our rights with a straight face.

      Getting your balls groped in public is an erosion of our rights with a shocked face.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    385. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by somersault · · Score: 1

      That's hilarious coming from a bunch of guys who're terrified of another human being touching them.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    386. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      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?>

      No.

    387. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      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.

      Actually you do have a right to safety. While it isn't in the constitution, our country is based on "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." That right to life is a right to safety.

      But there needs to be a balancing act between safety and freedom. And when we start giving up freedom's, to be safe, we really have to question it. Remember a lot of people gave up their life, so that you can enjoy your freedom.

    388. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by fatphil · · Score: 1

      He should of course have said "or fewer".

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    389. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Agreed. I've also never 'forgotten' I am carrying a firearm either. People some treat this stuff like it's your cell phone, which it is not.

    390. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      TSA agents are NOT law enforcement agents. Common mistake. So common there's a bill in congress right now to try to correct that:
      http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/12/strip-act-targets-tsa.html

      Sure, they're federal employees, but so are the Smithsonian janitors...

    391. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Nope. The Declaration says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution says "life, liberty, and property". Nowhere does it say safety. The "right to life" is like saying you have the right to break the lightspeed barrier -- you are going to die. There is nothing more sure in this world than death. There's no getting around it.

      And there should be no balancing act between safety and freedom; freedom trumps.

      If you're so cowardly, how about lobbying for safer highways? 45,000 people die on American highways every year, not one American has died in a commercial airliner in two years, and not a single one has died from terrorism in over 10.

      You're afraid of ghosts in the old haunted mansion when ghosts don't exist but you're about to fall through the rotting floor. I cannot understand the way people like you think.

      And when we start giving up freedom's

      Ah, that explains it. Sorry your teachers were all incompetent. Read a few books, son.

    392. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by slacker001 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. They should have to go through the same unnecessary inconvenience as the general public, so they can vote intelligently on such matters.

    393. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the constitution isn't a holy text like the bible that you get to have a personal spiritual interpretation of. it's a legal document the interpretation of which is itself a matter of law that is settled in objective reality by the mechanism of the courts.

    394. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I agree, but the burden of proof should be on the government to prove something is harmful. Otherwise we get atrocities like the war on drugs.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    395. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Not any more!

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    396. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not an US citizen, but the above statement is not a very good comparison.

      You don't have any figure how many person are detered just by the possibility that you are scanned and possibly be pat-down in case of any suspicion. Therefore right now you cannot have any objective estimate how many lives are being saved by the security measures...

      If there was no security measures at all and anyone with a gun could enter any flight then you could ask the above question :>

    397. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

      blood pressure is not a big problem. it depends on your age. Old people with high blood pressure live longer!
      http://www.bmj.com/content/316/7147/1780

      Lots of medication however is good for...the Pharmaceutical industry

    398. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last few times I flew, I got two peanuts and a thimble of soda.

      Then you were apparently too polite to ask for more. Protip: smaller packages minimize waste because you can ask for the amount that you actually want. If you ask, they will give it to you.

      Try it sometime. Ask for 4 bags of peanuts and a full can of coke. All the airlines I've flown on were happy to give you as much as you wanted.

    399. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Every other Friday, when the Buddha / Kali / Jesus / Vlad are busy. Boy, they sure know how to throw a party. ^_^

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    400. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Reminds me of a time when I was passing through the checkpoint with a group of uniformed military members. An agent told us we didn't have to remove our shoes because we were in uniform. We each showed our valid DoD ID to the agent. As the last person through the checkpoint, I was approached by the shift supervisor who yelled at me for not taking off my shoes. I told her we were instructed not to do so by her staff and that we were active duty travelling on orders. She then called a lockdown of the entire airport (Chicago - I think) and had cops rounding up anyone in uniform so we could be sent through security again. I finally talked her down with the chief of airport security by showing her the orders and letting her crosscheck each ID with the names on the orders.

      Needless to say, the TSA doesn't care who you are, or whether or not you are a marginal risk. They will harass the hell out of anyone they can - even when it's their own incompetence that caused the issue in the first place.

    401. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by godefroi · · Score: 1

      But it couldn't happen anyway... the cockpit doors are armored now, a hijacker couldn't get in to take over the plane...

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    402. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Is that ceramic knife going to cut through the locked cockpit doors?

      No? Then who gives a shit. I can get knifed walking around in public anywhere. We don't need our airplanes to be safer than any other public space, we just need them to be safe enough that the plane won't be used as a missile against people on the ground.

      By all means, keep the planes free of weapons or explosives that can bring the plane down, but with cockpit doors reinforced and locked, we're never going to have another hijacking. Passengers now are willing to fight back, too, which is something that changed for good on 9/11. No terrorist is going to try a hijacking again.

      Instead of searching people for knives at the gate screenings, how about we breathalyze the pilots and check they're alert and rested? It would do the greater good.

    403. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      Change the law so ALL flights require TSA checks. Even charter flights.

      You say that as if it wasn't already true.

      http://www.flynaa.com/charterus_faqs.aspx

      All U.S. scheduled and non-scheduled (charter) airlines must adhere to FAA, DOT, TSA and other regulatory agenciesâ(TM) requirements governing safety, security, and consumer protection.

      Security screening is under the jurisdiction of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Passengers on charter flights must adhere to the same TSA requirements for all flights operating within or to and from the United States.

      They'd just have to change a policy, not a law. They've already paved the way with all the laws necessary for them to do it.

    404. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Not only would I fly on a TSA free airline, I would gladly pay more for it. I am perfectly fine taking responsibility for my own safety.

    405. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by olau · · Score: 1

      So you don't think she learned anything from this unlucky incident at all? How would you feel about being put on a list that guarantees you'll be harassed every time you board a plane?

    406. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by blindseer · · Score: 1

      You make good points. If the government is prohibited from searching without probable cause, how would you have our society be protected from airplane terrorists?

      How do we protect trains, shopping malls, or just about anything else from terrorists? The answer is, we don't. Why is that? Because terror attacks are very rare. It's also because terror attacks typically take the same form as any other crime. So, on one level we can protect our airplanes from terror attacks the same way we currently protect subways from terror attacks, by watching out for the common thug.

      I will admit that the analogy is not perfect. If there is a problem on a train there is always the option to stop the train and chase everyone out to the side of the tracks. There would be likely some need to screen people for materials that should not be on an airplane. This search should be done by airline or airport employees. If there is a need these screeners can be sworn officers much like railroad police, they have arrest powers but they are still employees of a private corporation. Private employees work under different motivations than public employees, it's those motivations that will keep them from getting out of hand like the TSA has.

      To keep the airplanes safe we need layers of protection. Have screeners, employed by the airline/airport, screen for obvious threats. Have company police roam the airports and ride in the airplanes. Bolt the doors to the flight deck. Arm the pilots. Arm the crew. Hell, even allow the passengers to be armed. If the thugs get something passed the screeners we need to have a crew capable of responding while they are still in flight.

      The only real change that needs to be done is to put the owners of the aircraft in charge of the security of the aircraft. Let them decide who gets to fly. Just so long as they don't have some sort of policies that make "flying while Arab" grounds to deny service then I can see them doing a much better job than any government employee.

      Seriously I could write a book on the topic. I can't fit a book inside some web browser text box so I have to keep it short. One basic premise to remember is that it is not the government's job to keep us safe. Our safety is our own responsibility. The safety of the airframe is the responsibility of the owners. Keep the government out of it until they are specifically asked to do so. If the company police catch someone doing something they should not then they can arrest this person and hand them over to the government. Until then the government needs to stay out.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    407. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      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.

      Yes, and the TSA will also tell you it's confiscated actual explosives and weapons, in trying to sound relevant to safety. Too bad it's just lighters and nail clippers people forgot in their purse.

    408. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Nice try, but no. A dog "alerting" is considered "reasonable cause".

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    409. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sribe · · Score: 1

      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...

      Nope, sorry. Dogs have short attention spans--even the most highly trained ones. You can use them to spot-check a specific area or persons, but you cannot have them screening all day long, nor even for an hour. So this would require a huge quantity of expensive, rare, dogs--because it takes years to train them, you can't just ramp up "production" of bomb-sniffing dogs.

    410. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      I know it's an erosion of rights. But I am secure in knowing that making somebody else grope my balls is generally more degrading for them than it is for me. So denying the scanners and making some flunky have to do that is my little protest against the system.

    411. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      i've found having a baby on you gives you immediate access to the business class toilet

      Nope, still not worth breeding quite yet.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    412. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to safety is an absolute and inalienable right, closely related to the right to life... until someone drops a piano on your head.... or you get cancer... or some asshole driving on a cell phone mows you down in traffic...

      When I was living in Taipei, I was at first surprised that motorcycles frequently drive on the sidewalk and have the right-of-way there, until a Taiwanese friend explained it to me in terms that my simple, barbarian mind could handle... she said, "well, they are much bigger than you."

      Right to safety XD ha!

    413. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The danger of fire would be a bigger risk in an aircraft, I think. I don't know how much difference 'cheap' brass would make, I'm of the opinion most of it's the same. Steel cases might make a larger frag risk.

      I agree - most likely result is some minor shrapnel from the brass rupturing, the bullet itself will most likely only have enough energy to bruise, not penetrate. Note: .22lr rounds will be different hazard levels than .50BMG rounds. A cooking off round is more dangerous than a firecracker, but mostly due to the presence of metal shrapnel.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    414. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by dbsmokey · · Score: 1

      Lumpy, please contact me concerning chartering flights. I would like some information for my company. THX

    415. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by fatphil · · Score: 1

      "... 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."

      Crap like the suicide bomber in Russia who killed several dozen and injured about a hundred? ... Outside security. So no scanner in security would have stopped it. Nor any security pat down. Nor ...

      If all you're doing is preventing one particular threat, those who want to harm you will do *something else*.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    416. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Yup.

      What TSA is doing in the airports gives the illusion that the government is "doing something". Meanwhile, we are still as vulnerable as we were before for the very reason you mention. All you've done with the security checkpoints is move the weakest link in the security chain to a different location. You've arguably (*VERY* arguably) made the airliners themselves safer, but the people traveling on them are every bit as exposed as they were before, because there is still a point on the journey where a person with ill intent can attack them with a minimal chance of detection beforehand. Meanwhile, we are being fondled and ripped off by thugs with badges before we can get to the gate...sigh.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    417. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by forkfail · · Score: 1

      In an airport paid for by taxpayer dollars?

      --
      Check your premises.
    418. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      If you made all of Con-gress & 1% deal with what we avg folk have to deal with, they'd change their policies and fix things.

    419. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      You're write some times when I right really quickly my brain skips a beet or too and selects the wrong phrase.

      My apologies, and always appreciate when someone "politely" corrects, as you did. I hate encouraging errors to continue. :-)

    420. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by freudigst · · Score: 1

      Is the "critters" term supposed to be funny or derogatory? It sounds more like idiotic and childish, not to mention counterproductive.

    421. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Could you post the companies that you use?

      I couldn't find any that seemed cost effective for a group of 5-7 people. The smaller jets were around 2500 dollars per hour, which is at least double the cost of regular tickets for a trip like PDX to HNL.

  2. An anomaly?! by DC2088 · · Score: 2

    Patdown soon, fellow STALKER!

    1. Re:An anomaly?! by GameboyRMH · · 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.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:An anomaly?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get out of here, stalker.

  3. well this should be entertaining by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Informative

    "we detained you during campaign season. whoops."

    yeah, this should be fun.

    1. Re:well this should be entertaining by Elbart · · Score: 1

      "we detained you during campaign season. whoops."

      Is there even a time when the US is not in a campaigning season?

    2. Re:well this should be entertaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least they finally caught their first actual terrorist! ^^

      Although, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

  4. Oh dear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, will some TSA "agent" lose their job or is Rand Paul not big enough fish to throw that kind of weight around?

    1. Re:Oh dear. by jd2112 · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re:Oh dear. by magarity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, will some TSA "agent" lose their job or is Rand Paul not big enough fish to throw that kind of weight around?

      TSA is under the executive branch while Paul is a member of the legislative branch. Guess which party is in charge of the executive and which party Paul is a member of and ask yourself this question again.

    3. Re:Oh dear. by sqlrob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Guess which branch funds the TSA and ask that question again.

    4. Re:Oh dear. by ZaMoose · · Score: 2

      They refer to themselves as "officers", not "agents". The STRIP Act seeks to smack those petty tyrants down a few pegs. Tell your Congresscritter to support it.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    5. Re:Oh dear. by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Maybe. In politics, it's sometimes easier to sh*t on your friends vs. your enemies. The Democrats will often vote against the Unions, because, it's not like the Union members are going to vote for the other side, is it? (During the campaign, you do have to play to your base, but after that, it's up in the air)

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    6. Re:Oh dear. by haggus71 · · Score: 1

      Learn your government structure a little better. Congress is in charge of authorizing all monetary appropriations. Otherwise, do you think the President would have to submit every budget proposal to Congress? There are a few senators who have already submitted plans to strip the authority from TSA agents; and the airlines have said a few times they would be more than willing to fund private security firms, who would be more responsible to customer feedback. That's the problem with the TSA. They've been given carte blanc to do as they please, without any repercussions. For all that, how many terrorists have been found by the TSA? Zero!

    7. Re:Oh dear. by Bardwick · · Score: 1

      TSA = Union. Regardless of your performance, no you can not get fired.

    8. Re:Oh dear. by Bardwick · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Union branch.

    9. Re:Oh dear. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Not to mention which branch authorized the TSA in the first place. (Aviation and Transportation Security Act , Pub.L. 107-71 November 19, 2001)

    10. Re:Oh dear. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Rand Paul is a Senator. Ron Paul is a Representative.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Oh dear. by sycodon · · Score: 0

      Hopefully, the whole damned department will lose their job.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    12. Re:Oh dear. by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      I think the point of GP is that Ron Paul is running for president, and may (may) become head of the executive branch, the branch that the TSA operates under.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    13. Re:Oh dear. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      What about that $400k they scammed from loose change? All they gotta do is kick it up a notch or 6, actively start soliciting bribes, etc, and they're funded again.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    14. Re:Oh dear. by magarity · · Score: 1

      True but good luck getting the congress to pass the next budget with a clause that approves 'all the salaries except that agent who wanted to screen Rep. Paul'.

    15. Re:Oh dear. by EverlastingPhelps · · Score: 1

      Guess who is on the Committee for Homeland Security.

    16. Re:Oh dear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose a new law, where anyone who proposes a bill with a "clever" acronym gets booted out of office.

    17. Re:Oh dear. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yes, and when Rand grows up he can be a Representative too.

    18. Re:Oh dear. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Even if he isn't big enough. However the fact the TSA is blocking an opponent his travel will probably take some political rambling from the opposition to get past this.

      TSA blocks person due to political stance.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    19. Re:Oh dear. by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul is a Representative.

      AND a presidential candidate.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    20. Re:Oh dear. by Firehed · · Score: 1

      There are thousands of valid arguments against the TSA and you pick travelers forgetting to collect their loose change? And as a source of funding? The TSA employs nearly 60,000 people. $400k covers about three (their budget allots on average $139k/employee; source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration).

      Bribes go a long way, but not $8.1b long.

      I'd be as happy as anyone here to see the TSA disappear forever (and, ideally, subject to criminal trials for impersonating police officers, sexual assault, and many other things) and replaced with a reasonable and actually effective set of security measures, but let's use reasonable arguments.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    21. Re:Oh dear. by makomk · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be unconstitutional anyway due to the provision against bills of attainder as it's generally interpreted?

    22. Re:Oh dear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ridiculous. The two major parties are too evenly matched for either one of them to get away with something like that against the other. If it were a third party, you might have some grounds, but not much, as those guys are mostly just laughed at by Dems and Repubs.

    23. Re:Oh dear. by Arker · · Score: 1

      Contrary to what you may have heard, the "Federal" Reserve is not one of the Branches of Government.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    24. Re:Oh dear. by alexo · · Score: 1

      Tell your Congresscritter to support it.

      Hate to tell you but they are not your Congresscritters.

    25. Re:Oh dear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Six months from now they will be wanding us with a forked tree branch and escorting us through archways of saplings lashed together with baling twine

    26. Re:Oh dear. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      So they're billing the government 139K/per & paying the lot minimum wage? When'd minimum wage start paying 139K???

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    27. Re:Oh dear. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I thought we stopped worrying about bills of attainder during that whole Terry Schiavo thing?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    28. Re:Oh dear. by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      The unfortunate part of this is that the TSA guy is just doing his job. But I agree with Rand Paul, this is just out of control. I've always been treated fairly but the system is ripe for abuse and doesn't really do much to guard against terrorism, IMHO.

  5. knee metal from previous injury by peter303 · · Score: 1

    According to another news site. Maybe the Paul's want to be confrontational.

    1. Re:knee metal from previous injury by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      I used to be a senator; then I---

      on second thought, too easy.

    2. Re:knee metal from previous injury by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In this case, being 'confrontational' when standing up for your rights is certainly not a bad thing.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:knee metal from previous injury by Feyshtey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I bet he deliberately had knee surgery and asked for extra metal so he could set the TSA up fo a fall.

      Hanlon's razor : Never attribute to malice (Paul) that which is adequately explained by stupidity (TSA).

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    4. Re:knee metal from previous injury by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I think in this case, we can attribute both (I would be very surprised if Rand Paul didn't have a way around that security checkpoint, that he chose not to take). He may not have gotten the knee surgery for it, but that doesn't mean the result didn't provide him with a useful tool for the task.

      Also, just because it was an act of malice against TSA, doesn't make it a bad thing :)

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:knee metal from previous injury by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Although it is kinda good, as it shows that the law is trying to be applied equally to people. Rand Paul not being allowed to take the way out, or not opting to, shows that he's not above the law.

    6. Re:knee metal from previous injury by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      My wife has a replacement knee. We arrive early to go through screening, expecting delays. They always pat her down.

      So explain to me how when the alrm goes off, you step aside, run the wand and get a hit around the knee, that the kind TSA officer has to grop her crotch. He missed the metal by a little more than a foot.

      Seriously? Morons. This whole TSA thing is Kabuki Security Theatre 3000. I keep expecting Tom Servo to pop out from under the x-ray hood and start rambling.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re:knee metal from previous injury by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Good. Someone (with sufficient clout, anyway) needs to.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    8. Re:knee metal from previous injury by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      An unjust law applied evenly is no less unjust.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    9. Re:knee metal from previous injury by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      No, but at the very least it shows they aren't trying to pick favorites, or that Rand Paul isn't using his status to assert that he is above the law.

      And I disagree. An unjust law applied unevenly is even more unjust.

    10. Re:knee metal from previous injury by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that Ron Paul was a leading contender until he took an arrow to the knee?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  6. So what they've done is... by Gordonjcp · · 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.

    1. Re:So what they've done is... by medv4380 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't see the problem you do with it. Rand Paul was already against the TSA. Now if they did that to the Speaker of the House or the leaders of ether party then it would ignite a fire storm. The TSA irritating Rand Paul is like preaching to the choir.

    2. Re:So what they've done is... by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem is, now they've given him an anecdote. And anecdotal evidence is quite convincing in politics, even if it's logically invalid.

    3. Re:So what they've done is... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Actually, not at all. Once the other senators (for or against) realize that they are no longer immune to the laws of the little people, they'll be damned sure to do one of two things:

      1) start chartering private jets or hop on military transports for all of their flights.

      2) actually do something about that abomination they helped to deposit at every major airport in the US.

      The betting pool is open, though sadly I'm gonna have to call dibs on #1.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:So what they've done is... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:So what they've done is... by Kenja · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between being against something and being pissed off at it. I am against my neighbors barking dogs, but if I get pissed off enough I'll get a sack and take a trip to the river.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:So what they've done is... by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

      I wont concede that this is a logically invalid argument against the TSA.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    7. Re:So what they've done is... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      they've pissed off a Southern Man and a Republican, in a position of political power.

      So... they'll get an earful of petulant whining and the pronouncing of "rights" like "rats".

    8. Re:So what they've done is... by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      I was annoyed tremendously by this comment, and then I realized it was correct.

    9. Re:So what they've done is... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Or 3) modify the law so that Senators and Representatives get a "Get out of TSA free" card, like they've done for military and airline pilots.

      That would be my vote, anyway.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    10. Re:So what they've done is... by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      If they can make themselves immune to insider-trading laws, you think a little thing like TSA strip searches will affect them?

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    11. Re:So what they've done is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hah... I read that as irrigating, bringing up a much more visual version of what happened.

    12. Re:So what they've done is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Yep. BIG government. Those that have the power necessary to run a national health care system.

      THOSE are the governments that give us things like the TSA.

      You can't have one without the other.

      Just remember that in the voting booth.

    13. Re:So what they've done is... by scubamage · · Score: 1

      They also happened to piss off one of about 3 republicans who doesn't buy into the whole "OMG TERORRISTS ZOMG SCAN ME AND PAT ME DOWN TO SAVE TEH KIDZZZZZZ" BS. About the only way they could have picked it worse would be if they had done it when he was traveling with his dad. I do find it interesting that he was allowed to leave, after other people have been arrested for refusing the pat down and then trying to leave.

    14. Re:So what they've done is... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      a) Pelosi (and her family and friends) flew on a "private" air force C-37A jet (a modified Gulfstream V.) So they never went through security. Nor did they apparently ever fly sober.
      b) Boehner does fly commercial, but apparently bypasses security.

    15. Re:So what they've done is... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      That web site hardly counts as a reliable source for anything but hate, based upon the overall theme of the reports and the even worse comments. Trying to drum up some hits, are we?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:So what they've done is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Yep. BIG government. Those that have the power necessary to run a national health care system.

      THOSE are the governments that give us things like the TSA.

      You can't have one without the other.

      Just remember that in the voting booth.

      That explains why every country with national healthcare has a TSA-like organization, then.

      Oh, wait, they don't.

    17. Re:So what they've done is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we really need in Washington is more love. I suggest we all send Senator Paul a Turret Plushy. The same for all the Homeland Security Subcommittee Members and an extra large size one for Director Pistole. Now, take two deep breaths and another Prozac. All will be well after the next election.

    18. Re:So what they've done is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait for the ether party to ignite a fire storm!

  7. Standard Procedure by KhabaLox · · 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.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    1. Re:Standard Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Unconstitutional detention of any human should always be treated with contempt. Or are we not playing by THOSE rules anymore?

    2. Re:Standard Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know we all hate the TSA, but under the existing rule structure, his detention should not be surprising or treated with contempt.

      Rules are rules, even stupid ones that dehumanize Americans without making anyone safer.

    3. Re:Standard Procedure by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      The rules themselves are what is contemptable. It has little to do with a particular screener.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    4. Re:Standard Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since your post indicates a predilection towards acquiescence to authority, I was wondering if you could answer the following questions: How does boot taste? Is there any brand of boot that you prefer licking over others?

    5. Re:Standard Procedure by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Why would he be detained? Why not just told that he may not fly and turned away? That's the purpose, right - to keep dangerous items, like shampoo in quantities of greatrer than 3 oz, and "tampered" shoes, off of airplanes.

      If he didn't pose an immanent threat, he should have simply not been allowed to enter, and his checked luggage returned to him at the counter.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:Standard Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Rules are rules, even stupid ones that dehumanize Americans without making anyone safer."

      You're a good little fascist.

      Just remember, when the revolution comes, you will be on the losing side.

    7. Re:Standard Procedure by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I just RTFA, as I should have on such a sensationalist headline. Of course he wasn't really detained, except to tell him about the pat down, have him refuse, and have him escorted out of the area. He's already re-booked a flight and is on his way to Washington. Not really a story.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    8. Re:Standard Procedure by guspasho · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? It's the rule structure itself that is so contemptuous. You sound like an apologist.

    9. Re:Standard Procedure by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      Yeah. As much I dislike the policies (TSA as a whole) the screener his/her-self should be given props for sticking to their guns as a security person even with a Senator and the son of a Presidential Candidate.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    10. Re:Standard Procedure by Bardwick · · Score: 1

      You would think.. If you fail to screen, you can walk away with a nice little $10,000 fine. Otherwise, you must have your genitals inspected.

    11. Re:Standard Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people won't realize that. In fact I can bet that the people who were upset about the black Congresswoman who did nothing harmful in an incident regarding the Congressional police will suddenly do a 180, or at best a 120, to come up with reasons to spin this as completely and utterly different.

    12. Re:Standard Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the AC was sarcasWHOOOOOOOOOOSSHHHHHHH

    13. Re:Standard Procedure by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Agreed that the rules suck large portions of ass. But the idea that they're trying to apply them equally, with disregard to a person's status or position of power, does make it a little less contemptible. Not enough to keep them in place, but I'm glad that power isn't getting him treated above the law.

    14. Re:Standard Procedure by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      They've already proved that they can't be trusted.

      Right, because we all know Senators have a tendency to hijack planes. Seriously, they should have looked at his ID, checked his bags, and let him through.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    15. Re:Standard Procedure by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Would we be saying the same thing if he was detained while on his way to vote against funding the TSA?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    16. Re:Standard Procedure by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      So the scanner should mindlessly follow the rules instead of using common sense? How many Senators or relatives of Presidential candidates have ever tried to hijack a plane?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    17. Re:Standard Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't withdraw in the middle, that's about the only part of the rules that makes sense, otherwise you have poeple try to penetrate the security (or "security" in the case of scanners) until they get though.

    18. Re:Standard Procedure by bitbucketeer · · Score: 1

      There ya go thinkin' again. It's unconstitutional to arrest or detain a congressman traveling to or from congress (article I, section VI).

    19. Re:Standard Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he have to pay the 10K fine that you or I would have had to pay if this had happened to us?

    20. Re:Standard Procedure by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Even if they were in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution which prevents such detention on the way to a Congress session?

    21. Re:Standard Procedure by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      True enough . . . but interesting: he's on another flight. So he turned around, booked a new flight, and then went back through security, this time without a problem? It's not like TSA depends on the airline . . . so the true story is that the TSA search procedures are arbitrary and inconsistent. This kind of exposure should help to get rid of TSA, and that is a story.

    22. Re:Standard Procedure by dbIII · · Score: 1

      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.

      Yes, the sort of thing professional law enforcement using their judgement can do on the spot instead of legions of TSA monkies.

    23. Re:Standard Procedure by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      That said, I am in favor of some types of profiling,

      So you are in favor of discrimination?

    24. Re:Standard Procedure by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Yes. I want security screeners to be discriminating. They should assess people based on a host of psychological, behavioral, and yes, nationality and ethnicity factors and select a subset of travelers for more thorough screening.

      Security Theater is treating everyone the same, and subjecting everyone to the same level of screening. Security Theater is selecting people at random for heightened scrutiny. If you want to intelligently protect a location that has hundreds or thousands of people coming and going every hour, you need to be selective about how, what and who you screen. You don't, of course, do this by letting every white person with a crucifix necklace breeze through, while cavity searching anyone with brown skin. But you do apply some level of intelligence to the process. Not every "profile" is equally likely to hijack a plane.

      Note: The Israeli model uses this tactic. However, it requires a high level of training, and is probably too expensive to deploy in the US, where people want to fly 2500 miles for $250.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  8. Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by edibobb · · Score: 3, Informative

    Before the Department of Homeland Security took over the United States it was unconstitutional to arrest a member of Congress while Congress is in session.

    1. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's not arrested, just "indefinitely detained"

    2. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by demonbug · · Score: 1

      Before the Department of Homeland Security took over the United States it was unconstitutional to arrest a member of Congress while Congress is in session.

      Don't know whether that's accurate, but in any case he wasn't arrested so it doesn't really apply. From TFA, he was briefly detained (not detained at all according to the TSA) and missed his flight, then booked a different flight and passed through security without an issue.

      Of course, if he wasn't a senator he probably would have been arrested for refusing to complete the security process.

    3. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by nman64 · · Score: 1

      He wasn't arrested. According to TFA, he was simply prevented from entering the "secure area" of the airport. He missed his planned flight and was forced to catch another. The subsequent screening went without incident.

    4. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by codex24 · · Score: 1

      Before the Department of Homeland Security took over the United States it was unconstitutional to arrest a member of Congress while Congress is in session.

      How did the advent of the DHS change the supposed Constitutionality of that?

    5. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by Millennium · · Score: 1

      Honestly, this. I suppose there's something commendable in having the Congressfolk play by the same rules as everyone else, but I hope this raises awareness of the monster we created in the TSA: an organization whose devotion to safety has degenerated into cowardice.

    6. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      But they're not...oh, I see what you did there.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    7. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by ZaMoose · · Score: 1

      The TSA defines "anything past the screening area" as "secure areas", IIRC, so that's a load of crap.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    8. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't detained, just "denied access to the boarding area". He has since re-booked his flight and traveled on.

    9. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by edibobb · · Score: 1

      Detained for questioning is covered. "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."

    10. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no difference. If you are not free to go, you are under arrest. That's the definition of arrest:

      Definition of ARREST
      transitive verb
      1
      a : to bring to a stop b : check, slow c : to make inactive
      2
      : seize, capture; specifically : to take or keep in custody by authority of law
      3
      : to catch suddenly and engagingly

      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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by nman64 · · Score: 1

      Either you have horribly misunderstood something, or you have just committed an unforgivable non-sequitur. Either way, your act of seppuku will be accepted for raparation.

    12. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by AdamThor · · Score: 3, 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/

      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

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    13. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      Before the Department of Homeland Security took over the United States it was unconstitutional to arrest a member of Congress while Congress is in session.

      Don't know whether that's accurate, but in any case he wasn't arrested so it doesn't really apply. From TFA, he was briefly detained (not detained at all according to the TSA) and missed his flight, then booked a different flight and passed through security without an issue.

      Of course, if he wasn't a senator he probably would have been arrested for refusing to complete the security process.

       
      The idea is that preventing a Senator or Representative from reaching Congress could change the very laws of the land.

      U.S. Constitution. Article I. Section 6. Paragraph 1.

      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. 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.

      It is only in modern times that we have been convinced that there is a difference between "arrest" and "detention"... it is a fiction passed off by the police in order to extend their powers. In the parlance of the time when the US Constitution was drafted, detaining was arresting.

      Arrest:

      1. to bring to a stop, check, slow, to make inactive.

      2. seize, capture; specifically : to take or keep in custody by authority of law

      I generally feel that politicians are spoiled rich kids who get their jollies by screwing over the masses, deserving of any misfortune that may befall them. I expect that this incident will either turn into a very public dick-waving-contest or be quietly swept under the carpet, depending on what back-room deal is made.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    14. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by ZaMoose · · Score: 1

      The claim was that he "wasn't detained, just prevented from accessing a 'secure area'". And I'm saying that's a load of crap -- he was prevented from going to the gate area from whence he could board his plane. The definition of "secure area" matters greatly. He wasn't trying to pull rank and view some behind-the-scenes operations of the TSA (as the TSA's phrasing is obviously trying to imply) but rather "gain access" to the "secure area" otherwise known as the airport terminal.

      Semantics matter, particularly when the petty bureaucrats use them to try to oppress us all via judicious use of same. That's what I was saying crap, and it's to my discredit that I didn't make that clear.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    15. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by edibobb · · Score: 1

      Also, "...they shall not be questioned in any other place." I believe this covers being detained for questioning.

    16. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by MattW · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is, TSA screenings are unreliable as well as intrusive and carcinogenic?

    17. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your sarcasm detector is broken. You're not disagreeing with the parent, you're just explaining his joke.

    18. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by nman64 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that needs to be said here - we're all well aware of it.

    19. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Senator Rand Paul claims he was ordered to remain sitting in a cubicle. That's a detention folks...

      AND ILLEGAL

    20. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by holmstar · · Score: 1

      How is detention any different than being arrested without charge and later released?

    21. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by WebManWalking · · Score: 1

      Absolutely correct. Completely unconstitutional. That's why constitutional immunity is the finest kind to have. Not just immunity against prosecution, both criminal and civil. Immunity against arrest. Also, any physical assault or battery on a US Senator, no matter how minor or gentle, is a felony.

      Someone in the TSA, probably several people, will soon be learning a hard, painful lesson they should've learned in high school.

      P.S., FYI: The term the Legislative Branch uses is Member of Congress, not Congressman. Refers neutrally to both House and Senate, male and female.

  9. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by mvar · · Score: 1

    At first i thought this was about RON Paul. Now that would be fun to watch

  10. Tail wagging the dog? by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

    I can see this ending in a very popular political move against the TSA by Rand Paul.

    --
    Bow before me, for I am root.
  11. Proud to have voted for him by rbowen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm proud to have voted for him. I will continue to vote for him in the future. We need more senators like him who care about civil liberties, who listen to their constituents, and who understand that he is there working for me, and not for corporations.

    More power to him.

    --
    Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner
    1. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Attack+DAWWG · · Score: 1

      Wasn't he the one who said it was "Un-American" to criticize BP?

    2. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Yes. A corporation has more money/speech than a person, so therefore, it is un-American to question or criticize them.

    3. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm... he just didn't want to be touched by a stranger, although he accepted to go through the scanner, even asked to be let to do it again. No reason to vote him, unless you really like people that don't like to be touched by strangers. I suppose there are lots of them too, I for instance don't like to be touched by strangers. Even more, I dislike TSA. Will you vote for me ?

    4. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Technically, he said it was "un-American" for Obama to be so virulent to blame BP before all the facts got out. But, spin it as you will...

    5. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well for all we know, rbowen is a paid BP shill, in which case he would still be proud to have voted for him. Paul has also been pretty consistent in calling for a rollback of the Civil Rights Act when the national media isn't paying attention. When they are, he of course is all for it, which has led to some serious contortions and flip-flopping when he gets caught.

      He's a politician. He has trouble stating "good morning" without telling one lie. They all do.

    6. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > rand paul
      > not for corporations

      huhwha?

    7. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      While I applaud Rand Paul on this issue and some others, I find his boilerplate conservative stance on cutting taxes, instituting austerity measures, and curtailing the social safety net offensive. Don't be a single issue voter. His stance on many civil liberties issues may be inspiring, but his other views will make our issues with wealth inequality and poverty much, much worse.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    8. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward for president?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    9. Re:Proud to have voted for him by unity100 · · Score: 0

      im in turkey.

      and even i know that rand paul is one of the biggest corporate whores in current american politics.

      please. dont vote. you are harmful to humanity.

    10. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Botia · · Score: 1

      Go Rand Paul! It's time we no longer have to be terrorised by the people supposedly protecting us.

    11. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah we need more people to stand up to the tyranny of powerful people like minimum wage earners who continue to suck the blood of the Great And Noble Job Creators with their vile practice of earning their princely $7.25 an hour.

      And won't anyone think of the poor corporations who struggle under the iron heel of those arrogant dictators who demand that their air, water, and food be free of poisons?

    12. Re:Proud to have voted for him by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Have you actually considered why someone would not want excessive government intervention of business or enforced integration? Lets say its not a politician, but just a normal person.

    13. Re:Proud to have voted for him by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because there's a clear distinction between virulent blame and criticism. . .

      And before what 'facts got out?' At that point, the fact that BP was responsible for spewing gobs of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico wasn't under dispute. Everyone understood it was an accident. No one was accusing BP of malice, just negligence. Regardless, they were responsible and deserved the virulent blame and criticism thrown at them.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    14. Re:Proud to have voted for him by fnj · · Score: 1

      Try including the context. He wasn't talking about any old criticism. The actual quote:

      "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

    15. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Attack+DAWWG · · Score: 1

      I know it's not politically fashionable to say this around here, but the government should put its boot heel on the throat of any business that has killed eleven employees through negligence and destroyed the livelihoods of many small businesses on the shoreline. And at the time Rand Paul said what he said, many of the facts were already known in any case.

    16. Re:Proud to have voted for him by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      That's okay. With $14-$17 trillion in debt. We're probably only about 7-14 years away from the Paul's getting their cuts, austerity measures and curtailing of safety net.

      The difference is that there will be nothing left for the non-uber elites (who will, and already are, relocate to other nations). Where as if we enact change now and bring our spending under control, we might still have the opportunity to provide a foundation for most all working Americans.

      It's kind of like saying we need to cut the credit cards and turn off cable TV. Eventually, you're going to have no other choice and go bankrupt. Where as if you do it now, you might be able to recover.

    17. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      The Pauls are pretty much strict constitutionalists.

      I don't know how or why this escapes people's attention, but we don't have a right to social security, welfare, food stamps, FAFSA, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. (I could go on). If the constitution doesn't specifically allow it, the Pauls want it gone. If it's important enough, then the government can have a go at amending the constitution.

    18. Re:Proud to have voted for him by lgw · · Score: 1

      All companies that operate at sufficient scale do that sort of thing, from time to time. It's just a question of scale - small companies are just as bad, but at a small scale that they each have only afractional chance of killing a person or destroying the livelyhood of another business. Humans aren't perfect, and shit happens.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:Proud to have voted for him by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, you can desire eternally increasing government checks all you like, but when there's no more money there won't be any more checks. Oddly enough, most people opposed to the current programs are objecting on that basis (as things stand it won't fail gracefully, and it will be horrific), not out of greed or delight in suffering.

      Why is it so hard to understand that spending more than you make is a bad plan, even if you buy really cool stuff with the money?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    20. Re:Proud to have voted for him by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The question is, what do you find more concerning.

      Rand (or Ron) Paul in power can cut taxes for 4 or 8 years, but putting them back to where they were afterwards is not hard. If that's the price to pay for dismantling the foundation of the upcoming police state - like the TSA - hell, why not?

      It's not like there are any opponents with reasonable left-leaning economic programs, anyway. You get either conservative populists (lower taxes at all costs! rah-rah!) or progressive populists (raise welfare at all costs! rah-rah!). Both are bad.

    21. Re:Proud to have voted for him by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      While I applaud Rand Paul on this issue and some others, I find his boilerplate conservative stance on cutting taxes, instituting austerity measures, and curtailing the social safety net offensive. Don't be a single issue voter. His stance on many civil liberties issues may be inspiring, but his other views will make our issues with wealth inequality and poverty much, much worse.

      I have to disagree with you -- in this case, it isn't a matter of voting on issues, it's voting on character. There are very few politicians that aren't "bought", particularly with the voting record to back up their proposed actions. Integrity here wins out for me. If we're going to see any substantial real change (like perhaps a trickle-down voting push), we'll never see it under one of our usual partisan politicians -- we need a Ron Paul in office. The Congress will balance out his more kooky ideas, but we need someone willing to do something other than status quo Cronyism.

  12. US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by trout007 · · 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.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by TheCarp · · Score: 0, Troll

      Add that to the list of reasons I consider this document too inadequate to pass muster as a legitimate foundation for government, that and it was ratified by people who are all dead. How can it possibly have any legitimate force? Ridiculous.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by Mr+44 · · 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

    3. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what makes you think the TSA cares about what your puny constitution says, citizen?

    4. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      He wasn't going to Washington for a House session, according to his Twitter post he was going to speak at a pro-life event.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, 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?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You find it ridiculous? Which part of it? The part where it protects unpopular representatives from being harrassed, impeded and prevented from reaching the Capitol building by their opponents? Try firing your synapses a little harder.

    7. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should ensure they read and sign it.

    8. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, 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.

    9. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please leave the United States, should you actually be a citizen of it.

    10. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breach of the Peace

      Clearly, be asserting one's rights, one is breaching peace!! At least this is how things look in today's world.

    11. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      >>>"Add that to the list of reasons I consider this document too inadequate to pass muster as a legitimate foundation for government"

      If you don't like it, why don't you petition to have it amended? The document can be changed whenever desired (and has been changed 27 times).

      As for the specific clause it still has relevance.

      In the past Kings, prime ministers, and governors used the police in order to arrest & detain Representatives from reaching the parliament of legislature. That way they could get the vote desired.

      Do you think that concern is any less relevant today? Do you think if Presidents or Governors were not blocked by the Constitution, they would not use their arrest powers to remove unfavorable representatives from appearing at the Congress or Legislature? Of course they would. "I want this NDAA passed, and I will arrest any who oppose it!"

      The clause is not antiquated and should not be removed.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    12. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      In this day and age, it should be pretty easy to allow remote voting for Congresspeople. I don't think it should be a regular thing, but in just such an occasion where inclement weather, or a bad TSA screening, the legislator should still get to cast their vote.

    13. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by compro01 · · Score: 1

      He wasn't going to Washington for a House session, according to his Twitter post he was going to speak at a pro-life event.

      Of course not. He was going to Washington for a Senate session. The other event was also on his agenda.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    14. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by andre1s · · Score: 1

      And what relationship does this have to the story? She was not a member of Ukrainian legislative body at the time actions in question took place neither was she at the time of prosecution. So what is your point? There was fairly strong legal grounds for her conviction although it was obviously politically motivated.

    15. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might as well. They've all but done that to the 2nd Amendment. Disagree? Try to "keep and bear" a firearm in NYC, Chicago, New Jersey, Los Angeles, Maryland, etc.

      The point is, if the Federal government can ignore one limitation on its power, it can ignore them all. United we stand, indeed.

    16. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      In this day and age, the Constitution is outdated.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    17. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Senator Paul was on his way to a March for Life event, and was departing from Nashville, KN. He was neither detained (although he was prevented from entering a secured area), nor placed under arrest. So I really don't think that there's any violation of section 6 here.

    18. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by soulsteal · · Score: 1

      But that's the beauty of it: he was never under arrest! He was prevented from entering the secure area by which he might continue on his travels, but he certainly was never under arrest.

    19. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by scubamage · · Score: 1

      He wasn't on his way to a session, he was on his way to an anti-abortion rally (NTTAWWT).

    20. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      at clause is designed to prevent situations like what recently happened in the Ukraine, where leaders of opposition factions in the government are arrested

      Oh, then I guess it's a good thing that the TSA doesn't fall under the executive branch. Oh wait, it does? Well sure, but it's not like the Executive branch is led by a person of the opposite party of Rand Paul. Oh, it is? Well, that's certainly awkward, but I mean he's just another opposition party senator and it's not like he or one of his relatives are trying to directly run against the sitting president in an upcoming elect-....What's that? He's Ron Paul's son?! SHIT.

    21. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > If you don't like it, why don't you petition to have it amended? The document can be changed whenever desired (and has been changed 27 times).

      Because i have better things to do with my time than waste it trying, in vain, to fix something that realistically can't be fixed, and this is pretty far down on the list of problems I have with the document. Not the least of which is, I already see it as illegitimate. I mean...how can an agreement really still be in force when all of its parties are dead? Even if they weren't, I see no reason to believe that anything would ever be ratified by a body which would remove powers from the same. Such change is so ridiculously unlikely that even talking about it is on par with what you will do when you are the first person in recorded history to hit every spot in a 20 digit keno bet.

      This government is nothing but bread and circus. It is a farcical to call it a republic or democracy. Though, ok, ill put my blinders back on just for a second and play:

      > In the past Kings, prime ministers, and governors used the police in order to arrest & detain Representatives from reaching the parliament of
      > legislature. That way they could get the vote desired.

      And now they retain control by just rigging who can get on the ballot to prevent anyone too undesirable (or at least more than an insignificant handful of them) out. It is no more legitimate now than it was then.

      Besides, just because you have stopped one type of abuse, doesn't mean you have not created far worst. For example...what about, like in this case, where the person in question wasn't performing his duties officially, wasn't on his way to congress for a vote? I see no reason at all why any sort of immunity should be extended. Maybe...maybe... for the EXTREMELY NARROW purpose of getting to the chambers to vote but.... not immunity from any prosecution.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    22. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      Yep, the whole point of this is to prevent the party in power from squashing the opposition through bullshit moves.

      While that was certainly a concern, at the time it was written I believe it was to prevent, for example, Maryland from blocking the representatives from the North-East from passing through their state. Recall that, at the time, people generally considered themselves members of their particular State first, and the United States second, and inter-state politics were a lot more interesting.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    23. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Oops, lol... yeah. House.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by alexo · · Score: 2
    25. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>all of its parties are dead?

      The Member States still exist as part of the U.S. compact. Your logic would mean the European Union could no longer exist, because most of its founding treaties were signed by now-dead persons. The reason the EU continues forward is because it was created by State governments which never die, and the same is true for the US.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    26. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      States are fictional entities that result from such agreements. All of the signing parties of the state constitutions are already dead too.

      Its one thing for a private organisation consisting of its own member surviving its creators, since new members voluntarily join and agree to the agreement. When that agreement is supposed to represent the will of the people, and new members are not voluntary joiners, that such agreements should need to be renewed with every generation.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  13. The lesson here: by Baloroth · · Score: 1

    Don't be critical of the TSA or you might miss your flight, you damned terrorist!

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    1. Re:The lesson here: by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      Dilbert did it best.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    2. Re:The lesson here: by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You have to give the TSA credit. In the few short years since their inception, they've managed to become more hated than Congress.

      A feat even used car salesman can't achieve.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  14. Not enough bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paul added: "We have to bring some sense to what we're doing in this country ... we treat everybody equally as a terrorist suspect."

    There are other things he said along this line. Basically he wants to see the TSA harassing some people more than other. The people he thinks are more likely to be terrorists. So if you look like you come from Kandahar, expect to be treated worse under his plan? That's not good security and not the kind of society I want to live in.

    1. Re:Not enough bias? by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually that's the best possible security. If statistics prove repeatedly that terrorists are exponentially more likely to be males of age X, from nation of Z, and there's a nervous looking X year old guy with a Z passport wearing an oddly lumpy coat in July you'd be pretty irresponsible not to ask some questions.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    2. Re:Not enough bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that's the best possible security. If statistics prove repeatedly that terrorists are exponentially more likely to be males of age X, from nation of Z, and there's a nervous looking X year old guy with a Z passport wearing an oddly lumpy coat in July you'd be pretty irresponsible not to ask some questions.

      The problem is that statistically speaking, most terrorists in the USA have been White male adults, and US citizens. Yet every time someone suggests that we profile the terrorists they suggest harassing Middle Eastern people of either gender and any age who are not U.S. citizens. There is also the problem with profiling that someone who knows the profiles can use them to their advantage (use someone the profile would give a low priority to searching).

      So really what's being discussed is not statistical profiling so much as simple racism.

      The sad truth is that actually the determined intelligent terrorist is largely speaking a myth (at least in the US). And that none of the measures in place would stop an even remotely well planned attack. There would be no reduction in safety if the entire system were replaced with a sign saying "please do not blow up this airplane".

    3. Re:Not enough bias? by Teun · · Score: 2
      It is the present day security.

      I know a senior pilot who regularly had to travel to the US for training purposes on US build aircraft.
      Every single time he was stopped and harrassed long enough to miss his connecting flight because he was a political refugee originally from the middle east.
      He got so fed up that he's now only flying EU build aircraft so he can train outside of the US.
      His son, also a pilot, who was born in The Netherlands had the same problem and adopted the same solution.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:Not enough bias? by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      Because there's never been a white terrorist, right?

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    5. Re:Not enough bias? by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Has an 80 year old woman with a colostomy bag ever killed anyone? Nope. But the TSA makes it a point to harrass that type of person to give the illusion that they are unbiased. What makes more sense? Hassling people of a profile who have never been any form of threat so that you can, under the guise of political correctness, question those that have historically been a threat? Or being honest about where the statistically likely threat will come from?

      If there's a 25 year old white male from the US in line wearing a lumpy coat in July, by all means, ask some questions. You'd be irresponsible not to. But strip searching a 25 year old white male from the US because he accidently left a quarter in his pocket just so that everyone feels warm and fuzzy about asking a 25 year old middle-easterner from Yemen to remove his lumpy coat is a bit ridiculous, dontcha think? Especially when the latter will be a headline story on CNN as a civil rights violation, and the former will go entirely unnoticed as another "if you have nothing to hide..." condemnation of a xenophobe.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    6. Re:Not enough bias? by firex726 · · Score: 1

      And this is why I don't understand why people are so opposed to profiling people.
      Statistically some people are more predisposed to act a certain way, yet we cry foul when we take that into consideration. (I.E. Young males are more likely to be involved in an accident then middle aged women)

    7. Re:Not enough bias? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      "White male adults, and US citizens"

      Perhaps you're right. Maybe we should profile white U.S. males who've converted to Islam in the past decade.

    8. Re:Not enough bias? by makomk · · Score: 1

      If statistics prove repeatedly that terrorists are exponentially more likely to be males of age X, from nation of Z

      Then chances are that the people most able to provide information about potential terrorist attacks will also be males of age X, from nation Z, and you're much better off if they are willing to co-operate with the state and don't have an entirely justified belief that it'll screw them over at every opportunity.

    9. Re:Not enough bias? by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      So we, um... we profile people of age X and nation Z to allow them easier passage through security screening, in order to gain their trust to give us information about people in the terrorist organizations.... that almost assuredly match the profile of age X and nation Z?

      I'll admit they'd never see that coming but...

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    10. Re:Not enough bias? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      You just reminded me of a scene from Airplane II, as background people pass through security.

      The first guy is obviously armed with something, but doesn't trip any alarms and no action is taken. Then an old granny passes through, and sets off the alarm for some reason. The guards throw her against the wall and start patting her down, as two more heavily armed guys with ammo belts walk through unmolested.

      It's been 20 years since I last saw that movie. It was funny at the time, it's sad to see how close it resembles real life today.

    11. Re:Not enough bias? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      So you too are also for discrimination?

    12. Re:Not enough bias? by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Actually [profiling's] the best possible security.

      Wrong.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    13. Re:Not enough bias? by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      It takes either ignorance or purposeful deciet to present a false choice like that. It's like saying that a person must either support Barrack Obama, or hate African Americans. There are additional choices.

      I am not for discrimination. I'm also not for window dressing just so people like you have a false sense of civility at the cost of billions of dollars that we dont have and a slow erosion of our civil liberties.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    14. Re:Not enough bias? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Nope, just don't give them special treatment either way. Allowing them easier passage through security on the assumption that they might know terrorists is still kind of insulting if you think about it.

  15. This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by McGruber · · 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.

    1. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Yeah except for the part where he wasn't arrested, or detained...

    2. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by bodland · · Score: 1

      The Patriot Act probably has something in it that forced his detention....in the end this is probably staged to expose a major flaw in the draconian Bush era terra laws...

    3. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This privilege is never invoked because it's political poison.

    4. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From TFA: Ran Paul was detained 'indefinitely'

    5. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

      The same FA also says that the TSA disputes his account of it, and says they turned him away from the security gate. That is no indefinite detention by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, he already boarded another plane and left....

    6. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      they shall not be questioned in any other Place

      I'm sure the TSA asked some questions. If they did, they violated the constitution. Not that there's any fine or punishment for violating the constitution.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    7. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by gman003 · · Score: 2

      Yeah except for the part where he wasn't arrested, or detained...

      *looks up at headline*

      Senator Rand Paul Detained by the TSA

      *facepalm*

    8. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terra laws? So Dubya took over Earth?

    9. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 2-3 hours after he had his spokesperson tweet about it. I'm thinking someone in the TSA realized what a shitstorm delaying him more would cause and quickly backpedalled, maybe with a quick phone call to the screeners telling them they didn't see anything this time.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    10. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "and in going to and returning from the same" don't you get? The TSA said he wasn't detained... he wasn't allowed past the super secret boarding area (whatever that's called)... so I guess we all differ in what "detained" means. If this were Al Franken or Ron Wyden, would everyone be so quick to "but..." the facts?

    11. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well considering that it violated Article II, section 2 just last week, why should it be any surprise that it would violate another section of the Constitution?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you believe the slashdot title is correct?

    13. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Hatta · · 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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they shall not be questioned in any other Place

      I'm sure the TSA asked some questions. If they did, they violated the constitution. Not that there's any fine or punishment for violating the constitution.

      Maybe if you actually looked at the whole independent clause you're quoting half of...

      ... and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

      Well, did they ask questions about a speech or debate in Congress? Because if not, you're full of bullshit.

    15. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      except that being turned aside at the gate is tantamount to being "detained", in as much as travel by plane is normal business.

      I can see the loopholes being generated now. "We didn't detain him, we just closed all the roads leading from X to Washington D.C. See, we didn't detain him, we just won't allow him to proceed normally"

      People complain about slippery slopes as logical fallacies, except slippery slopes is exactly how tyranny often is granted power. First it was Plane, then it was Trains, and soon it will by Interstate Highways. Next time someone asks for "papers" simply state "Scissors .. I win!" and leave.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How cute, an american who thinks their slave owners still care about the constitution. Did you just read your first newspaper or something?

    17. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      Well good to know that you need to be a senator to receive preferential treatment. A regular citizen would be either arrested or fined through the nose for refusing to go through the security checkpoint.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    18. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure if you run over a small child in your car on the way to a session of congress the police have the right to arrest you on the spot.

    19. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      Didn't you know that all republican leaders are reptilian overlords who secretly rule the planet?

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    20. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      maybe I'm not up on the news, but what in particular are you referring to?

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    21. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged

      Hit and run is a felony I believe.

    22. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by elistan · · Score: 1

      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.

      They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged...

      I ask because I don't know - is boarding a commercial airliner without going through a full screening a felony? I suspect so, because I can't imagine it being classified as just a misdemeanor. Therefore it seems perfectly Constitutional to me for the TSA or some other government agency to detain and even arrest a Senator going to session for the felony of bypassing a security screening. (Assuming that, like I ask about, the violation is actually a felony.)

    23. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      the TSA cant arrest people

    24. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by anonymousNR · · Score: 1

      at best the TSA executive will lose his/her job, and the civil liberties matter which is the core of this issue will be simply suppressed through media, glorifying the senator.

      --
      -- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
    25. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

      Except that Senators don't really like to have their rights violated. Makes for serious problems with budgetary concerns, especially if Mr. Paul identified himself during the procedure.

    26. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by arose · · Score: 0

      Look up "sensationalize" (in a dictionary, not the title).

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    27. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The "recess" appointment of three people to the National Labor Relations Board and the director of the CFPB while Congress was not in recess.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    28. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by lgw · · Score: 1

      You do know Kerry wrote much of the Patriot act right? And campaiged on that while running against Bush, right?

      What is this mental block people have on /. that blinds them to the fact that there's no daylight between the parties on this sort of thing? Both parties are corrupt. The government as a whole wll always be corrupt. The only defense is to stop giving it more power.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    29. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by lgw · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure if you run over a small child in your car on the way to a session of congress the police have the right to arrest you on the spot.

      Pretty sure Congresscritter Charlie Wilson once caused an auto accident because he was too drunk to even stand up, and drove off, telling the police they couldn't stop him because he was on the way to a vote, and then drove to the airport and fled the country.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    30. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      They just can't CALL it arrest.
      Try suing them for kidnapping you after they lock you in a room and see where that gets you.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    31. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wouldn't have missed the flight if he wasn't detained.

      He missed his flight, because they didn't let him into the secure area. He wasn't detained at all. He was free to walk out of the airport at any time and did.

    32. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      What would happen if he just kept walking forward and ignored shouts to stop? Suppose he just walked the wrong way through the exit area past security? He would be merely travelling towards his destination of Washington, and thus not subject to arrest/questioning.

      People like to use euphemisms these days, but I'm pretty sure that if the people who wrote the constitution witnessed what happened they'd probably say that it was EXACTLY what they were intending to prohibit. The guy was trying to get to his office, and the government interfered.

  16. Except that he wasn't detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just told him he couldn't go through the security checkpoint...which is what happens when you refuse to jump through the security hoops.

  17. Refused a pat-down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of conservative Republican is he supposed to be?

    1. Re:Refused a pat-down? by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

      The kind that understands and defends the Constitution. Rare, but not an impossibility.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  18. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by wolrahnaes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Rand is Ron's son.

    --
    I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  19. Actually, entire Adamantium skeleton by StefanJ · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ron Paul wanted to give his kids all the advantages.

  20. Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, 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 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.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by kelemvor4 · · 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/
      You may not like his ideas, but he doesn't flip flop on them.

    2. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It is probably why they are doing the harsh treatment. Is it smart no, however what it does is make the little men at the TSA who feel threatened by such people make them feel big and empowered. Granted this will only strengthen their case however for the short term it will make these people feel good.

      It reminds me back in High School talking to someone from an other high school, who was angry because some reporter made a joke that it must be the pollution in the cities water that made these kids more aggressive and better at foot ball. This news made him so mad that he wanted to find that reporter and beat him up...

      The moral of the story is that people often act on their gut feelings and don't do things logically.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I assure you, the TSA people are not doing this because they care about him or his politics. They are doing this because they have procedures and they are low paid workers who fear their supervisors more than they fear Congress. Congress isn't their problem, it's their bosses' problem. As government workers, they'd probably have to rape him in the detention room to even get written up. Don't think for a second that their jobs are at risk as long as they followed procedure. If they did deviate, however, they will be fired and hung out to dry.

    4. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's 76 years old and has been in politics for 45 years. If he hasn't flip flopped yet, when exactly will he do it?

    5. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Harsh treatment? Something weird came up on the scanner. By procedure, he is supposed to have the pat down.

      I don't like getting groped and molested at the airport either. But at least it's good to know that they're trying to apply that equally, regardless of how powerful the person might be.

    6. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      they'd probably have to rape him in the detention room to even get written up

      Let's be politically correct here, it's called a "cavity search".

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    7. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He flip-flopped on the whole racism thing.

    8. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Except for the fact that he is a senator, and he was going to Washington DC to do official business (while his primary motivation was to speak at a political rally, chances are he was going to also do official business there too) And the Constitution states:

      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.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    9. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Prune · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I understand the motivation behind many people around here being Ron Paul supporters, but trying to sycophantically whitewash the Ron Paul of the past as demonstrated by his newsletters, http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/ , or to take attention away from his religious agenda http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/is_ron_paul_a_dominionist.php is intellectually dishonest at best.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    10. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by BBF_BBF · · Score: 1

      You may not like his ideas, but he doesn't flip flop on them.

      Sort of like my Dad: Would never admit that he was wrong when he was 100% proven wrong, that's one part of his personality I hate with a passion.

      That's the type of person we *really* want to be running this country.

      Stubborn, unwilling to change position when proven wrong and willing to take the country down with him to prove that he "stayed true to his original, incorrect views."

      We already had one instance of this with the continuation of the Iraq war even when the original reasons for entry had been proven false... that stubborness cost thousands of human lives...

    11. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      The only time Ron Paul has flip-flopped, that I know about, is changing his policy from supporting Don't Ask; Don't Tell to opposing it as discriminatory against homosexuals (saying they should be treated no differently than anybody else).

      He also flipped from supporting Reagan to opposing him, saying Reagan did not keep the small-government, low-spending policies he promised during the 1979-80 campaign.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    12. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one whitewashing. Murray Rothbard wrote those racist pieces, he died in 1995.

      Stop towing the line. There is no "at best" with Ron Paul. He is completely clear about everything, and you can ask him to his face about it.

      PS ur dum.

    13. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by operagost · · Score: 1

      Funny you mention that, because he voted against the Iraq war. And I think that changing your position requires that one be proven wrong, first.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    14. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, he also switched his position on federal capital punishment, he used to be for it.

    15. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      ROFL. Nicely done.

      I'm old enough and cynical enough to know better than to trust a politician...but Ron Paul is probably about as close as you'll get.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    16. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Don't think for a second that their jobs are at risk as long as they followed procedure. If they did deviate, however, they will be fired and hung out to dry.

      You'd think so...but you'd be wrong. Moral of the story: it sucks to be the little guy. No matter what you do, you're still screwed.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    17. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by chrb · · 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?"

    18. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Harsh treatment? Something weird came up on the scanner.

      Do we know that? I mean truly, for certain, beyond any doubt? TSA claims that it's scanners can't store or transmit images (okay, we know that's not strictly true, but for the sake of argument...) so it's not like anyone can contest the body scanner results.

      In other words, some TSA guy claims that there was an aberration on the scan result, and therefore they needed to grope^Wfrisk Sen. Paul to clear him through security. Surely there was no intent to harass him, right? Right? Guys? Anyone?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    19. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      You may not like his ideas, but he doesn't flip flop on them.

      I prefer policies backed by some kind of mainstream research/views to consistent ignorance. Paul does little more than sit in his office and dream up how he thinks the world should work. He either never exposes his opinions to criticism or never listens to criticism.

      Granted, you can listen to criticism and remain unconvinced, but at some point he obviously stopped listening. How else do you explain his clinging onto patently false views of the world?

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    20. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of a conversation I overheard on a city bus:
      Woman1: "My son got in trouble at school for fighting."
      Woman2: "What did you do?"
      Woman1: "I slapped him upside the head and told him don't you NEVER hit anyone!"

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    21. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, the only credible material item I could find in that entire first screed that could be interpreted as potentially negative was that he refused to return a donation from some white supremacists, never mind that they are still citizens and still deserve to be represented. This is supposed to somehow be interpreted as rabid racism that will lead back to segregation and internment camps. And the alternative is a bunch of insubstantial feel-good puff. Wow, I'm so convinced.

      The fact is the Jews call Ron Paul an antisemite because he wants to end aid to Israel, conveniently forgetting that he wants to end all foreign aid, and that it has nothing to do with Israel specifically.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    22. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      While he has given an explanation. I'll accept your judgment on that as a flip-flop.

      But we might want to remember that the entire nation flip-flopped on that.

      And lastly, this is Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son.

    23. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      He's 76 years old and has been in politics for 45 years. If he hasn't flip flopped yet, when exactly will he do it?

      Nice, posting as AC so you can't get called on it when it happens.

    24. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Actually, a broken digital clock isn't right anytime. But those old 1800's analog clocks, are as you say, at least right twice a day.

      But let's not even talk about the logic fallacy your post is. Zero argument, all ad hominen and red herring.

      And well, what do I expect from a poster who things liberty was a thing of yesteryear and that freedom and liberty are no longer essential concepts for today.

    25. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by horigath · · Score: 1

      That article is kind of a bad link, since it doesn't actually talk about the content at all, and assumes a background knowledge. You've got to click a few links deep into its references or do a google to find the bits that are causing trouble. Like the part where his newsletters claimed that 95% of black men in DC are criminals, or that statistics has proven that only 5% of black people have "sensible" political views. Or other longer more complicated bits, like the part where they talk about black youth carjacking as a trend and reprints advice about how to shoot them and get away with it, or laments the victimisation of whites time and time again, or brings up random bizarre individual crime stories in a way that suggests that, say, black girls running around randomly sticking whites with used hypodermic needles, is a thing that is happening all the time and the fact that we don't hear about it more is because they don't want us to know cue spooky music.

      And yeah, meanwhile Paul was using these newsletters to build his support base and also make a whole ton of money at the same time because they cost. Either he's a racist or the most slippery manipulative politician you've ever seen who's happy to use this material for his own purposes.

      Oh yeah: and when he's challenged about it, he doesn't always bring up the "I didn't write it" angle, sometimes he says something along the lines of: "but no actually probably 95% of them are criminals with no sensible beliefs, that's not an unreasonable thing to say at all, because I'm an old privileged white man and I think 95% of everyone is criminal (but especially black people)".

    26. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      You mean like the Keynesian economists and advocates for central banking/Federal Reserve that have been repeatedly taking us down the exact same road time after time since 1913.

      I think Einstein commented about such repetitiveness.

    27. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of claims, but not a lot of references, and you'll pardon me if I can't help thinking that your multitude of paraphrases exaggerates the degrees involved. It's just as likely that these were frank discussions of politically incorrect facts. Arrests and convictions of blacks are higher, that's a fact. That these rates are underpinned by a systemic failure at being objective about race when it comes to making arrest and sentencing decisions is a valid argument and concern, but that doesn't change that the rates themselves are still facts. When you shift these rates from areas where blacks are minorities to areas where they are a majority, it makes the crime rate seem even worse through that lens. At worst that can be characterized as disingenuous, but it's still true.

      Furthermore, 'sensible political beliefs' is obviously a subjective matter, and boils down to 'do they agree with me or not' but does disagreement make somebody a racist? I rather doubt it.

      For the record, my wife is black and I have two bi-racial children, so the impact of racism, especially through law, is of direct concern to me and my family. However, too often opposition toward 'racial positivism' and/or 'positive discrimination' is interpreted as racism. Whereas both my wife and myself believe that providing benefits based on race is just as racist as doing harm based on race. It's disgusting that so many black people have been brainwashed by the left into believing that it's good for them to get benefits based on race, even if it means essentially agreeing that the reason they are getting it is because they are inferior and can't compete on merit. All the while this distorts the reality of problems facing the black community. It might increase graduation rates, but once these kids are adults out in the world, how does lowering the standards help them? How many are not as effective as employees as others who were held to higher standards? Maybe that's what is leading to differences in career/pay achievement or job stability. When you introduce these variables of artificial equivalency instead of dealing with the underlying problems of each person and the community as whole (because that would be racist, to suggest that there are real problems), it further clouds the ability of society to properly assess the matter and move forward in a way that is maximally beneficial for minorities in the long term.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    28. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but it's the same intellectual dishonesty that allowed voters to whitewash the fact that President Obama sat under a pastor for years who expounded racist and bigoted comments and hate for America.

      So apparently such does not seem to preclude eligibility for POTUS.

    29. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by horigath · · Score: 1

      1. On the 95% number, the actual quote from Ron Paul's 1992 newsletter is: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/

      So, "at worst...disingenuous, but still true"? There's also some good stuff about how Paul's longtime staffer and likely ghostwriter of these articles is famous for saying that the only thing wrong with the Rodney King beating was that it was videotaped, etc.

      I don't know what you're defending with your comments about my statements being unsourced, given that I just critiqued the linked article for being a bad example and even went on to suggest ways that you might find more of the content (given that we're talking about years of newsletters, it's a bit much for a random comment). But I posted simply to correct any misperception that that may have caused, despite your rather high expectations that I was going to instead offer an encyclopedic counter-example. The content of the newsletters is public knowledge; you don't need me to google for you. But when I said before that the sources were a few clicks deep into the post's references, I wasn't kidding, I clicked a link in the first paragraph, and scrolled down to where the second author was recommending excerpts and commentary, and clicked on that. It took maybe a couple of minutes.

      2. Moving on to your fight: "Once these kids are adults out in the world, how does [giving them access to the sytem] help them?" Well, it means they are qualified for jobs based on the piece of paper that they now hold. This is another matter and despite your attempt to bring it up here it is not really what Paul's newsletters are about except in a passing "look what else they are doing to us!" way. Despite your long explanation and justification the reason why you disagree with people about it is because the idea that giving the underprivileged access to the educational system is the same as "lowering standards" or "artificial equivalency" is in fact the part that is in question—your paragraph is a classic example of begging the question, leading with the conclusion couched in a quick, easy statement and constructing an argument based on tautology.

      Worse than that, you wrap it up with "...instead of dealing with the underlying problems..." which is a flat-out insult to the people you seem to think you are arguing against, because in your effort to fight off their imagined attacks you are telling them that they are denying reality and that they haven't done anything useful. Because their personal experience and their own efforts to fight social problems are getting in away of your imaginary objectivity, "the ability of society to properly assess the matter and move forward" which I'm sorry to say doesn't have a very good record of eliminating oppression quickly in the US or anywhere.

      Again, I'm not sure what you are defending. Maybe, given your eagerness to bring up your white-with-a-conscience cred you are protecting your privilege and sense of righteousness by loudly declaring yourself to be not racist. Maybe you just really really love Ron Paul. In any case I doubt that most people who are seriously working on solving racial inequality care about you and the way that you write off their efforts, because they know that white people do that all the bloody time.

    30. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I've flipped on that, too. The racial makeup of who was on death row, DNA evidence showing how many were clearly innocent, combined with experience with the legal (as opposed to justice) system was just to much evidence to me that screamed innocent people would probably being killed. Before, I had a romanticized view of only easily identifiable perpetrators like the Loffner(sp?) guy who shot the Congresswoman in broad daylight being on death row. The truth is that it boils down to how much can you afford for a lawyer, and does he/she give a shit.

      Sorry, but our legal system doesn't give a damn about justice, and should not have the power over life and death.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    31. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      did you turn to her and say, "Here's your sign."?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    32. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      So, "at worst...disingenuous, but still true"?

      That was based on the assumption that they were exaggerated by you. I can see they were not, though looking at it in context I think it was meant to be read as a rhetorical device, not a statistical fact. Even so I agree it smacks of racism.

      I like how 'access to the system' is more important to you than standards. Why have grades at all then? Why don't we just hand out diplomas and degrees to everybody? Because that would make them useless and irrelevant of course, and by creating artificial tiers based on 'positive' racism, the utility and relevance of these certificates is that much decreased. Employers are made that much more wary about whether a minority candidate has made it through on scores that would have failed somebody of a different race.

      And my white-with-a-conscience cred was aired because I have very close experience of the matter even it isn't first person. My wife has expressed to me that part of the reason that she works ridiculously hard (and she does) is to demonstrate to her management that she isn't there because of some quota or "special" treatment, but because she's as valuable or more valuable (and she is) than anybody else regardless of race. For people with that level of self-consciousness and self-respect, it is insulting.

      For the sake of my wife and my children, I work for real racial equality, where a person is rewarded for what they do, not their skin color. I don't want a society that accepts lowered standards, I don't want my children to think that they shouldn't have to work as hard because their grandparents used to be discriminated against, and I don't give two shits if that offends people who dedicate their lives to being condescending or perennial victims.

      It is really telling that you want to blame the fact that I'm white for my opinion. That's quite racist in itself. Funny how 'progressives' pay so much lip service to diversity, but they love stereotyping as much or moreso than their opposition. My wife tells me that people online always think she is a white male too, just because her opinions don't match the stereotype of black woman. This just in progressives: race (and gender) is not monolithic, and every race has diverse political opinions, which are neither validated nor invalidated by virtue of that fact.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    33. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      -1 to me. I don't get the reference.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    34. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It is kinda sad that, at this point, Ron Paul actually is one of the most sane politicians in U.S., even with all the things that you mentioned.

      (and I say that as a social democrat - i.e., by U.S. standards, practically a pinko commie)

    35. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Mitreya · · Score: 1
      "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.

      Sorry, I have to respectfully call bullshit. I can't believe this is marked +5 insightful. Yes, "flip flopping" means changing your mind. However, the typical use refers to "convenient" changes that seem to coincide with one's political career advantage (particularly when these changes happen 2 or more times, not just once). For example, I hear that Mitt Romney used to be pro-life before he ran in MA. Then he had introduced a beautiful story of a relative who had to go through abortion changing his stance to pro-choice. Oddly enough, he is pro-life once again now - the relative long forgotten.
      You show me one politician who honestly changed his position without any obvious advantage to their current platform/constituency/etc, and I'll believe your point then... Ron Paul is simply consistent as his beliefs have not changed, most others change with the wind.

    36. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Counter argument is that he 'breached the peace' by refusing the search, holding up the line, etc.

      (It's bullshit, but no worse than the other stuff I've seen around here)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    37. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by TBBle · · Score: 1

      Flip-flopping as I understand its use means changing your mind back and forth without strong rational basis, but in order to achieve some goal of perception, be it following the tide of public opinion polls, or changing your message to suit your current audience.

      Sure, it's pejoratively applied to public figures who change their mind by other public figures who wish to denigrate that figure's decision-making without agreeing or disagreeing with either the old or new position, but that's not the meaningful use of the term, any more than "gay" means "unskilled at playing Counterstrike".

      --
      Paul "TBBle" Hampson
      Paul.Hampson@Pobox.Com
    38. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the newsletters are important is so that other politicians can draw attention away from things like the War on Drugs or capital punishment which are applied unequally. But by all means, if you want, continue to go by what his ghostwriter said 20 years ago instead of what Ron Paul is on record saying. Granted, RP is not for a ban of capital punishment by states, but that's him following the constitution (and I think my state will DTRT; motivated citizens of other states can take care of theirs too).

      Your science blogs article is basically some vague FUD... and the conclusion at the end of all the indirect "evidence" he could muster was "maybe". Half of his evidence is that some nutcases support Paul, saying this is a red flag even though there's no evidence that there is any support in the other direction. It's true that a lot of crazy people want to be left alone, so they lean Libertarian, but a lot of very normal people like freedom too -- I'd rather not give it up just because some people are crazy. The other half of the evidence was berating Paul for pointing out that separation of church and state was not part of the constitution. That's true, it was in fact a thing that Jefferson and other "founding fathers" believed but other than the avoidance of an official state church, it didn't make it into our original laws:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States
      The rest of the quote, can be seen here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Religion
      You can clearly see that the context is the ridiculousness of things like banning Christmas decorations in a 80%+ Christian city. I'm not religious and I still think it is dumb -- I'm not going to go to the Middle East and complain that the state supports Islamic decorations and holidays. All I feel the government owes me is tolerance, not to bend over backward to stop the traditional majority from having customs that don't interfere with my liberty. And the "religion of the state" which RP references is a real danger, this is most obvious in dictatorships such as North Korea, but "state as savior" is something that folks push here too (such as some of my school teachers). To a country born with the premise of no official state church, I don't want the state itself becoming a church.

      But instead of vague notions, let's talk about concrete things. I would like a candidate who would do things such as:
      * Stop torturing foreign nationals or illegally detaining them (Gitmo).
      * Stop extra-judicial killings (dropping bombs from drones in foreign countries).
      * Not start a war with Iran (based on the track record of opposing the failed war in Iraq).
      * Stop stationing our soldiers in foreign bases (where local opposition ranges from mild contempt to outright hostility).
      * Stop our slow slide toward a police state full of security theater over statistically insignificant threats (TSA, etc)
      Those things would save a bunch of money and maybe slowly start to repair our relationship with most of the rest of the world. It would also help diplomacy come back to the fore rather than "letting the US solve it, for better or worse" which seems to have been the operating principle of the last 20 years. These are also things the executive has a lot of control over (most other proposed measures will be stopped or slowed by Congress).

      Now, I don't agree with Paul on many of his political positions, in particular I would want aggressive internalizing of environmental externalities (such as a carbon tax, and a carbon tariff for imports from countries which ignore it). I also think a gold standard is going too far for austerity. However there are many positions Paul holds, which I think we need to start on right away, and

    39. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same. Google suggests it's a catchphrase of a "Bill Engvall." I watched a few videos but they weren't particularly funny or entertaining *shrug*

    40. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by forkfail · · Score: 1

      To be specific, said bullshit is circular logic.

      You are under arrest for resisting arrest....

      --
      Check your premises.
  21. We are too politically correct... by VinylRecords · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When the TSA or police use lots of racial or religious profiling everyone is up in arms about them being bigoted or prejudicial. "Oh they are picking on people who look Middle Eastern" "they are picking on the blacks" and whatnot. So then the TSA checks everyone without discriminating at all to show that anyone, even a senator, has to be groped and scanned before boarding because that senator might be a terrorist. Now the TSA has to be an equal opportunity offender and overly check people that are clearly not terrorists for the sake of equality.

    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. If we are wasting time harassing senators who are obviously not going to hijack the plane then something is obviously wrong.

    Is a senator a terrorist? Probably not. This isn't Homeland. Are the five guys with brown skin with box cutters and mace terrorists? Yes probably but let's let them get on the plane. Is the family with grandparents smuggling cocaine in their luggage? Probably not. Are the two nervous looking Columbian men clinging to their luggage hiding something? Probably. But the TSA for political correctness has to check randomly and not profile which wastes time and resources and allows guys like Richard Reid the shoebomber into planes while Rand Paul is denied a flight.

    1. Re:We are too politically correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Better idea: How about we all stop acting like cowards, stop with the pointless over the top airport security, and accept that yes, there is an absurdly small chance that of dying of cancer or a heart attack you earned by stuffing your diabetic American maw with too much food, you stand the absurdly rare chance of dying to a terrorist. Americans seem brave enough to commit mass suicide by eating McDonalds food every day... maybe they can muster up the courage to get on an airplane knowing that they stand a 1 in a few million chance of dying to a terrorist.

      We don't need extra freedom fondles and pr0n scanners. We just need Americans to stop acting like a bunch of cowards.

    2. Re:We are too politically correct... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      There job is to scare people into thinking that this system does anything. Anything past bomb sniffing dogs is overkill on domestic flights.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:We are too politically correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and allows guys like Richard Reid the shoebomber into planes while Rand Paul is denied a flight.

      Do you have any evidence that Reid got onto the plane out of "political correctness"? PC-ism doesn't explain the vast incidences of measly incompetence from our pals at the TSA.

    4. Re:We are too politically correct... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, 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 and her friend Jamie Paulin-Ramirez.

      Yeah, that racial profiling really works great. Great for the terrorists that it would let sail right on through.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:We are too politically correct... by brainzach · · Score: 1

      So you want a law that says if you are white, you have the right to refuse a pat down, but if you are brown, you have to comply or be arrested?

      If you want some citizens to have increase security at the airports, you have to accept that you can go through the same procedures. No one is above the law.

      It is also naive to suggest that profiling doesn't go on. If you are looking suspicious, chances are you going to get targeted out in the "random" searches.

    6. Re:We are too politically correct... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yes then the US can start returning to becoming a "land of the free and the home of the brave".

      --
    7. Re:We are too politically correct... by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Racial profiling might not be politically correct but it works.

      Allowing discretion by individual officers is how we ended up with more black men in jail today than were enslaved in 1840. This is despite the fact that the crime they are ostensibly charged with (drug related) occurs with equal frequency across race lines.

      With a success record like that, how can you argue for racial profiling unless your hidden agenda is racism?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:We are too politically correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your prejudices are showing. In reality, the large majority of terrorist attacks that have taken place in the US aren't "guys with brown skin' they are white Christians, so any 'profiling' based on your incorrect assumption would make screening less effective. So yes, security professionals know that the most effective screening technique is to suppress personal biases, and base screening policies on what criminals actually do, and keep 'random screens' in the mix. The problem with not doing random screening, only screening people that fit the profile for "bad people," is that the criminals figure it out and use the profiles against you. For example, if you always wave through every family with children with no screening, the smugglers start traveling with kids.

      That being said, they do use behavioral profiling. If someone acts nervous, or can't answer routine questions, they get more screening.

      I'm not a huge fan of the TSA, but I have to support them in that they consistently applied their security policies to everyone, which is the principled thing to do. That is, if someone sets off the metal detector, they should be patted down. He refused the pat down, which would have gotten him onto his original flight. Which pretty much makes the delay his fault.

    9. Re:We are too politically correct... by AdamThor · · Score: 3, 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?

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    10. Re:We are too politically correct... by solinari · · Score: 1

      Racial profiling makes absolutely no sense as a method of guarding a secure area. Then all you need to do is find somebody in a non-reviewed ethnic group to mule your box cutters through security (pretty much any junkie will do it for their drug of choice, to name one possibility) and have your Arab hijackers walk through their extended security completely clean and pick up the gear on the other side.

      Of course the entire TSA process is just a combination jobs program for petty tyrants and security theater for the sheeple. "Let me take away your dangerous toothpaste tube ... and toss it in this completely unsecured bin over here."

      I think it's great that Rand Paul is willing to take a stand on this issue. Sure it's a stunt to boost both his dad and his own ambitions, but it's still making an important point on the side of freedom. If the Republicans start making moves like this on a regular basis and manage to contrast that against Harry Reid regurgitating phony MPAA statistics as press releases in support of SOPA/PIPA, the Democrats will soon be in real trouble.

    11. Re:We are too politically correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure procreation played a minor role as well.

    12. Re:We are too politically correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not being PC that is the reason people are upset and we see this shit happening...

      It's the completely unneeded and unwarranted process of groping/scanning at all that needs to be done away with. It has been proven time and time again to be wholly ineffective with people sneaking

      knives
      http://www.popeater.com/2011/06/27/garret-dillahunt-raising-hope-twitter-rainn-wilson-tsa-knife-airport/

      LOADED GUNS
      http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458

      and other contraband through with ease. These are not isolated incidents. The system is a complete joke and should be dismantled before it can do any more harm to travelers (children being groped, disabled people being scarred and embarrassed)

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110414/02544013890/tsa-gropes-6-year-old-girl-says-its-okay-since-it-followed-standard-operating-procedure.shtml

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110627/02353514872/tsa-says-groping-dying-95-year-old-woman-forcing-her-to-remove-diaper-is-ok-because-it-followed-standard-procedure.shtml

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40278427/ns/travel-news/t/tsa-forces-cancer-survivor-show-prosthetic-breast/#.Tx2nWvl2O9U

      And now that the TSA is spilling onto freeways, bus terminals, train stations, and everywhere else via VIPR, every single American is pretty much fucked. Soon you'll be on your way to work being stopped to check for drugs and car bombs. This is not a PC movement, this is an Orwellian nightmare in its truest form.

    13. Re:We are too politically correct... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      This is despite the fact that the crime they are ostensibly charged with (drug related) occurs with equal frequency across race lines.

      How many white people are part of national street gangs?

    14. Re:We are too politically correct... by squizzar · · Score: 1

      So when perfectly safe white folk are being treated in a manner that's only suitable for all those dangerous minorities there is a problem? I agree random screening is Bullshit. I think that profiling would certainly provide better results, but it would be at the expense of the freedom of certain groups within society, and can't be justified because of that. Are people with strong religious beliefs are more likely to be terrorists than Atheists? Should we be pestering Christians more than Buddhists? Men more than Women? Those with low incomes more than those with higher incomes? You only think profiling is ok because you see yourself as not in any of the 'dangerous' groups, and hence you don't care what happens to anyone else, so long as your journey is not inconvenienced. It's an incredibly selfish attitude, that leads to distrust, intolerance and hatred. It is the very meaning of prejudice. Genocidal acts are committed with the reasoning that people with certain attributes are seen as dangerous.

      So you have a choice: distrust everyone who doesn't fit into your very narrow view of safe, acceptable people, or accept that in the name of yours, and others freedoms, there is some risk that not everyone will respect those freedoms and some will use them against you. The alternative, which you propose, is that you become the person taking freedoms from others and then - to quote the oft repeated phrase - the terrorists have won.

    15. Re:We are too politically correct... by wootcat · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should reverse the trend. If someone refuses to submit to a pat-down, let them board the plane and announce to the passengers the situation and anyone who would rather depart the plane and book another flight are free to do so.

      --
      I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
    16. Re:We are too politically correct... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Yes, YES, YES !

      We used to be "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave." WTF ever happened to that notion? Or was it just a cool line in a song some dude wrote two hundred years ago, but we never really believed it?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    17. Re:We are too politically correct... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      When young white men spend time together in public, they're hanging out with friends. When young black men spend time together in public, they're engaged in gang activity.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:We are too politically correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simplistic, stupid racism-motivated racial profiling does not work, true. Profiling, however, works fantastically as a general tool. It requires taking into account not only age, gender, country of origin, facial hair, clothing, travel origination and destination (return plans included), and luggage but also visible behavior in the security area. My understanding is that Israel applies this against air-travel terrorism with exceptional success.

      But more to the point is that security is complex and anytime you try to legislate terrorism away, you end up spending a lot of money for very little security and compromising civil liberties. 9-11 effectively ended hijackings, as passengers will no longer tolerate it. Armed air marshals and locked, tough cockpit doors make it unreasonable for terrorists to even kill all passengers and then take over. Only option left is suicide bombing. But to what end? Killing one plane full of people is naught but a symbolic gesture. Greater societal, fiscal and fear can be achieved by attacking much easier targets (cruise ships, theme parks, stadiums, major bridges, even malls). The one thing blowing up an airplane gets you, can now be achieved even by failing to blow up an airplane (or even board it!) by merely getting caught trying to blow one up: you hurt freedom. Our government is now so mindnumbingly stupid that when we succeed in catching terrorists *before* they can actually cause terror, we inflict the terror and its consequences upon ourselves. IN THIS WAY, THE TSA IS ACTIVELY AIDING THE CAUSE OF TERRORISM. Richard Reid and the underwear bomber have cost our country millions upon millions of dollars in equipment and personal, possible *billions* in lost opportunity costs from the extra time wasted in airport security, and probably will eventually kill more than an airplane full of people with cancer due to the additional radiation burden and all this by laughably failing to blow up planes. This is irony of the highest level and it disgusts me that so many people in my country are blind to this.

    19. Re:We are too politically correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have just described several flavors of mud people. I'm not sure how this means mud people should not be screened more often than whites.

  22. Move along, nothing to see here by Doofus · · Score: 0

    The story was posted long after the situation was resolved, according to the linked Politico article.

    Doesn't seem worthy of a front-page location on Slashdot.

    --
    If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; ... it invites anarchy. - Brandeis
    1. Re:Move along, nothing to see here by Kid+Zero · · Score: 1

      http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/23/report-tsa-detains-sen-rand-paul-in-nashville/

      It's a he said/They said. Rand's people are saying it was a detention; the TSA is saying it wasn't. The TSA would deny it was a detention, however.

  23. maybe the sumary is misleading by swatthatfly · · Score: 1

    According to the article: “Passengers, as in this case, who refuse to comply with security procedures are denied access to the secure gate area. He was escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement,” the official said.

    --
    keyboard not found! press any key to continue...
  24. Civil Disobedience by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can call him a right-wing nut-job all you want, but Rand Paul is a strong opponent of the TSA, the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, and all sorts of other government abuses against civil liberties. I'm sure he is doing this to help prove his point.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rand simply wants these agencies to be privatized and become corporate abuses of civil liberties.

    2. Re:Civil Disobedience by Beelzebud · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah he loves civil liberties so much, that he was trying to catch a plane for a "pro-life" event. So much for civil liberties.

    3. Re:Civil Disobedience by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Not even close. Do some research before posting BS.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    4. Re:Civil Disobedience by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Informative
      http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120123/NEWS01/120123015/Sen-Rand-Paul-allegedly-detained-by-TSA-Nashville

      Paul was flying to Washington D.C., to speak at a March for Life rally, according to his Facebook page.

      And if that's not enough research for you, try this:

      Today I will speak to the March for Life in Washington DC. A nation cannot long endure without respect for the fundamental right to Life. Our Liberty depends on it.

      --Taken right from his own Facebook page....

      You were saying?

    5. Re:Civil Disobedience by nbauman · · Score: 1

      He supports some good policies, but I could never vote for him because he is a right-wing nut job.

      "March for Life." Really. What would Ayn Rand do?

    6. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abort the babies herself?

    7. Re:Civil Disobedience by jason777 · · Score: 2

      Right. That life inside another life (the baby) has just as much civil liberties. They should be protected.

    8. Re:Civil Disobedience by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      life != person

      Don't like it? Overturn Roe v Wade. Until then, STFU.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    9. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah he loves civil liberties so much, that he was trying to catch a plane for a "pro-life" event. So much for civil liberties.

      You can't have liberty without life, you reactionary twit.

      What's WRONG with "pro life" anyway? At least that's not a pathetic euphemism for "screw around until you're pregnant, then toss away all morality and kill the result". Because that's what abortion-as-an-unfettered "right" amounts to.

      Great. You think it's a "right" to get pregnant and kill the result if you don't like it.

      What that hell does that make you?

      Oh, right. It makes you BETTER than some "pro-lifer".

      SURE, it does.

    10. Re:Civil Disobedience by jason777 · · Score: 1

      see thats where youre wrong. that baby is a person. it doesnt start becoming a person once it leaves the womb. And roe v wade is unconstitutional......ah but so is the ndaa, and there it is

    11. Re:Civil Disobedience by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. I'm not arguing against what you are saying, but what does that have to do with the comment he was calling BS? The one about "corporate abuses of civil liberties." Is there a connection between the Pro-Life rally and privatizing the TSA?

    12. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, he wasn't replying to you. He was replying to a downvoted AC.

      But you got to yell at someone, on the Internet. Good for you!

    13. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only an idiot on Slashdot would equate abortion and "pro-life" with civil liberties. You sir have your wires crossed. Next time come back with some actual knowledge and not the mush they filled your brain with in public school.

      The executve branch just crossed a very big line. A man swore to uphold the Constitution, and has violated same. I'm sure he will play his typical lawyerball equivocation.. Anyone who thinks this is not now a dictatorship is fair game for what is coming next.

    14. Re:Civil Disobedience by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Senate is in session at 4:30pm today, Rand Paul was flying to DC to attend the Senate meeting. Speaking to the RTL group was just a stop he was making because he had time to before the Senate convenes. That you don't like him addressing an RTL group changes nothing about the fact that he was flying to DC for official Senate business.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    15. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly what he said - a pro-life event. thanks for the sarcasm though. it's always funny to read the responses of dumbasses like yourself with your sarcasm. I bet slashdot should have a delete button so you could retrace the post back up your ass where that oiled up shampoo bottle was hanging out last night. you know that "EDTA" component that went up your intestines, through your stomach, up your esophagus and out your nose, where you proceeded to snort it up and eventually covering your brain - you know that one? it killed some of those brain cells. you then posted that sarcastic bullcrap, then reread it like five minutes later and realized you said the same exact thing the guy you're replying to said. then you were like - "man, I wish ./ had a delete button". but is doesn't. just like you don't have those brain cells killed by edta when the shampoo went into your brain through your nose from your throat where it was excreted by your stomach, that acquired it from your large intestine, connected to your small intestine, connected to your asshole, in the house that Jack built.. wait - where was I again. anywise, I forget the rest, but your mother is a whore.

    16. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being for civil liberties isn't diametrically opposite to being pro-life, it just may be that he sees the liberties of those very young Americans being infringed upon.

      At what point does citizenship begin?

    17. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, god forbid that the human being in the womb be given any. Woman has the right to keep her legs closed, when that is violated there should be options. When there are signs of genetic misfortunes, then there should be options. In all other cases the woman accepted gods EULA by having sex and risks not being able to do everything she wants for at least 9 months should she become pregnant.

    18. Re:Civil Disobedience by Arker · · Score: 1

      His position is emotively pro-life, but still against any federal interference. Left at a state level, even if a few states pass stupid laws, others will not, and damage is limited. So he's vastly preferable to any "mainstream" pro-life candidate that is happy to ignore the constitution and try to legislate morality on the federal level. So yes, keeping in mind that no one is perfect, and that these two want to end all the racist wars both overseas and at home, repeal PATRIOT act and restore the 4th amendment (and all the others too) - they can have that relatively small imperfection and still be sincere and even exemplary civil-libertarians.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    19. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least that you admit that you're pro-life on morality grounds...

      Most of you whack-jobs claim that it is all about the sanctity of life, while at the same time not really giving a fuck at all about other lives...

    20. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, because babies have no right to life.

    21. Re:Civil Disobedience by bondsbw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a pro-lifer, I simply believe in the civil liberties of every unborn child.

      Please don't assume that the "pro-choice" side is the only side for upholding civil liberties. "Your rights end where my rights begin." It comes down to a difference in opinion about whose rights are more important; I believe the unborn child's right to life is a liberty far more important than the mother's right to a convenient life.

      (Not trying to start a flame war. I understand and accept that sometimes, it's about more than just convenience.)

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    22. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If someone believes an embryo/fetus/unborn child is a human person deserving of the same rights as everyone else, then for them being pro-life is defending civil liberties.

    23. Re:Civil Disobedience by offrdbandit · · Score: 2

      How exactly is a pro-life sentiment incongruent with civil liberties?

      The question really boils down to whose rights should trump: mother to be or child to be. Pro-choicers usually rely upon corner case hypothetical situations in an attempt to justify their position, but that approach wholly ignores the civil liberty issue you bring up. Somehow it's a violation of civil liberties to insist the government step in to protect those who cant protect themselves? I'd wager you're a big fan of the government propping up unions to protect the helpless workers from big-bad-wolf corporations.

      Before you throwing out the "fetus isn't a person" argument, think about it for a second; it's the same inane mental word gymnastics that allow people to convince themselves there is a difference between being "detained" and "arrested" (or being locked in a room from which you are unable to leave isn't REALLY even being "detained").

    24. Re:Civil Disobedience by Reason58 · · Score: 1

      It comes down to a difference in opinion about whose rights are more important

      This is an incorrect summary of the abortion debate. It comes down to when you declare a mass of tissue a human being.

    25. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so you only recognize the civil liberties of those YOU recognize as people? Cool.

    26. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah he loves civil liberties so much, that he was trying to catch a plane for a "pro-life" event. So much for civil liberties.

      To present his side of the argument, he believes a fetus is a human being from conception and therefore being murdered by its mother would be a violation its rights. You can argue whether or not a fetus is a human and at what point it is conferred rights, but his stance is consistent with his beliefs.

    27. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, the only correct answer is "never". There is no process by which a mass of tissue can become a human being, other than completing its genetic set and changing from a gamete into a zygote. If that didn't do it, then you sir have no more right to claim to be human than any other mass of tissue. Being pushed through a vagina doesn't qualify.

  25. I wouldn't be too hard on Rand Paul by milbournosphere · · Score: 2
    From what I've heard, he's already pretty critical of the TSA pat-downs. From June of 2011: http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/06/senator-rand-paul-questions-invasive-tsa-searches/

    Hopefully this will open more eyes in congress and generate some more pushback against the overgrown agency that the TSA has become.

  26. I've had two instances of an annomly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One was a peney, the other a gum wrapper. Once i removed these items i wasnt asked to go through the scan again, just waived through.

    This is going to make a funny Daily Show tonight.

  27. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by FunPika · · Score: 1

    Based on TFA...this probably won't affect much since it sounds like Rand Paul is already a "fierce critic" of the TSA.

    --
    After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
  28. not detained at all... by JoeRobe · · Score: 2

    He just refused a pat-down, so they turned him back from the checkpoint. The TSA has explicitly said that at no point was Paul detained. According to CNN he rebooked on another flight and went back through security without a problem. That makes the story a lot less interesting...

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
    1. Re:not detained at all... by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Except that for all they know, he could have been flying at the last minute to get to a critical vote. There's a reason the constitution doesn't allow individual states to arrest congresspeople going to or from their job.

      In this instance, no harm done. But, do we want the TSA to, in any way, be able to influence Congress?

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    2. Re:not detained at all... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, 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?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:not detained at all... by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      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...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?

      You can stop wondering:
      Alaska State Legislature member refuses pat-down.
      John "Don't touch my junk!" Tyner refuses pat-down.
      56-year old rape victim refuses pat-down.

      YMMV. IIRC, TSA dropped charges against Tyner, but I don't believe the woman in Austin, TX was quite as lucky. To date, there are no politicians who have refused to allow themselves to be molested, excuse me, I mean "groped", err..."searched"...by TSA who have even had charges filed against them, much less who have actually been prosecuted. I guess the quote is true: "You know the score, Deckard. If you ain't cop, you're little people."

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    4. Re:not detained at all... by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Learn the definition of detain. From Merriam-Webster 3: to restrain especially from proceeding.

    5. Re:not detained at all... by JoeRobe · · Score: 1

      By that definition, I'm detained every time I come up to a red traffic light or a stop sign. I'm detained by every wall around me. That's not the "detain" to which they're referring. The common legal definition (which is the 1st of m-w's definitions) is "to hold or keep in or as if in custody". Point is that he just re-booked on another flight, and went through later anyway. There wasn't any time when Paul was held in custody.

      --
      The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
  29. I like this by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:I like this by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      I think the reason is more simple than that. Some TSA officers probably feel like they have an axe to grind with the Pauls over their anti-TSA statements. This is a simple case of getting even. That much said, both Rand and Ron are right in the matter. I am not really much of a fan of Rand, but his father Ron I'd like to see as the next President. The reality, however, is a long shot.

    2. Re:I like this by Teun · · Score: 2

      but his father Ron I'd like to see as the next President.

      Europe is with you!

      It would instantaneously solve all issues about our economic and financial credibility :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    3. Re:I like this by Corbets · · Score: 1

      I think the reason is more simple than that. Some TSA officers probably feel like they have an axe to grind with the Pauls over their anti-TSA statements. This is a simple case of getting even. That much said, both Rand and Ron are right in the matter. I am not really much of a fan of Rand, but his father Ron I'd like to see as the next President. The reality, however, is a long shot.

      That's an awfull lot of credit you're giving to the TSA guys. You think they know which politician says what? They watch c-span or read slashdot or what? ;)

    4. Re:I like this by scubamage · · Score: 1

      The thing is, as a society to progress, you need people on the fringe. Their job isn't to actually win the elections, their goal is to be squeaky enough to actually get the message out there to contrast the "common" perception of things. They'll create a more libertarian political climate, election or not. They generate debate. Its like Richard Stallman - he's never going to really accomplish the goal of all software being "free," but he's loud enough to get the point across to a lot of people and rally them to his cause. It'll never be a majority, but it will be enough to have a valid "other way of seeing things." At least that's how I view it.

    5. Re:I like this by Hatta · · Score: 1

      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.

      While not perfect, this is preferable to the usual alternative, where representatives have no values beyond their personal aggrandizement. That leads to a series of illogical positions that vary from downright impractical to socially abhorrent.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:I like this by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      > I'm surprised he was even required to go through the screening process

      maybe he said, "I'm Rand Paul!"
      TSA screener: "yeah right, and I'm John Boehner. Now hold still."

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    7. Re:I like this by Arker · · Score: 1

      I am glad you decided to rephrase because the first version was offensive and valueless.

      The second is more nuanced and thus offers value without being offensive. It is a huge improvement. However I still think it is a mistaken impression. I cannot think of a single issue where they actually advocate the kind of impractical idealism you impute to them - quite to the contrary in fact.

      As to the screenings for congresscritters, this is one of the areas I have been watching carefully since the TSA started, knowing it is one of the likely trouble areas. In theory, the constitutional immunity of a congresscritter doesnt permit them to be treated like this. The TSA also, in theory, manages to be exempt from all civil liberties protections based on its hybrid government/private nature allowing it to escape the rules it would be under were it one or the other (much like the "Federal" Reserve,) but I dont think that has seen its final challenge in court yet.

      In theory, courts rule on the facts of the case regardless of the identity of the parties, but in practice, they are much more likely to have the stones to tell one part of the government what it is doing is illegal if the opposing party is another part of the government, rather than a private person or civil liberties group. So the ideal situation for all of us is for someone like Rand to be the test case.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    8. Re:I like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. Ron Paul is almost certainly lying when he claims to know nothing about the racist newsletters that went out over his signature back in the day. He talks to Christian loonies like one of their own. It's no accident that he has salted his current hostess assortment of positions with ticklers for liberals and lefties. All suckers are welcome in his big tent.

      Ron Paul is a successful American politician. Of course he's a liar who will say anything to get over. As for his liberty-loving son, this is the egalitarian who has armed thugs trample on people's skulls if they have the nerve to oppose him in public.

      The wonder is where this insane story got started that OF COURSE unlike all other politicians Ron Paul is a principled straight shooter who will do what he says he will if he ever gets into a position of power. It's a PR fairy tail, like the legend of the much-beloved, benign, and omniscient Gipper (as opposed to the mentally impaired, insanely vindictive, and duplicitous Ronald Reagan).

      There's absolutely no evidence that Paul would keep any more of his promises if elected than Obama has done. People can say that he would only because, in a quarter-century as a professional congressman, Paul has never held executive power and therefore has provided only limited opportunities for disillusionment.

      The issue of his supposedly clear and intellectually dazzling philosophy is material for a whole 'nother seminar.

    9. Re:I like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever hear about that one that goes something like "A solution should be as simple as possible, but no simpler"?

    10. Re:I like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be odd, considering that he or a different TSA screener had just just checked Rand Paul's ID under a blacklight.

    11. Re:I like this by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      person that does the search is not the same that looks at IDs (now what really happened, I was simply speculating a situation. anyone get it on cellphone cam?).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  30. According to TSA, Paul was not detained by DragonWriter · · 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, MSNBC, Reuters.)

    1. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know regular people were allowed to back out after failing a scan....

    2. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      And you believe the TSA version of events? He was detained, turned over to local police who escorted him from the screening area, after which, he was forced to book another flight and we eventually allowed to enter after being screened again (which is what he requested in the first place).

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    3. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by EverlastingPhelps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If he was escorted out, then he was legally arrested. You don't have to have the magic words "you are under arrest" said or be booked. Whenever you are dealing with the authorities and you are not free to leave, you are arrested. (For example, every traffic stop resulting in a ticket is an arrest.)

    4. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      You can leave the security checkpoint area at any time, though they may ask you to leave the airport if you do so. TSA agents can't legally arrest you, they can only bar you from entering the secure area of the airport.

    5. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With that logic, not saying you are incorrect, everyone who ever go through airport screening is arrested and detained. Which would make this entire article pretty pointless.

    6. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      And if you believe that, then Michael Chertoff has some prono-scanners to sell you!

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    7. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      And you believe the TSA version of events?

      I believe that neither party from which accounts have been provided is unbiased and presenting either of them alone as a fact is irresponsible.

    8. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      You don't have to have the magic words "you are under arrest" said or be booked.

      True, but irrelevant.

      Whenever you are dealing with the authorities and you are not free to leave, you are arrested.

      Paul was (as described by the TSA) free to leave, he was not free to enter the secure area of the airport except with law enforcement escort (and then, only for the express purpose of leaving the secure area.)

      Being required to have a law enforcement escort while transiting a secured area is not arrest.

    9. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "According to the TSA" - Okay, right there is where your entire argument broke down.

    10. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by EverlastingPhelps · · Score: 1

      Being required to have a law enforcement escort while transiting a secured area is not arrest.

      Yes. It is, by definition. If you weren't under arrest, you could move through it freely. The very word "arrest" means to stop or prevent. Under United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, you are under arrest anytime the police use force on you. Since he was escorted, they were using force. In addition, they were using force to prevent him from travelling to DC. Therefore, they were arresting him on the way to a session of the Senate. The end.

      It's not a hard concept. The founders didn't pull this provision out of thin air because it sounded cool. It was to prevent something that had actually happened. The King in England would sometimes send his men to arrest MPs on their way to Parliament before a vote if they weren't voting his way. They would hold the MPs just long enough to keep them from voting, and then release them. This was intended to prevent that. Here, we clearly have the executive branch (the King's Men) holding a Senator (MP) on his way to the Senate (Parliament.) This one is not going to be hard for the SCOTUS to decide. The only thing that will be hard for them to explain is how there isn't a right to free travel rolled up into the airline industry.

    11. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I believe the TSA in, and as much as if someone pissed on me and told me it was a gentle rain shower. You remember those strip searches, and how they didn't happen? Yeah. Those strip searches.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Detain: 3: to restrain especially from proceeding.

    13. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      No one disputes that they stopped him from going to his plane and turned him over to local police to escort him out of the screening area. He was not permitted to leave the screening area until the police arrived. How does that not constitute being detained?

      The fact is, the TSA did detain a US Senator on his way to DC for official business (the Senate is in session at 4:30 this afternoon). That is in direct violation of Article 1, Section 6 of the US Constitution which states in part:

      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.

      He was not guilty of Treason, he was not committing a felony, was not breaching the peace, and there were no warrants for any of those, yet they did detain him on his way to attend a session of the Senate. The TSA violated the US Constitution.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    14. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by Arker · · Score: 1

      You made a slight mistake. The traffic stop is not an arrest. It is, however, a detention.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    15. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by EverlastingPhelps · · Score: 1

      Legally, there is no difference between arrest and detention.

    16. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by Arker · · Score: 1

      Legally there is a difference. Arrest is a subset of detention. Any time you are under arrest you are being detained - however it is possible and sometimes to permissable to detain without arresting.

      To arrest someone is to detain them specifically to answer for a crime or charge.

      A Terry stop, or questioning a non-suspect witness of a crime, are examples of lawful detention without arrest. In the second case the citizen is not a suspect, simply a witness, but nonetheless is subject to detention insofar as it is necessary to obtain that testimony. In the first, even if pulled for a traffic infraction, there is no authorisation to arrest for a simple infraction. The detention is for a short time and ends when the ticket is served.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    17. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was not on his way to a meeting of the Senate, he was on his way to speak at a pro-life event.

      And given the choice between believing the TSA and a Republican, I'll take the TSA.

      Of course being a Republican, I would expect him to change his story after the fact.

    18. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by EverlastingPhelps · · Score: 1

      You are right about the application, but completely wrong about the terms, especially in the Constitutional sense.

    19. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by Arker · · Score: 1

      FFS quit coming back here and telling me I'm wrong open up Black's Law and read it yourself.

      Nonetheless "An individual is "under arrest" when a reasonable person in the subject's shoes would feel like they were not free to leave under the circumstances." this is good precedent and reflects a court unwilling to let a simple word game convert a prohibited action into an immunised one.

      The Constitutional prohibition clearly did not intend to split that hair and make it legal to do all the things it makes it illegal to do by 'arrest' through the simple semantic expedient of 'detaining' instead. If you think I ever said that go back and reread cause I didnt. The clear intent was to immunise CongressCritters in their travels, and the idea that the more limited power of detention could be used to pierce that immunity when the stronger power of arrest cannot is farcical on its face.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    20. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like he refused to leave. Being escorted of of somewhere is not arrest, a congresscritter is not quite that more equal than your average critter that they can just go wherever they want to go and claim constitutional protection if denied.

    21. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      And what would happen if he resisted efforts of the authorities to make him exit the secured area? What would happen if he just tried to walk around the guards?

      The same thing would happen as what would happen if a police officer said "you're under arrest" and you tried to walk away. Out would come the tazers. No doubt some might argue that a man quivering on the ground is somehow not subject to any kind of arrest or detention.

    22. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by blindseer · · Score: 1

      In effect everyone going through an airport screening has been arrested. Arrest means to stop with legal authority. The TSA agents stop everyone at the checkpoint and are effectively accusing them of a crime. The difference here is that the Senator has been arrested for an unexpectedly long time, causing him to miss the opening of a session of the Senate. This is old news, people getting arrested at the airport, with a new twist, this time it was a legislator on his way to a session of Congress.

      The executive branch of the federal government has been pissing on the US Constitution for a very long time with the TSA, it's just that this time they chose to piss on Article I, Section 6.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    23. Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained by buddilla · · Score: 0

      By definition they detained him:
      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/detain
      detain (d-tn)
      tr.v. detained, detaining, detains
      1. To keep from proceeding; delay or retard.
      2. To keep in custody or temporary confinement: The police detained several suspects for questioning. The disruptive students were detained after school until their parents had been notified.
      3. Obsolete To retain or withhold (payment or property, for example).
      [Middle English deteinen, from Old French detenir, from Vulgar Latin *dtenre, from Latin dtinre : d-, de- + tenre, to hold; see ten- in Indo-European roots.]
      detainment n.

      --
      Pitch Forks: check Torches: check Angry People: check - A. LaChasse V for Victory
  31. Obligatory by sycodon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away...

    -Grand Moff Tarkin

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Obligatory by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Don't cross the streams!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Obligatory by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      So this is how democracy dies. With thunderous applause.

      - Senator Padme' Amadala

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:Obligatory by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

      Iffen da Queeny treaten alla dem Gungans witda respects yusa showen Ja Ja, meetinks, yep, dat meyby okeyday ta tink.

      - Junior Senator Jar Jar Binks

    4. Re:Obligatory by torchdragon · · Score: 1

      "Bwwweoooo boop beee wheeeeeeerrooooo boop bweeep oooop wee*"

      -R2D2

      * "The only reason the Queen deserves to live is that I've got a bowl of hot grits waiting for the two of us back at my space condo. You, you amphibious turd, should never have been conceived."

      --
      "Don't feel bad for me child; I'm the monster that hides under your bed."
  32. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Khomar · · Score: 1

    These words will likely haunt you when it is your turn to be harassed and strip searched. Don't think it cannot happen to you.

    --

    I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

  33. Not detained; blocked by Chiller · · Score: 1

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/rand-paul-tsa/index.html

    He refused a pat-down, so they turned him away. He was apparently screened again later for a different flight without incident.

  34. What do you get... by jholyhead · · Score: 1

    What do you get when you take an industrious TSA agent and add in a fanatically libertarian US Senator? I don't know, but I can't wait to find out.

  35. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  36. Wants his right to take rights away from others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should not be hindered in any way from getting to an Anti-Choice rally. Male senators should be free to take freedom away from women.

  37. Photo-op by Ragun · · Score: 2

    This was clearly intentional on Rand's part to get a photo-op. This doesn't prevent him from still being right, however.

  38. Re:News for Nerds? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    Its news because the Constitution EXPRESSLY forbids detaining a senator except under very specific circumstances, none of which applies here. Lets try to keep in mind the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

    --
    Good-bye
  39. YEEHAW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do like Arizona and let everyone have loaded concealed guns on planes. People will let you know before they sneeze and proclaim "EXCUSE ME BUT I NEED TO USE THE RESTROOM"

  40. Whether you agree or not by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 0

    Whether you agree with the TSA or not they do currently have the legal authority to grope you.

    Petition government to change the law- but if you go into the airport- expect the TSA to have authority and expect them to use it. If you don't approve of their measures or don't plan to abide by them- stay out of the airport until you manage (if you manage) to restrict TSA power.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Whether you agree or not by skywire · · Score: 1

      Petition government to change the law

      In other words, beg your rulers to change their announced policy to so as to respect the contract defining their powers.

        stay out of the airport until you manage (if you manage) to restrict TSA power.

      In other words, submit to their invalid usurpation of authority.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    2. Re:Whether you agree or not by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you fail Civics 101.

      Congress does not have the right to pass a law that violates the Constitution, unless they first pass an amendment nullifying the part of the Constitution that they don't like. However, in the event that Congress does pass such a law, then citizens must force the issue in court, which generally requires civil disobedience, getting arrested for breaking the law, and then finally arguing the point before a judge. Alternatively, if you feel that your rights have been violated by an illegal law, you may file a civil suit rather taking the civil disobedience route. As I understand, there are various advantages to each choice, but since IANAL, I am not going to go there.

      All of this begs one question: Is the law establishing TSA and allowing the grope-n-scope a violation of the Constitution? Well...technically, to get an accurate, authoritative answer to that question, someone must first challenge that law in court. However, there are those, including EPIC, ACLU and others, who think so. You might consider reading the 4th Amendment yourself to form your own opinion. In my opinion, for however much or however little, that's worth, yes, TSA is blatantly violating the 4th Amendment, and the fact that the entire nation isn't marching to D.C. with pitchforks and torches quite honestly boggles my mind. But then again, I'm a bit of an idealist.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  41. Not a big fan of the Pauls... by forkfail · · Score: 1

    ... in a lot of ways, but I still have to wonder if this is what happens when you vocally and frequently criticize the TSA from a position of some authority.

    --
    Check your premises.
  42. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    The difference being that other members of Congress get a bit upset when one of their number is harrassed. They tend to see how such a thing has gotten out of hand when agents of organizations have the temerity to think they have the authority to boss around a member of Congress. The impact would be less if this were Ron Paul rather than his son, as Rand has demonstrated himself to be less doctrinaire (he recognizes that some things he views as wrong are politically impossible to touch at this point, so he spends no time discussing whether they should or should not be done away with).

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  43. Who mod'ed that up? by khasim · · Score: 2, 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.

    Kaczynski.
    McVeigh
    By your "logic", the TSA was doing it correctly. They were checking white males because white males had previously engaged in terrorism.

    Racial profiling might not be politically correct but it works.

    No it does not.

    Are the five guys with brown skin with box cutters and mace terrorists? Yes probably but let's let them get on the plane.

    And two people mod'ed up that post. Why?

    1. Re:Who mod'ed that up? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Please use different examples. These two don't entirely support your statement.

      Kaczynski : didn't get on planes (was anti-technology), attacked individuals.
      McVeigh : drove a truck, attacked a building.

      Motive, method, and opportunity differ significantly from plane hijacking / bombing.

      Unfortunately violence is not uniform in type or degree across all demographics.
      18-35 year old male from Waziristan is more likely to cause trouble on a plane than 70 year old nun. Conversely, nun is more likely to use ruler on 5th grader who didn't do homework than most people. Both might be termed violent, and both should get basic screening. But the probability of additional checks should be based on the activity and any known risk factors.

      i.e. Bitter old nuns should be checked for rulers before asking them to babysit.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:Who mod'ed that up? by superwiz · · Score: 2
      Both Kaczynski and McVeigh were mentally unbalanced. In addition, they acted contrary to the norms of their surrounding society. Islamic terrorists' acts are supported by the norms of some parts the Islamic world. You are trying to draw an equivalence between an aberration and a behavior which is normative to movements which would view US as an enemy. Since these movements generate more followers than aberrations, your comparison is inadequate.

      No it does not.

      That is questionable. Russia periodically deported natives of the Caucuses region in order to stop terrorist attacks from Chechens. Granted, profiling is a broad sword which can easily miss a few flies. But when the flies cannot persist without a support network of other flies, it might significantly weaken their ability to pester. The argument against profiling cannot be that it is not effective. The argument must remain that it is too high a price to pay for a small increase in security.

      And two people mod'ed up that post. Why?

      For the same reason that your argument was modded up. It was inaccurate, but it touched on enough nerves.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:Who mod'ed that up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm ..... khasim.

      That's a mighty suspicious name you've got there, sonny. You wouldn't be one of those A-rabs now would ya?

    4. Re:Who mod'ed that up? by Arker · · Score: 1

      In fact, these people actions were and are roundly condemned by the bulk of the muslim world, and both Kaczynski and McVeigh were seen by some in the western world as somewhat sympathetic in either philosophy or grievances, if still utterly irredeemable in their tactics - which is how large parts of the muslim world seem to view AQ. So where you want to paint two situations on opposite ends of the spectrum a more accurate appraisal would seem to be that they are, indeed, somewhat comparable.

      Referring to other human beings as 'flies' who must be swatted is offensive to me, and I would characterise it as hate speech. I do still defend your right to say it, along with my right to condemn it. But it's exactly the sort of thing that a person really should be shamed for even thinking let alone speaking in public. That's the sort of thinking that makes Hell on Earth.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    5. Re:Who mod'ed that up? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      these people actions were and are roundly condemned by the bulk of the muslim world

      That's a hard case to make. Arafat was known for saying one thing in English and the opposite in Arabic. Since all warfare is based on deception, it would make perfect sense that those attempting to lull the West into complacency would utter the empty words of condemnation.

      The fact still remains that Kaczynski and McVeigh were mentally unbalanced. Whereas Islamic terror acts against the West received material and logistical support from well-established institutions in the Muslim world. In addition, Hamas (a terrorist organization) won an election in Palestine. Furthermore, Muslim Brotherhood won majority of seats in the Egyptian parliament. These are all indications of what is a baseline norm from the viewpoint of the Muslim world. Are there voices of reason within the Muslim world? Sure. Do they have an impact? Absolutely. But not enough of an impact to suppress the idea of mass murder as a way of making a political statement. This behavior is far too common to be considered marginal just yet.

      So where you want to paint two situations on opposite ends of the spectrum

      It's not that I want to aint them as opposite in so far as their frequency of occurrence and wide acceptance is concerned, but rather that is what the facts suggest.

      Referring to other human beings as 'flies' who must be swatted is offensive to me

      Then you shall remain offended. Terrorism's goal is to pester (it has no actual effect war-like effect -- it only makes life generally more unpleasant -- it does not significantly reduce chances of any one individual to remain unharmed). I could have chosen rats, cockroaches, etc. But it seemed more appropriate to go with the flies for the purposes of the analogy of using a sword to swat them.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:Who mod'ed that up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are trying to draw an equivalence between an aberration and a behavior which is normative to movements which would view US as an enemy.

      So are you. We do not have many airport bombings, we do not have many hijackings, nor is the TSA catching bombers or hijackers left and right. Most of the people that look suspicious because of a particularly ethnic look are just trying to get where they're going.

    7. Re:Who mod'ed that up? by Arker · · Score: 1

      That's a hard case to make.

      It's really not.

      In addition, Hamas (a terrorist organization) won an election in Palestine.

      Hamas, like the Mullahs, must pray everyday in thanks for the inept moves of the US and Israel that keep bolstering their popularity. I am not asking you to like them, just to manage to think through the reality of the system in terms more complicated than those of a comic-book morality tale.

      Furthermore, Muslim Brotherhood won majority of seats in the Egyptian parliament.

      And the Muslim Brotherhood is linked to terrorism how, exactly? Are you just throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick?

      A few years ago when the Irish were still blowing each other up over religion one might have made a similar statements about Catholics and Protestants, or religious people in general. Religion can complicate violent struggles, but it doesnt actually tend to cause them. Only when the underlying reasons for the violence are addressed does it tend to get better - quite independent of the rise or fall of religion.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    8. Re:Who mod'ed that up? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Religion can complicate violent struggles, but it doesnt actually tend to cause them.

      No, but it does perpetuate them past the point in time when the original grievances were the important issues of the day.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    9. Re:Who mod'ed that up? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      If you read a little bit more carefully my original comment, you'll see that I took issue with the argument presented rather than the conclusion stated. I am against racial profiling not because it is completely ineffective, but rather because it is not effective enough to pay the price we'd pay for it. As for your claim that Islamic attacks were an aberration, it doesn't hold. They are not targeting US in particular, but rather the West and its institutions in general (and, perhaps, US as an archetype of the West). As such, there have been plenty of attacks in the past 10 years by the Islamic-clerics' motivated fanatics on western targets.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  44. 4th Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA supporters defend the searches as not being a violation of the 4th amendment because flying is voluntary. If you don't want the search you can refuse it and just not fly. Apparently, though, that's wrong. Once they decide to search you , you CAN'T refuse the search, that would be suspicious behavior and warrants an arrest.

    1. Re:4th Amendment by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, TSA has expanded out of airports and into train stations and highways. How long will it be before apologists are saying, "Well, if you don't like TSA, you don't have to leave your house. Going out in public is voluntary." Think it won't ever happen here? That's what I thought about body scanners and "enhanced pat-downs" two years ago.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  45. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by residieu · · Score: 1

    And just TRY to take the train to/from Hawaii.

  46. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rand is Ron's son.

    Continuing the proud tradition of one-syllable first and last names + a last name that can be a first name + a first name that can be a last name!

  47. location of oddity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I rtfa...
    What I don't get... WHy a full-body putdown after an anomaly showed up on the full body scanner. Did it not highlight a particular area? Isn't that exactly what they're supposed to do now?

    1. Re:location of oddity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the TSA's life-critical machine (it could affect to many persons, [inter]national citizens, etc.) of the U.S. government caused an anomaly and wasn't investigated soon as possible by written the reasons of the possible causes of this anomaly then the U.S. government is the anomaly, period ...

      JCPM: why the TSA authorities aren't molested (or disturbed) to not to investigate the cause of the anomaly? It's too simple to define what's a glitch and why evil is to permit that the terrorist glitches are permitted to put on risks the persons that were being screened? When evil glitches are occurred, they can't say us: "no problem, no problem." (you're being fucked up without reasons and without clear answers).

  48. !detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was not detained. He was turned away.

  49. Nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nutjob. Worth saying twice

  50. Re:News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its news because the Constitution EXPRESSLY forbids treating a senator differently than any other citizen except under very specific circumstances, none of which applies here. Lets try to keep in mind the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

    Fixed it for you.

  51. Will Rand Paul now be fined $10k? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, 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?

    1. Re:Will Rand Paul now be fined $10k? by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      If there's any intelligence in the management level of TSA, they'll realize that pushing the issue and trying to apply the fine will only incur more of Senator Paul's ire and help to make his case against them. So they won't apply the penalty to save their own jobs.

    2. Re:Will Rand Paul now be fined $10k? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      They have threatened saying they could fine up to $11,000 but I've never have found where they actually have fined someone from just walking away.

    3. Re:Will Rand Paul now be fined $10k? by tokul · · Score: 1

      If not why?

      They are already close to violating US Constitution due to their process rules.

    4. Re:Will Rand Paul now be fined $10k? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Then you are not looking. Do a Google search sometime.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  52. Re:News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poser? Man-Crush? My God, how far this country has fallen. The fact that people who stand up for what's left of our once-great liberty are seen as posers by the pseudo-trendy real wannabes themselves speaks volumes about the problems we face going forward. Whatever we end up getting from our "overlords" will be too good for the people like you who turned your back on your own nation.

  53. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Rebelgecko · · Score: 1

    There's a few places where they've done train station security, but saying that they're pulling over cars sounds a little FUD-y

    --
    CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
  54. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by weszz · · Score: 4, Informative

    how's this?

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220

    "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."

  55. Re:News for Nerds? by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    Anyone who rambles on about civil liberties, and then says its un-American to criticize a company like BP, is a poser of the highest order. The country has fallen in large part because people take guys like Paul at their word, ignoring their actual actions.

  56. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by chill · · 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/

    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/

    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

    VIPR is versatile.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  57. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Informative

    TSA: Rail Security

    TSA: Highways

    TSA: Maritime

    TSA-style security coming to major sporting events...

    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.

  58. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the record, you just failed to cite anything to the contrary. Instead you were insulting, and wrong.

    They are at bus stations. You can read various news and commentary from this "google" thingy, or just watch the videos if you prefer.
    https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=tsa+bus+stations

    They are not, to my knowledge, running vehicle checkpoints though.
    http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/10/myth-buster-tsa-not-setting-up.html

  59. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically the "hero" Paul is just another "old-boys-club"/modern monarchy kind of guy? Hereditary political power .... nice.

  60. Re:News for Nerds? by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    What is a strong defender of civil liberties doing trying to catch a plane to a "pro-life" event? I guess he is really only for the civil liberties of white men.

  61. Strong defender of civil liberties by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see this phrase over and over: "Strong defender of civil liberties"

    What was he catching a plane for? A "pro-life" rally. So much for civil liberties. I guess they're only important if you're a white man.

    1. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see this phrase over and over: "Strong defender of civil liberties"

      What was he catching a plane for? A "pro-life" rally. So much for civil liberties. I guess they're only important if you're a white man.

      Yeah. Fuck you baby, you haven't even been born yet. Come get your civil liberties when you can vote.

    2. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      The right to live is the primary civil liberty. That said, pro-life rallies should focus on getting lazy sluts to take their BC and stop binge-drinking long enough to give birth.

    3. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by jason777 · · Score: 2

      Another poster already posted what you said, and as I just told them, civil liberties apply to everyone. Mother AND child. That child has liberties too. They should be protected.

    4. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps according to you civil liberties are only important if you have been alive for a certain period of time or have perhaps reached a certain level of cognitive development?

    5. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both Pauls are bullshit Libertarians. They use their "philosophy" to bash the Federal government while supporting all kinds of Draconian restrictions by State governments. Hence. eliminating the right to have an abortion is perfectly alright if the State (e.g. Texas) does it, but not if the Feds do it.

    6. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      You don't have to agree with anti-abortion people, but so long as you're honest with yourself, and understand that for them, that baby is a human life entitled to the same civil liberties of the mother, then you wouldn't be so confused by the "apparent" contradiction.

    7. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those who are pregnant due to rape or failed birth control or simply have medical issues making it unsafe for them to continue the pregnancy? I assume you want them to suffer through their pregnancies because they deserve it as punishment for being "lazy sluts"?

      Bodily autonomy seems like a pretty important civil liberty to me.

    8. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Defending a right to life IS civil liberties to the Pauls. It may be hypocritical in that women lose the right to have an abortion, however they dont lose the right to not get pregnant - which they could have excercised prior. Make your arguments regarding what constitutes human life as you will, however per their definition they really arn't straying from the concepts of civil liberties.

    9. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Arker · · Score: 1

      As a pro-choice libertarian I definitely understand where you are coming from, but the implication of racism is unfair and untrue. Like it or not a huge portion of the population of this country believes in logical contradictions such as 'undead corpse' and 'unborn child' and if you believe there is such a thing as an undead corpse it is obvious such things need to be destroyed, just as if you believe in such a thing as an unborn child it becomes obvious that such things need to be protected.

      In reality they are both far too committed to the Constitution to even attempt to outlaw abortion on the federal level, and 'pro-life' label stuck on them doesnt matter, they will still coalition with pro-choice to prevent federal interference if it comes to that. And they are currently serving in/running for Federal office, not State.

      I would definitely find it harder to vote for either one at the state level, but despite the fundamental disagreement we have on that one issue, it's not a practical problem as long as it's a federal office. And I would certainly rather see one or two states try to outlaw abortion again (and demonstrate for the others why not to follow that example) than to risk seeing it criminalised federally.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    10. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or an unborn child.

      >>So much for civil liberties. I guess they're only important if you're a white man.

    11. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it sounds crazy to some people, but there are "pro-life" folks who are of the mind that a human is already human in the womb, that anything with 44+2 is a human, and therefore entitled to certain rights (like the right to not be killed by someone who may not want you around). To some, civil liberties and prohibiting abortions (if only to err on the side of caution) go hand in hand. I don't want to start an abortion debate, just point out that this is a very weak argument against the man's validity as a "strong defender of civil liberties" (I am unaware of the truth, or relative truth of the matter and will not comment), as in this regard it is certainly a matter of interpretation and personal belief.

    12. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statement is illogical. What does pro-life have to do with 'white man'?

      Now, if you rephrased your statement to-

      "So much for civil liberties only applying to people over a certain age. I guess they are even being granted to unborn people now"

      -it would sound kind of silly but not completely illogical.

    13. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Except a great many pro-lifers are also against birth control, even though the hormones in oral contraceptives have non-pregnancy related medical uses (e.g. endometriosis, PCS, ovarian cysts, etc.) They also ignore the fact that over half of pregnancies are naturally terminated by the uterus due to DNA transcriptions errors or other factors. The human reproductive system has an automatic debugger system, and that's called miscarriage.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    14. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      And there are some pro-choice folks who are quite against "partial birth" abortions of fetuses that are viable, and strongly condemn women who "use abortion as birth control" (which is less than 1% of abortions, by the by.) But we also recognize that it is a medical procedure that must be protected in the name of medical science, and the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent pregnancies in the first place, through comprehensive sex education and making sure that birth control is accessible and affordable for both men and women.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    15. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      I don't really consider an abortion due to medical issues an abortion. It is more properly called "triage".

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    16. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much for civil liberties. I guess they're only important if you're a white man.

      Your statement entails that you believe Rand Paul cares about the civil liberties only of white men. It is illogical and fallacious to conclude that from the fact that he was going to a pro-life rally. It is precisely because he cares about the civil liberties of un-born children that he is pro-life. It comes down to the question of whether fetuses deserve human rights. White men have nothing to do with it.

    17. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by offrdbandit · · Score: 2

      Or an unborn child.

    18. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abortion isn't a civil liberties issue - it's a definition-of-life issue. If you think that early-stage fetuses are alive, then abortion infringes on their civil liberties.

    19. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The abortion rights debate is a very complex one. Perhaps you fail to understand it. Let me enlighten you.

      The position of the pro-lifers is that unborn children have the same rights as a born child, because to them the child begins living earlier than the moment of birth (varies by proponent exactly how long). If you start from that premise, then abortion is murder and obviously unconstitutional. If you start from the premise that a fetus is just an indiscriminate chunk of tissue in a woman's body until the moment of birth, then sure abortion is legal, the child doesn't gain rights until the moment of birth, and a law against abortion would be unconstitutional.

      BOTH SIDES believe their position to be pro-civil-liberties. They do not disagree on the logic, the liberties, or the constitution. What they disagree on is the fundamental facts of the situation, the *premises*: at what moment does a new human gain human rights? Is it at conception, is it at 3 months, is it when certain very-late-term characteristics appear, is it when it gains a heartbeat, is it when it emerges from the birth canal? Don't give me "when it's independent of the mother", because a child will die long after birth without mothering care and love, or at least some effective substitute.

      If you step back from whatever brainwashing you've received that because you're X (A woman? A christian? A member of a political party or other?) you're supposed to be violently in favor of one side or another on the Pro-Life vs Abortion Rights War, you'll see that (a) the two sides have a lot in common and fundamentally agree in most of the areas of "disagreement" that are flung at each other in soundbites in the media, and (b) the premises question at the real heart of the debate is a very difficult one, and one that it's easy to see reasonable people disagreeing on.

    20. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How on earth do you go from 'opposes abortion' to 'only likes civil liberties for white people'?

  62. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by mooingyak · · Score: 1

    Trains

    Bus Stops and Weigh Stations

    Can't say I've heard anything about post offices or unemployment or social security buildings.

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  63. False Premise by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

    It's a false premise to suggest that the TSA makes us safe. How many terrorists have been prevented by the TSA? And how many times have we heard about knives, guns, fake bombs moved as tests agains the system by DHL getting through TSA screening?

    They safety of the skies is a product of inept terrorists and pure dumb luck, not because the TSA adds value.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    1. Re:False Premise by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The kind of thinking that went into flying several airplanes into several buildings, and dong it successfully, does not, in my humble opinion, lend itself to trying the exact same tactic twice after they've upgraded their defenses and are actively looking for those kinds of people. And yet, our government seems to believe that they will try it again...

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  64. Re: citation needed by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 2

    I don't know about the TSA, but the Border Patrol regularly harasses people at the Rochester, NY bus/train station. If you don't believe me, just go over there, you can't miss them. Apparently those guys can stop and question people anywhere at or near the border. Which sounds innocuous, except they use an incredibly liberal definition of "near the border": anywhere within a 100 miles of a land border, or a sea coast, or the coast of the Great Lakes.

  65. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Calos · · Score: 1

    Here's a citation, though I see nothing about highways.

    Yet. Highways are mass transit, especially certain times of day and locations. Wouldn't be hard to put some TSA guys at toll booths, cars are stopping anyway...

    --
    I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
  66. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by chrb · · Score: 1

    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?"

    Am I the only person who doesn't care about getting a pat down? It takes like 10 seconds, and then you are waved through security. As opposed to a wand, where it takes longer, and if it beeps and there is a problem touching you, you get taken to a private room. When I've had the choice between wand or pat down, I've always chosen pat down. And when I've experienced it or seen it, it's always been same-sex, so it's about the most unsexual experience you can imagine.

    I can understand getting pissed if you're a black guy living in an inner city who gets a pat down every other day in a police "stop and search" procedure, but most people fly very infrequently, certainly not enough to get worked up over. I really don't get it. I guess I just don't freak out very much when people touch me.

    "don't fly. You can drive, take a train, or walk."

    Actually, I would've thought this would be the libertarian answer. Or fly privately (TSA doesn't screen at private airports, right?).

  67. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He wasn't going to Washington for a House session, according to his Twitter post he was going to speak at a pro-life event--bitch.

    There I corrected you.

  68. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

    Citations needed? Here you go (these are all entries on my blog , but I have several links in these articles, and I'm too lazy to copy each individual link...which is fine, since apparently, you were too lazy to Google it yourself ;) :
    Train station "VIPR" search.
    Again at train stations.
    And finally, bus stations and highways.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  69. you're thinking of Article 1 Section 6 Clause 1 by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    "[Members of Congress] 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 from the same..."

    well, it's a moot point if they're not going to/from a congressional session (or other official business?). (Paul was on his way to a political rally)
    could be breach of the peace if Paul threw a fit about it (which he didn't)
    I don't see where a felony charge could come up

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  70. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

    Perhaps if you removed your head from your anus, you'd already be aware of some of the stories I linked to above, instead of (erroneously) arguing that there is no evidence that such things are happening?

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  71. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  72. Mod down, incorrect by Palshife · · Score: 1

    This is wrong. The senator was attempting to return to Washington. The Senate is in session today at 2 PM. The Constitution is quite clear here.

    --
    Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
  73. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    They are not, to my knowledge, running vehicle checkpoints though. http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/10/myth-buster-tsa-not-setting-up.html

    Not the TSA itself, but the methods they employ are spreading into interstate weigh stations, and sporting events. I would bet schools and national parks might be the next round of stupid to use TSA scanners and enhanced pat downs, once people get used to it in other venues.

  74. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    And just TRY to take the train to/from Hawaii.

    To be fair, it would be about as on schedule as one from say, Chicago to LA.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  75. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  76. Vacation in US? No, thanks! by mar.kolya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was thinking about spending vacation in US, like sunny beach in California or Florida... Or visiting Kennedy Space Center. Or God knows what else - US is an interesting country for tourism. I even was offered a job in the US, but that just was wrong timing... And now I'm regularly readying these scary stories about TSA on /. Would I spend my vacation in US? No! Vacation is not the right time to be harassed at the airport. Would I move to US because of work? Well... nothing is certain here but I'll think more than twice for sure! What I do not understand is where is that tourism industry lobby when US needs them so desperately?

    1. Re:Vacation in US? No, thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am currently planning my first ever overseas holiday and was planning on coming to visit America. I'm with the parent, I'm not going to spend my holiday time going through Gestapo check points. I would still love to come over and visit you guys one day, but not until you sort your shit out.

    2. Re:Vacation in US? No, thanks! by jezwel · · Score: 1
      As a tourist to Hawaii a little over a year ago, I received a pat-down from the TSA on my return trip home (gloves and back of the hand, no groping).

      I had specifically worn clothing (non baggy t-shirt & shorts, flip-flops) to make it easy to see that I had nothing to hide. Still invasive.

      There's some places I'd like to visit in the US, but the TSA has definitely put me off returning - other countries in Asia-Pacific will see my tourist dollars this year.

    3. Re:Vacation in US? No, thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing you can reasonably do, if you really want to go through the extra trouble, is to fly into Canada or Mexico (I assume they don't have the same level of bullshit) then just drive a rent-a-car across the border or take the ferry across from Canada or whatever.

    4. Re:Vacation in US? No, thanks! by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      The United States does not have a monopoly on searching people before they board planes.

    5. Re:Vacation in US? No, thanks! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I visited the USA several times, for a total of about 4-5 months between 2005 and 2007, and I haven't been back since. The TSA craziness was just starting when I was last there. I have no intention of returning until it is over. Over the course of my previous trips, including accommodation, internal flights, food, and everything else, I easily spent $10,000. Since then, I have spent $0. Given the state of the US economy, I'd have thought that they'd want to be encouraging people from abroad to spend money there...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Vacation in US? No, thanks! by lordmage · · Score: 1

      Im sorry you feel that way. In other countries, the treatment can be worse, and sometimes less. Its such a shame the whole world has come to this.

      El AL is still supposed to be the safest in the world to fly on.

      --
      I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
  77. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    It's called Google. Intelligent people don't cite facts to what is basically common knowledge and dozens of articles in mainstream media talking about it.

    I'll feed a troll. But I won't feed a moron too stupid to Google.

  78. Well, obviously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently an anomaly appeared when he received the full body scan.

    Yes, indeed. They could find no evidence that he has a heart.

    1. Re:Well, obviously... by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      You would prefer instead the "good hearted" politicians who are for indefinite detention and the assassination of American citizens?

  79. Right twice a day by Discopete · · Score: 0

    I don't like the guy nor do I agree with most of his viewpoints, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  80. Moderation -1 Flamebait by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

    Moderated -1 flamebait? Must of stepped on the toes of someone's god. Either that or be fair and mark all political chatter as flamebait, which wouldn't be wrong =D

  81. Not detained. by sammy+baby · · Score: 2

    Can we get something clear about this?

    Paul wasn't detained. He set off a body scanner, and asked to be rescanned. The TSA said that a rescan wasn't going to do it, and that they would require a pat-down. He refused, and then left.

    At no point did the TSA inform him that he wasn't allowed to leave. They prevented him from getting onto the flight for not complying with their security procedures.

    I'm no fan of the TSA. But Paul is grandstanding here because the TSA is one of his favorite bete noirs.

    1. Re:Not detained. by Arker · · Score: 1

      Keep spinning, keep spinning. This isnt detainment in the same sense that bombing the crap out of Libya didnt constitute 'hostilities' and it all depends on what the meaning of is is right?

      This is great, the TSA just detained a sitting US Senator in direct violation of the US Constitution. I've been wondering if they would do it. They have humiliated and made examples of other critics, and he is surely near the top of that list. But would they really feel secure enough in their own above the law status to flaunt it so brazenly? I wasnt sure they would, but now we see.

      They should fry for this.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  82. There is no such thing as detention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If peace officers do anything but talk to you for a couple minutes in the street, it's arrest. Oh, and if they stop you on the street for a couple of minutes to chat, they better have a good reason to force you to stay past the first few seconds. This is a very clear distinction, to prevent abuse of the process. If peace officers want to stop you from going somewhere, it's arrest, period, end of sentence. Since Congressmen are prevented from being arrested short of pretty much conviction, this is highly unconstitutional, and quite frankly, everyone involved can be punished severely if he chooses to sue. *fingers crossed*

  83. The US is under a state of emergency by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    The constitution is pretty much irrelevant.

    --
    Deleted
  84. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Amtrak a lot. TSA has been at Union Station in Chicago, randomly screening people leaving on Amtrak there for at least a year or two. I have occasionally seen teams at MSP as well, though this is more unusual. I haven't noticed them at the other places mentioned, but it's believable.

  85. Not Detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Delayed, not detained. But definitely whiny.

  86. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    Make sure the windows are shut.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  87. And if SENATOR = DRUGS TRAFFICER? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the matter if this senator (e.g. named Lex Luthor, in latin?) or this Senate/Congress representative was transporting hiddenly drugs, diamonds, firearms, biological weapons, rare-earth treasures (e.g. red mercury or Superman's green kryptonite), Federal U.S. eyes-only papers for the U.S. president only, etc. under its clothing and rejected to be either screened or pat-downed? He can turn away from the detention or arrest scenario easily. Eh!, eh!, eh!, ... period.

    JCPM: and the babies do also worry crying before or later of those evil X-Rays screenings..

  88. And other than that... by msauve · · Score: 3, Funny

    Senator Paul, how was your visit to the security theater?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  89. They'll regret this by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    Just wait until his dad becomes President.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  90. Don't believe the outrage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not because Rand Paul wasn't going about any Senate business, but because if it were a Democrat in the same situation, the right-wing blogosphere and noise machine would be going in the opposite direction.

    They'd be going on about how dare somebody, anybody, protest the invasive actions of the TSA, how dare they challenge the thin red line defending us from terrorists!

    When it's one of their own though, they're a tad confused. Maybe it won't be too long till they go against the Pauls though. Those guys actually somewhat believe in freedom. I don't agree with their interpretations, but other than their crazy ideas about liberty, they're more genuine than the average conservative blowhard.

    Unfortunately, they're still wrong about so much. Rand Paul is a guy who accredited himself. What does that say about him?

  91. Far more effective by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Since the morons with the TSA can't work the scanners right. Those scanners require someone to look at and interpret results. That requires some training, some logical reasoning skills. Metal detectors are simple: Beep = bad.

    Last time I went through the airport I was scanned (they were choosing people by the highly through method of "people who are in the line near the scanner") and the moron working the thing couldn't get an image on anyone apparently. Had to wave me through because they were out of patdown people.

    It would have been far more secure to just send me through a metal detector.

    1. Re:Far more effective by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But don't you feel so much more secure now that these morons are watching over you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Far more effective by nwf · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    3. Re:Far more effective by phlinn · · Score: 2

      Damn, i wish I could mod that funny...

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
  92. I Wonder What It Was by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Maybe that baby mutant guy from "Total Recall".

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  93. I'll say it again by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    The terrorists aboard the planes on 9/11 didn't use guns or bombs, but only knives. As George Carlin said: "There are no bombs. The whole thing is fucking pointless!" Yeah, a guy did try to sneak some C4 aboard in his shoe, but lighting it with a match only makes a smoke bomb.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  94. Hey, just do what you do to all uppity white males by Baldrson · · Score: 2

    Send him to a jail cell where he'll be raped by ethnic minority gangs and then call him a neo-Nazi.

  95. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    Problem: The TSA has expanded their operations to trains and pulling-over cars along interstates. Also post offices and unemployment/social security buildings.

    Citation Needed. I've never encountered the TSA in any of these situations. Any security I have encountered has been nowhere near TSA levels, and has been at a level appropriate to the location.

    Did you miss all the stories on VIPR? Seriously? Here's a cite from the TSA's website from 2007!?

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  96. Treat all congress critters the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should pat down all congress critters and their families, every time they go though the TSA, that way they will know first hand what the rest of us go though every time we go to an airport...My wife has an ostomy, It showed on the scan, and they made an invasive search and removed her ostomy bag at the airport. soiling her clothing in the process, she was in tears. It was a most humiliating event for her.

  97. Sockpuppets mod up sockpuppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This author has detected quite a lot of sockpuppet activity on slashdot. Sockpuppets associated with the same organization will naturally mod each other up. That's probably what happened here. Watch for sockpuppets, and expose their posts. Better yet, track them to their corporate or government overlords. :: looks at slashdot administrators ::

  98. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't call it "along interstates", but I can certainly see how it'd be confused for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team

  99. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The patdown takes closer to two minutes, and in any event the amount of time it takes is not the issue.

  100. TSA = Hitlers Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Criminals.

    Abloish the TSA. End the FED. Ron Paul 2012!!!

    1. Re:TSA = Hitlers Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If almost senators and congress representatives including the U.S. president, vicepresident, secretary, and ministers "refused" to be screened by the "standard procedures" of the TSA's guards and also "refused" to be patted-down, and to gain every priviledges of immunity to any arrest or detention (e.g. although they could be drugs trafficers for their hidden highest-caliber profits) then ...

      Why did they approve the laws for creating TSA that they same rejected themselves?

      "All average joe" will understand that they except the politicians are fucked up by the laws of these same politicians that refused themselves.

      Concluding it, average joe = 2nd class-citizen or 3rd class-citizen, & average U.S. high-level politician = 1st class-citizen

      JCPM: lawmakers rejecting themselves the acts to be accomplished their own created laws must be punished or condemned, otherwise what's the solution to their own virical problems that are infectious as the illness?

  101. Re:RHIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was going to a Pro-Life Rally, not to attend a session of Congress.

  102. I will pay $50 for Obfuscant, his teeth look ok... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Where did you get the moronic idea that you cannot waive a right?

    If that were so, I could write up a contract that says that by signing this, Obfuscant, is now my indentured servant. Upon you signing it, would you be my personal slave? Clearly this isn't remotely legal.

    I suspect (not an legal expert on the topic), that there is some confusion over 'rights'. You can waive being read your Miranda rights when being arrested, but I doubt you could ever waive the right to have Miranda rights or any of the other rights that are enumerated in the bill of rights. Clearly this can be a murky subject.

    Btw, the offer to buy you as a slave for $50 is a valid one, if you are willing and we can get around that whole, 'completely illegal' thing. I need an indentured servant to make snarky posts for me on /.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  103. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardly surprising, in light of the cult of personality that Ron Paul's more zealous followers have built around him. They've definitely got a bit of a Kim Il Sung/Kim Jong Il thing going on.

    I predict a spike in depression and suicides among basement-dwelling neckbeards when Ron dies.

  104. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA: Rail Security

    TSA: Highways

    TSA: Maritime

    TSA-style security coming to major sporting events...

    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.

    Flying the American Flag upside down is a violation of the Protect American Symbols act, regulating the burning and mistreatment of the Flag, pictures of Jesus and other core American images. Just a friendly warning, before we ship you off to Guantanamo, where the mere fact of residence makes you a dangerous terrorist.

  105. The Reasoning.... by daemonenwind · · Score: 1

    The American system assumes that all branches are co-equal, each with their own powers. There are checks/balances in place to prevent one branch from stepping all over the other 2.

    One of these checks is the above clause. Imagine, if you will, that the President has a law before Congress and the vote is close. By instructing the TSA/FBI/CIA/etc (which are agencies of the Executive branch and under the President's direct control) to detain a few specific legislators, he could ensure the vote goes the way he wants.

    Or, by detaining legislators, any President could extract promises of support....the possible abuses are obvious and many.

    This is why so very many sources are going out of their way to say that Senator Paul was NOT detained. And, I would guess, the use of the word, "detained", was not an accident by Senator Paul. I would further guess that the TSA did indeed detain him, and that the whole thing is getting a massive CYA treatment from smarter folks higher up on the Washington DC food chain.

    Also, this is why Congresscritters can perform acts of insider trading...oversight in that area comes from the Executive branch, which has a hard time getting someone in the Legislative on anything other than Treason or big-time felonies. So they don't bother, and the Legislative branch has chosen not to police itself in this area.

  106. Re:News for Nerds? by z4ce · · Score: 1

    If you conside the aborted to be a human being, I'm pretty sure not being killed by your mother/doctor is a civil liberty.

  107. Nutjobs vs Psyops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Psychopaths, their hired psyops and plain old stupid fucking people parroting what these psyops say, keep talking about "voting for nutjobs."
    They are making you scared and think a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for a nutjob, which is the opposite of the truth. He's the only SANE and not affiliated with all these globalist and corporate ties. The rest of these candidates can't even do basic math. Turn your fucking tv's off.

    List of the CURRENT psychopaths.
    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html

    Voting for people who then appoint the people on this list or affiliated with them is insane. (These are the Real Nutjobs)
    (More dots for you to connect)
    http://mapper.nndb.com/start/?map=16545

  108. He's done for: by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Oh no, they discovered his fresh-water bulge.

  109. TSA vs Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He could always take a bus, if he has a problem with the TSA....

    1. Re:TSA vs Paul by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, of course it's that easy to avoid the Tairline Security Administration altogether.

  110. Wrong - he wasn't fined by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He wasn't fined. He was threatened with a fine, but no fine was ever handed down.

  111. the cult of ron paul conquers the front page again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i cannot say i am surprised to see that a story about ron paul's son has the most comments of any story on slashdot this week. not long ago ron paul stories occupied the top two slots for the month, we can't let that be not the case for long.

    happiness in slavery, brought to you by ron paul and company.

  112. Re: citation needed by mhotchin · · Score: 1

    Don't forget anywhere within 100 miles of an International airport!

  113. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Why bring Korea into it when it's a chance to beat around the Bush?
    That playboy prince was President George III and wanted to run the place like King George III.

  114. Re: They certainly are a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even more to the point, these are the same Congresscritters that, as a group, refuse to reform or abolish the TSA.

  115. "not in any way..a threat" - LMFAO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those crooks are a bigger threat to the United States and the values its founding fathers espoused than any weapon wielding jihadi.

  116. Re:MUAHAHAHAH by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    "TSA screenings aren't just for airports anymore Roving security teams increasingly visit train stations, subways and other mass transit sites to deter terrorism."

    I understand they also do a great job at deterring tigers as well.

  117. RE elect Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RE elect Obama
    RE elect Obama
    RE elect Obama

    Durt Squirrels FTMFW!!!

  118. Even Republitarian would be better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we remove the Republican tag from this post?

  119. Terrorist, obviously! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Need it to say more? /sarcasm.

  120. Vail oxygen rental by remiehair · · Score: 1

    To Paul, he only know the story behind him, but whatever ever he committed he give an account to that, especially the time of judgement whose the judge is the God.