Senator Rand Paul Detained By the TSA

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senator Rand Paul Detained By the TSA

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 23, 2012 @05:19AM from the your-dad's-not-president-yet dept.

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."

165 of 941 comments (clear)

Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by elrous0 · 2012-01-23 05:19 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:21 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:22 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:27 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:33 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:37 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:37 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:39 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 05:42 · 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."
9. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · 2012-01-23 05:48 · 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.
10. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by SomePgmr · 2012-01-23 05:49 · 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.
11. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sneakyimp · 2012-01-23 05:50 · 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.
12. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · 2012-01-23 05:50 · 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.
13. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 05:51 · 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.
14. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by TheCRAIGGERS · 2012-01-23 05:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This smacks of "if you're not a terrorist you shouldn't mind not having privacy."
  Sorry, but no.
15. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by cayenne8 · 2012-01-23 05:52 · 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.........
16. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by magarity · 2012-01-23 05:54 · 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.
17. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · 2012-01-23 05:55 · 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.)
18. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · 2012-01-23 05:59 · 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.
19. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · 2012-01-23 06:03 · 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.
20. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by tripleevenfall · 2012-01-23 06:04 · 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?
21. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by cpu6502 · 2012-01-23 06:13 · 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"
22. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ChrisGoodwin · 2012-01-23 06:15 · 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.
23. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Darkness404 · 2012-01-23 06:17 · 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.
24. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by sycodon · 2012-01-23 06:20 · 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.
25. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Mister+Whirly · 2012-01-23 06:20 · 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!"
26. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by galaad2 · 2012-01-23 06:20 · 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
27. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · 2012-01-23 06:21 · 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.
28. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by X0563511 · 2012-01-23 06:21 · 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...
29. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by element-o.p. · 2012-01-23 06:22 · 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?
30. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · 2012-01-23 06:22 · 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.
31. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-01-23 06:22 · 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".
32. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-01-23 06:24 · 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?
33. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by nman64 · 2012-01-23 06:27 · 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.
34. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by jeffmeden · 2012-01-23 06:27 · 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.
35. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by element-o.p. · 2012-01-23 06:27 · 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?
36. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PTBarnum · 2012-01-23 06:28 · 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.
37. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Feyshtey · 2012-01-23 06:29 · 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
38. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by alexandre_ganso · 2012-01-23 06:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Last time I asked if it was fine to have an erection while being patted down. They let me go.
39. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-23 06:30 · 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!
40. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by wealthychef · 2012-01-23 06:30 · 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
41. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Overzeetop · 2012-01-23 06:31 · 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?
42. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by locopuyo · 2012-01-23 06:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This article is about Rand Paul. Ron Paul always refuses the scanners.
  
  --
  The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
43. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Urza9814 · 2012-01-23 06:34 · 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
44. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-23 06:36 · 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...
45. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · 2012-01-23 06:42 · 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. :-(
46. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by lightknight · 2012-01-23 06:43 · 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.
47. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by tthomas48 · 2012-01-23 06:47 · 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.
48. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by djdanlib · 2012-01-23 06:48 · 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.
49. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · 2012-01-23 06:50 · 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.
50. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · 2012-01-23 06:57 · 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.
51. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Obfuscant · 2012-01-23 07:03 · 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.
52. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by ElectricTurtle · 2012-01-23 07:03 · 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
53. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by unrtst · 2012-01-23 07:12 · 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.
54. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by spasm · 2012-01-23 07:16 · 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.
55. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by RussellSHarris · 2012-01-23 07:18 · 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".
56. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by PortHaven · 2012-01-23 07:32 · 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.
57. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by chill · 2012-01-23 07:40 · 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.
58. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by superwiz · 2012-01-23 07:46 · 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.
59. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Doc+Ruby · 2012-01-23 07:49 · 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
60. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Urza9814 · 2012-01-23 07:59 · 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.
61. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by AJH16 · 2012-01-23 07:59 · 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
62. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by mcgrew · 2012-01-23 08:14 · 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?"
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
63. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by daktari · 2012-01-23 08:27 · 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
64. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Lumpy · 2012-01-23 08:44 · 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.
65. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by mcgrew · 2012-01-23 08:53 · 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.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
66. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by amiga3D · 2012-01-23 08:59 · 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.
67. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by amiga3D · 2012-01-23 09:02 · 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.
68. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by pdabbadabba · 2012-01-23 09:09 · 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?
  
  --
  caritj.org
69. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by MasterLock · 2012-01-23 09:15 · 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).
70. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Lobachevsky · 2012-01-23 09:31 · 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.
71. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by blindseer · 2012-01-23 09:34 · 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.
72. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by Aerynvala · 2012-01-23 10:24 · Score: 2
  
  I bring my own food so I can afford to pay the $5 for a drink.
  
  --
  http://transformativeworks.org/
73. Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment by cdrguru · 2012-01-23 12:44 · 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.
An anomaly?! by DC2088 · 2012-01-23 05:21 · Score: 2

Patdown soon, fellow STALKER!
1. Re:An anomaly?! by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-23 05:40 · 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
well this should be entertaining by poetmatt · 2012-01-23 05:22 · Score: 3, Informative

"we detained you during campaign season. whoops."
yeah, this should be fun.
So what they've done is... by Gordonjcp · 2012-01-23 05:23 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:29 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:38 · 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 MachineShedFred · 2012-01-23 05:40 · 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.
4. Re:So what they've done is... by Feyshtey · 2012-01-23 05:49 · 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
Standard Procedure by KhabaLox · 2012-01-23 05:24 · 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.
Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by edibobb · 2012-01-23 05:24 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  He's not arrested, just "indefinitely detained"
2. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by Hatta · 2012-01-23 06:04 · 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!
3. Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman by AdamThor · 2012-01-23 06:19 · 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."
Re:Oh dear. by jd2112 · 2012-01-23 05:25 · 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.
Proud to have voted for him by rbowen · 2012-01-23 05:25 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 05:52 · 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...
US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by trout007 · 2012-01-23 05:26 · 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 Mr+44 · 2012-01-23 05:38 · 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
2. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by MachineShedFred · 2012-01-23 05:42 · 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.
3. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by Sycraft-fu · 2012-01-23 05:52 · 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.
4. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by cpu6502 · 2012-01-23 06:06 · 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"
5. Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation by alexo · 2012-01-23 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  You already have.
This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by McGruber · 2012-01-23 05:26 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:39 · 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....
2. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by gman003 · 2012-01-23 05:40 · 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*
3. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Hatta · 2012-01-23 06:09 · 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!
4. Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-23 06:32 · 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.
Re:MUAHAHAHAH by wolrahnaes · 2012-01-23 05:27 · 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.
Actually, entire Adamantium skeleton by StefanJ · 2012-01-23 05:27 · Score: 3, Funny

Ron Paul wanted to give his kids all the advantages.
Re:knee metal from previous injury by Arancaytar · 2012-01-23 05:27 · Score: 2

I used to be a senator; then I---
on second thought, too easy.
Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by eldavojohn · 2012-01-23 05:28 · 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 · 2012-01-23 05:34 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 05:56 · 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?
3. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Bucky24 · 2012-01-23 06:01 · 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
4. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Darkness404 · 2012-01-23 06:10 · 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.
5. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by Prune · 2012-01-23 06:10 · 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."
6. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by cpu6502 · 2012-01-23 06:20 · 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"
7. Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That by chrb · 2012-01-23 06:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Flip flopping" just means changing your mind, right? Changing your mind should only be viewed negatively when it is done with dishonest intent - to deceive and manipulate others, or to act against one's own core beliefs. We live in a complicated world, and there are genuine, complex issues that educated adults can disagree on. The ability to comprehend and reason from multiple points of view, and modify your own position accordingly, ought to be seen as a strength rather than a weakness.
  "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Re:knee metal from previous injury by Penguinisto · 2012-01-23 05:28 · 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?
Re:Oh dear. by magarity · 2012-01-23 05:28 · 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.
Civil Disobedience by XxtraLarGe · 2012-01-23 05:29 · 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 Beelzebud · 2012-01-23 06:26 · 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.
2. Re:Civil Disobedience by Beelzebud · 2012-01-23 06:34 · 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?
3. Re:Civil Disobedience by jason777 · 2012-01-23 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  Right. That life inside another life (the baby) has just as much civil liberties. They should be protected.
4. Re:Civil Disobedience by bondsbw · 2012-01-23 10:14 · 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.
5. Re:Civil Disobedience by offrdbandit · 2012-01-23 12:55 · 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").
I wouldn't be too hard on Rand Paul by milbournosphere · 2012-01-23 05:29 · 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.
Re:Oh dear. by sqlrob · 2012-01-23 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Guess which branch funds the TSA and ask that question again.
not detained at all... by JoeRobe · 2012-01-23 05:30 · 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 Jason+Levine · 2012-01-23 05:47 · 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.
2. Re:not detained at all... by element-o.p. · 2012-01-23 07:24 · 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?
Re:knee metal from previous injury by Feyshtey · 2012-01-23 05:31 · 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
I like this by Overzeetop · 2012-01-23 05:32 · 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 Teun · 2012-01-23 06:26 · 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."
According to TSA, Paul was not detained by DragonWriter · 2012-01-23 05:37 · 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 EverlastingPhelps · 2012-01-23 06:13 · 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.)
Re:Not enough bias? by Feyshtey · 2012-01-23 05:38 · 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
Re:Refused a pat-down? by Feyshtey · 2012-01-23 05:40 · 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
Re:Oh dear. by ZaMoose · 2012-01-23 05:44 · 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.
Re:MUAHAHAHAH by cpu6502 · 2012-01-23 05:49 · 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"
Re:We are too politically correct... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 05:49 · 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.
Photo-op by Ragun · 2012-01-23 05:50 · 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.
Re:Oh dear. by Bardwick · 2012-01-23 05:51 · Score: 3, Funny

The Union branch.
Re:Obligatory by cpu6502 · 2012-01-23 05:56 · 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"
Re:We are too politically correct... by silas_moeckel · 2012-01-23 05:57 · 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.
Who mod'ed that up? by khasim · 2012-01-23 05:58 · 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 superwiz · 2012-01-23 08:07 · 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.
Re:We are too politically correct... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-01-23 06:06 · 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.
Will Rand Paul now be fined $10k? by WaffleMonster · 2012-01-23 06:08 · 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?
Re:MUAHAHAHAH by geekboybt · 2012-01-23 06:11 · Score: 3, Informative

Your citation, as requested: http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/10/28/1921254/tsas-vipr-bites-rail-bus-and-ferry-passengers
Re:MUAHAHAHAH by weszz · 2012-01-23 06:11 · 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."
Re:We are too politically correct... by Hatta · 2012-01-23 06:13 · 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!
Re:Obligatory by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-23 06:14 · 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
Re:MUAHAHAHAH by chill · 2012-01-23 06:15 · 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.
Re:Not enough bias? by Teun · 2012-01-23 06:16 · 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."
Re:MUAHAHAHAH by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-23 06:22 · 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.
Re:We are too politically correct... by AdamThor · 2012-01-23 06:28 · 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."
Strong defender of civil liberties by Beelzebud · 2012-01-23 06:28 · 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 misexistentialist · 2012-01-23 06:49 · 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.
2. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by jason777 · 2012-01-23 07:19 · 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.
3. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by Shotgun · 2012-01-23 11:21 · 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
4. Re:Strong defender of civil liberties by offrdbandit · 2012-01-23 12:59 · Score: 2
  
  Or an unborn child.
Re:knee metal from previous injury by rickb928 · 2012-01-23 06:31 · 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.
False Premise by Feyshtey · 2012-01-23 06:34 · 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
Re: citation needed by M.+Baranczak · 2012-01-23 06:34 · 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.
Vacation in US? No, thanks! by mar.kolya · 2012-01-23 07:07 · 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?
Not detained. by sammy+baby · 2012-01-23 07:29 · 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.
And other than that... by msauve · 2012-01-23 07:43 · 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
Hey, just do what you do to all uppity white males by Baldrson · 2012-01-23 08:23 · Score: 2

Send him to a jail cell where he'll be raped by ethnic minority gangs and then call him a neo-Nazi.

--
Seastead this.
Re:Far more effective by nwf · 2012-01-23 10:15 · 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.
Re:Far more effective by phlinn · 2012-01-23 11:18 · 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