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."
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
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.
In this case, being 'confrontational' when standing up for your rights is certainly not a bad thing.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
Guess which branch funds the TSA and ask that question again.
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?
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.
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
Problem is, now they've given him an anecdote. And anecdotal evidence is quite convincing in politics, even if it's logically invalid.
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.
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.
This smacks of "if you're not a terrorist you shouldn't mind not having privacy."
Sorry, but no.
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!
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.
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.
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...
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?
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?
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?
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
This article is about Rand Paul. Ron Paul always refuses the scanners.
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
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.
"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?"
"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.
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?
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
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?"
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
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.