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?
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!
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?
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?"
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?
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.