What we have here is not a Senator that was intercepted intentionally to keep him from his duties. We have a Senator that refused to comply with the law, as passed by Congress, that currently regulates air travel. He was not arrested, as the law defines it. This situation was created by a combination of past acts of Congress and the Senator's own shortsightedness. The particular clause of the Constitution that you refer to is not intended to protect members of Congress from either of those things.
I'm not arguing against the law as it is written. I fully realize its purpose. The Senator was not arrested, and it was his responsibility to secure passage back to Washington in order to be present for the session. If he was not prepared to comply with the requirements for flying on a commercial aircraft, then he should have made plans to get there by some other way, be it by private aircraft, car, Segway or whatever other method fit his needs.
You're each partly right. It is certainly a privilege to fly on a plane that someone else owns. The Senator could have avoided this debacle with a private plane.
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.
Bullshit. I dispute the idea that any member of Congress should be granted a free pass to go anywhere or do anything in the name of reaching the session. It is their responsibility to ensure that they have the means to reach the session. If a Congress member chooses to avail themselves of the advantages of air travel, then they should be prepared to comply with the same requirements as the rest of us, or they should be prepared to find an alternative method of travel. Congress members still have to stop at a red traffic light - they do not get to bypass the light in order to reach the session in time, nor should they.
Either you have horribly misunderstood something, or you have just committed an unforgivable non-sequitur. Either way, your act of seppuku will be accepted for raparation.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
He wasn't arrested. According to TFA, he was simply prevented from entering the "secure area" of the airport. He missed his planned flight and was forced to catch another. The subsequent screening went without incident.
* Be a subscriber (this is the key) * Be signed in, see the summary early (before it is "posted") * Visit the summary, write your comment * Wait until the "posted" time on the summary * Hit "Submit"
So, a doomsday clock that started at 11:53 in 1947 is now at 11:55... based upon that rate of advancement (2 minutes per 65 years, obviously ignoring any other adjustments), we should be safe for over a century and a half. I've heard far more alarming predictions than that. Nothing to see here.
In general, backups should be stored separately from the system. Backups at rest should not be at risk of attack from the infected system. It has already been suggested elsewhere in this discussion that Windows should allow the baseline image to be stored on removable media, and that is definitely a good idea. Without that, the baseline image is subject to much of the same risk as the running system.
I do keep backups. GP apparently does not (or did not). Still, backups don't help when you have to jump over several generations of software and your data is in a format that is no longer supported. If you are running a horribly outdated system, it is also going to be harder to keep reliable backups, as the backup/restoration hardware might become obsolete and fail, the compatible backup media might fail and become difficult to replace, etc. If you are using server storage, the server might be upgraded beyond compatibility with the old system or might itself become obsolete and be shut down. If you don't keep your stuff current, risks will gradually increase.
Slashdot Mirror
What we have here is not a Senator that was intercepted intentionally to keep him from his duties. We have a Senator that refused to comply with the law, as passed by Congress, that currently regulates air travel. He was not arrested, as the law defines it. This situation was created by a combination of past acts of Congress and the Senator's own shortsightedness. The particular clause of the Constitution that you refer to is not intended to protect members of Congress from either of those things.
I'm not arguing against the law as it is written. I fully realize its purpose. The Senator was not arrested, and it was his responsibility to secure passage back to Washington in order to be present for the session. If he was not prepared to comply with the requirements for flying on a commercial aircraft, then he should have made plans to get there by some other way, be it by private aircraft, car, Segway or whatever other method fit his needs.
You're each partly right. It is certainly a privilege to fly on a plane that someone else owns. The Senator could have avoided this debacle with a private plane.
No back-peddling... to put it in a single phrase: "they have been eroded, but not quite that far." We are in agreement.
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.
Some would call that a privilege.
My point is that one can refuse the pat-down and leave. Our rights have been eroded, but we can still do that much.
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.
Bullshit. I dispute the idea that any member of Congress should be granted a free pass to go anywhere or do anything in the name of reaching the session. It is their responsibility to ensure that they have the means to reach the session. If a Congress member chooses to avail themselves of the advantages of air travel, then they should be prepared to comply with the same requirements as the rest of us, or they should be prepared to find an alternative method of travel. Congress members still have to stop at a red traffic light - they do not get to bypass the light in order to reach the session in time, nor should they.
But, contrary to GP's assertion, the session was not missed, and Paul did make another flight.
Either you have horribly misunderstood something, or you have just committed an unforgivable non-sequitur. Either way, your act of seppuku will be accepted for raparation.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
He wasn't arrested. According to TFA, he was simply prevented from entering the "secure area" of the airport. He missed his planned flight and was forced to catch another. The subsequent screening went without incident.
* Be a subscriber (this is the key)
* Be signed in, see the summary early (before it is "posted")
* Visit the summary, write your comment
* Wait until the "posted" time on the summary
* Hit "Submit"
So, a doomsday clock that started at 11:53 in 1947 is now at 11:55... based upon that rate of advancement (2 minutes per 65 years, obviously ignoring any other adjustments), we should be safe for over a century and a half. I've heard far more alarming predictions than that. Nothing to see here.
...the iPad survives the free fall from space...
Aw, shucks! I would've preferred video of a different outcome.
Also, we've had better slashvertisements.
Careful, there. Five out of six ends of a cat are sharp.
"Ooh, ahh!" That's how it always starts, then later there's running and screaming.
Don't worry, the nuke button is actually blue to prevent exactly this kind of problem.
In general, backups should be stored separately from the system. Backups at rest should not be at risk of attack from the infected system. It has already been suggested elsewhere in this discussion that Windows should allow the baseline image to be stored on removable media, and that is definitely a good idea. Without that, the baseline image is subject to much of the same risk as the running system.
Why bother injecting themselves into the image when they can almost certainly disable the feature altogether.
I do keep backups. GP apparently does not (or did not). Still, backups don't help when you have to jump over several generations of software and your data is in a format that is no longer supported. If you are running a horribly outdated system, it is also going to be harder to keep reliable backups, as the backup/restoration hardware might become obsolete and fail, the compatible backup media might fail and become difficult to replace, etc. If you are using server storage, the server might be upgraded beyond compatibility with the old system or might itself become obsolete and be shut down. If you don't keep your stuff current, risks will gradually increase.