E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Kentucky senator was detained by TSA officials at the Nashville airport after setting off the alarm on a full body metal detector, then refusing to be patted down. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.
Updated at 4:25 p.m. ET: Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., clashed with the Transportation Security Administration at a Nashville airport on Monday morning and says that was was "detained" by the government agency.
NBC News reported that he set off a full-body scanning machine while going through airport security. Paul reportedly raised his right pant leg, which may have set off the scanner. Paul, according to aides, said it was “clearly a glitch” and asked to proceed through the machine a second time. The TSA demanded a full-body pat-down, which Paul refused.
"I was told I couldn't leave, that kind of sounds like you are being detained," Paul told NBC News. "I was put into a small cubicle and told not to leave."
NBC News' Tom Costello reports that, according to sources at the TSA, Paul was not detained, but was escorted by police out of the checkpoint.
In a statement to NBC News, TSA spokesman Greg Soule said, “When an irregularity is found during the TSA screening process, it must be resolved prior to allowing a passenger to proceed to the secure area of the airport. Passengers who refuse to complete the screening process cannot be granted access to the secure area in order to ensure the safety of others traveling.”
Paul was eventually permitted through airport security, according to Soule. “The passenger has since rebooked on another flight and was rescreened without incident,” he said in a statement at about noon on Monday.
Paul, who has previously called for the TSA to be abolished, told NBC News that passengers should not be subjected to pat-downs.
"I really think no American should have to go through all of this," he said. "I think if the screener goes off and you don't want to have a pat down search, you ought to be able to go back through the screener." Paul says he was sent back through the screener when he went to board his re-booked flight.
Related stories:
Leave a Comment:
Actually, he requested a second body scan but was refused and they demanded a pat down. Not only that, but it's illegal for them to detain a sitting Senator.
So politicians are above the law?
Of course it's illegal to detain a sitting senator. Laws are for the little people.
He got what he deserved. He is not above the law.
Marlene and Morton..
It's not so much that they are above the law, but they DO have certain priviledges WHILE in office.
If you actually THINK about the specific CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE it is so political adversaries cannot have other Senators or Congressmen arrested to change potential ballot vote outcomes.
No, they're not above the law, but anyone so friggin stupid to think that a US Senator is going to jack a plane has to have a brain transplant. Quit trying to turn the moronic nature of TSA into a political issue and read what Aram Garabad has posted below. TSA IS a joke! It does abosutley nothing to reduce the threat of terrorist attack, and is merely a gov works program designed to keep Homeland Security, ANOTHER works program in funding and stupid passengers thinking that they are safe because TSA does boddy pat-downs and strip searches on 5 y/o kids, and geriatric people with amputations and in wheelchairs with cancer. Give me a break!
There is no law that requires you to complete the screening process. Your ability to fly is based on you completing the screening process. You always have a right to refuse being searched.
Is the US Constitution void where prohibited by law or edict?
Hey Rand Paul: If you don't agree with the TSA rules and regulations when flying then use your $millions and take a limo or don't and take THE BUS!
He wasn't sitting. He was standing. I'm glad TSA didn't back down for a politician.
It is only illegal to detain a member of Congress when Congress is in session. This is a provision in the Constitution to prevent authorities from manipulating the votes of Congress by keeping some from voting. However, as Congress is not in session now, Congressmen, like all other citizens, can be arrested and detained if there is a just cause. (See the case of former Congressman Chris Shays of Connecticut. He was jailed a number of days for contempt of court, but he could not be put in jail until Congress adjourned.)
Funny how many here are castigating Sen. Paul for refusing the full body pat down while so many have applauded those that have refused it in the past. Sen. Paul took a stand against that which so many complain about, the intrusive searchs at the airport, and he becomes the bad guy?
Any chance that people like Marlene and Morton have a political agenda and are willing to flip flop based on the persons political affiliations?
Had this been a woman with a child in tow everyone would be up in arms about the intrusive nature of the TSA but because it is a Republican Senator suddenly are siding with the TSA?
JMHO
Regardless of the details, I'm glad he did it. The TSA is just another example of a bloated government.
So say you.
Marty, the TSA has no legal authority to arrest or detain anyone. They're not the police, on any level. If they want to detain anyone, they have to (or at least are supposed to) get the local police at the airport to do it for them.
That being said, I'm not sure how that impacts the constitutional issue that Mari Kine raised, but you are right in your first sentence that it's all a non-issue since Congress isn't in session.
Balancing safety with security is always tough. They should have granted him the second scan.
Don't be a bone head he's not above the law because he's a senator he a citizen just like the rest of us and if the cops tell you to stop what you're doing and you don't then you are subject to the full affect of the law.Besides if you let him then you must let everyone else go who protest else they will say he's receiving special treatment because of his status.
The American Public was also unhappy with the invasiveness of two 747s that were flown into the World Trade Center.
It was done on purpose. Ron Paul is still in the race and this will look good on him.
They send the son and Ron Paul will now speak out about this.
Rand Paul is a lunatic who shouldn't even be in office.
And this is coming from someone that respects most of Ron Paul's views.
How is it illegal for them to detain a Senator?
Flying is a priviledge, Senator, not a right. If you don't like following the damned rules like the plebs you lord over, take a bus.
From day one, the TSA has been out of control! The arrogance, and ignorance, among those that work the floors in airports is pathetic.
So politicians are above the law?
What law says it's okay to search people without a warrant?
Toasty McGrath, this "pleb" has triggered a scanner at the airport before however I was allowed to go through the scanner again. So why not question why was the Senator singled out for not being allowed something that is routinely done.
Why do I have this sneaking feeling that if the Senator had belonged to a different party, this comment section would have been filled with posts deriding the TSA and bemoaning the rights of those who fly.
Or of course the Senator could act all high and mighty and be like Pelosi demanding private air transportation so as not to have to make one of those inconvenient stop-overs.
If the rules apply to one..it applies to ALL. No excuses!
The specific wording on this issue in the Constitution -
The senate is not in session, and depending on how he acted, even IF the senate was in session, he could be detained (breach of the peace) or otherwise be subject to action of law.
That said, this is one of the few VERY specific and VERY limited ways I agree with either of those racist morons, father or son. The TSA is a joke and an enormous waste of money that is designe dto give the ILLUSION of safety without actually providing it.
I'm glad Rand stood up the the thugs. Admittedly, he is fortunate to have enough money so that he can do what he did. For the rest of us, and the loonies on the left, there is no law that says you have to be groped to fly on an airline. The TSA has gotten completely out of control. It's amazing how many people think it's just fine to be man handled by strangers, all in the name of "safety." Every society that has fallen, for those not familiar with history, has fallen because people are willing to give up their freedoms for such nebulous things as "security" and "safety." It won't be too long until another plane is blown up and then maybe people will realize that giving up their freedoms didn't really mean that they obtained the promised safety from harm.
It's an agreed upon condition for public air-travel - if he wanted, he could fly privately and bypass security all together.
I tell ya what, let's do this free-market style and offer two lines - one without security checks and one with security checks. I can tell you right now in what line I will be standing.
I really don't think most TSA agents have a flippin' clue who Rand Paul is... or care who he is if they knew.
You're correct in a way - it is an illusion of safety designed as a deterrent. Everyone knows that security checks are not 100% sucessful, and never will be. They are meant, and designed specifically, to DETER people from trying in the first place. It's a hard metric to quantify the success of such a program because there is no way to determine just how many people decided not to try anything in the first place due to security.
people the tsa is trained to believe your 1 day old baby are the real terrorists carrying the dirty bombs that will nuke us all to death. and these are the people that give us false hope of security. and they will have you believe the 9 guns a year they stop from going o the plane since they formed are keeping you safe but if thats the case what happened to all the guns that got on board before 911 and all those planes that were blown up by these children and all these nukes that went off over the past 100 years on planes.
JP345, Is it ridiculous to think a Senator may hijack a airplane? Not much more ridiculous than to think a popular well known actor (the Tom Cruise of his time) would kill the president.
above post by me sarcasm by the way but really its the way these morons are trained to think
You don't need a warrant to search someone, you just need reasonable suspicion. The alarm going off on the scanning device would be reasonable suspicion.
They are trained to follow protocol - no exceptions.
Exceptions of any kind only serve to undermine the integrity of security checkpoints.

They aren't supposed to think - they are supposed to follow directions without exception. A thinking person can be manipulated, a person's judgement can be exploited - it's a risk to security and defeats the purpose of security checkpoints as a deterrent. And trust me, it's hard not to think - it's hard not to break protocol based upon judgement..... you'd much rather avoid the trouble of dealing with some old lady's diapers, but protocol is protocol and it's strict for a reason.
It sounds like you are the lunatic, D.MAN - So which is it? Respect Ron Paul or his son with the same political views?
Marty, before you start callling folks boneheads from the Peoples Republic of Boulder, you need to read TSA guidelines on the expediting of government officials AND the military in uniform AND working pilots AND law enforcement officials that need to travel with firearms, and others from excessive searches or screenings. Some of these groups are exempt entirely from ANY kind of TSA screenings. It is apparent that you don't know a friggin thing about TSA, and FAA exemptions. Sen. Paul did NOT have to be going to or coming from a session of Congress to be exempt from excessive screening or delay, and if he was a senior member like John Behnar he wouldn't even go through the machine. Pull up TSA exemption statutes. It is illegal to detain or delay senators and military because, well, frankly, they ARE more important to the running and safety of this nation than most of us on this blog, just like the friggin plane won't leave on time if the pilot is being body-searched by some slug on a power-trip. The only one's they could arguably be justified in delaying are those Senators that vote "present' most of the time, since it doesn't matter if they are there or not. Enough said.
It could have been a great time for one of our Senators to respect and actually be a good example of letting the TSA do their job. I do believe it was a publicity stunt, but I think that it would have shown grace if he would have cooperated. It proves that they don't think of things like us regular folks. When is someone on either side going to step up and be a good bi-partisan candidate? Still waiting....... Obama and his Saul Alynski tactics and the GOP cutting down even their own for what? This country really needs someone who is going to Unite us not seperate us. In my humble opinion.
Maybe those guys at TSA are smarter than we thought. Rand may not use explosives, but there is little doubt that he is trying to destroy the United States.
I can only imagine this room-temp IQ Senator's spat with TSA:
Senator Paul: "Do you know who I am?"
TSA: "Yes Senator, we do. That's why you're being detained. You are a danger to America."
Why did Rand Paul raise his right leg while being checked out? A Gun? Was he about to kick the Security person.
There may be details (a cover up) that the "Little People" do not know about.
Something is fishy here.
It depends a lot on the official capacity of the traveller. When I was on an official gov't ticket, in uniform, on duty, and flying overseas - I was indeed exempt... this didn't mean I could just walk on through the gates - I still had to present them with proper documentation and making it clear my exemption status. You can't just haughtily saunter through and expect them to roll the red carpet out for you because you're vaguely recognizable.
But coming back to visit home, on leave, still in uniform... not so much. Sometimes the gov't didn't coordinate with TSA when I should have been exempt - but yaknow what I did? I followed their directions politely, explained my situation (and understood their situation), and got through security just fine with only minor delays.
Policy often ties their hands. If they are ignoring regulations, then indeed - they should be reprimanded and trained better. Usually though, when I read stories like this, it's because they are simply following policy and half the time the person in question is only making it worse by being indignant.
If you have a problem with specific policy - please describe why this is the case. In most cases, it's strict for very good reasons.
i cant understand how people flip out so scared now days and ready to give up there freedoms.just because a remote controled flied airplanes hit the twin towers.also building seven that magically fell down on the police count, just hours later.(thats also where all the enron evidence was)
u use it or lose it.time people start yelling the 4th.no illegeal searches.
for all u trolls-or people that still just dont get it.tsa look what the letters mean.they already on the highways,bus stations sport stadiam(nfl)ITS NOT JUST AIRPORTS
I am no fan of Senator Paul, however I think his stand against loss of civil liberties and against obtrusive pat downs is a good fight. The indignations created by TSA are over the top. Not all laws are just. Not all justice is fair. We need to bring reason back to travel and we need to restore our civil right of freedom of movement and the right to travel without undue restriction. I hope that we can return to the days of freedom, liberty and justice.
No, he is not above the law, but he did not get what he deserved. I think he's a wack-a-doodle, but as an American, what he deserved was RESPECT as a CITIZEN, and an apology for being forced through those ridiculously invasive, expensive and obviously easily confused body-scanners.
BAN the TSA!!
@Toasty McGrath
Or he could take a private plane like most of his colleages and stick us all with the bill. Would you prefer that?
i say, scrap the pat down and give randy a full cavity search.. we all know he is a crack head, he was probably hiding his stash up his cavity..
i bet this is what he wanted any way, you know, a few fingers in his arse..
he is probably just mad that that didn't happen.
Our idiotic politically correct nation demands that we search children, old women and now Congressmen - and this IS EXACTLY what terrorists want. They want us wasting our resources on our own stupidity.
We have 100% certainty that these folks pose no risk to us, and yet our out of control government employees think that it is ok to disrespect a sitting Congressman rather than using 1oz of brain matter.
Sorry loons, this is a clear case of too much government, too stupid to do their jobs, accomplishing nothing while wasting our money.
@David Walker
The people trying to destroy America are the mindless drones such as yourself. How on Earth do you get across the street without government holding your hand?
There is no right to fly. Paul was allowed to leave the airport. What he wasn't allowed to do was get on the plane without a second scan or pat down. He refused, so he had no right to fly. They found something anomolous in his first scan. The laws also require them to require further search. Do any of you think it is actually impossible that someone in high office could commit a crime, one that might endanger others. I think it is quite possible. Paul could always drive to where he was going as long as it was on this continent.
He's trying to make a point regrading how contemptuous he is of the rules everyone else has to follow. And as far as his (and others) indignation over screening little kids and the elderly, those who see no problem in blowing up babies in pizza parlors, wouldn't hesitate to have a child act as a delivery system for an airplanes' destruction. There are always a few in ANY profession that make mistakes, but overall TSA does a wonderful job. I can't imagine putting up with the abuse so many of them have to put up with.
Mr Amazing, and we all know that terrorists would NEVER EVER set up little children or crippled old people as suicide bombers, because that just wouldn't be nice.
Everyone must comply with the rules being what they are. I have been patted down, bags searched and scanned everytime I fly with my son, b/c he uses a special refrigerated milk formula liquid (cooler). The TSA people are hospitalble with their requests, I don't mind at all. As a matter of fact, it makes me feel better knowing that somebody with potential harmful materials will also be searched. Mr. Paul probably should be glad that at least some measures of precaution are being used, I know I am. Sounds like he's just upset b/c he was detained.
I wonder WHY Newsvine is collapsing any comment made against Rand Paul, where most are not inflammatory in any way? Thought this was an 'unbiased' discussion group.
Guess not.
I love articles about TSA, because they're instantly filled with people generalizing TSA officers as morons (pot, meet kettle) and calling for the entire system to be axed. I still don't understand why relatively few instances of problems - and it is relatively few, if you consider the thousands of passengers that fly out of each airport every day - is justification for disbanding a system that does work. If you refuse to believe it works, then go search "tsa c4 midland" and read the story. That was less than a month ago.
Furthermore, TSA doesn't demand that you do anything. They have strict guidelines and they try to follow them verbatim. If you won't submit to their requests and they believe you are concealing something (which it appeared in this instance that Rand Paul was), they cannot and do not detain you. Instead, they hand you over to local law enforcement, which has the authority to pursue the issue further.
This isn't rocket science, people; it's biased coverage. But I'd probably vilify disliked government organizations in my articles, too, if I were a journalist. It gets attention.
They are trained to follow protocol...no exceptions? My 78 year old wheelchir bound father set the damn scanner off. He got out of the wheelchair. He still set it off. I said he has a hearing aid. He took it off and it still beeped. I told them he has a pacemaker, and he'll set the goddam thing off forever. Finally, after half an hour of futzing around, I got him back in his wheelchair and started pushing him away. They said come back. I said come and get me, and then be prepared to face a fricking lawsuit targeting people with disabilities. They let me go. And by god, he didn't blow up the plane. I wanted to blow something up at that point though.
This is the hypocrisy of the left in display. Rand Paul and his father are constitutionalist libertarian and oppose those rules and regulation that go against individual liberties, something that ACLU stand against too. However because he is a Republican the left come in assault to a member of congress sowing his displeasure to those regulations. Make your mind childs.
The clueless nature and ignorance of that statement is astounding. I mean, Sen. Rand Paul fighting for the rights of citizens and liberty against a growing tyranny of Government. How dare he?! Some nerve! It's absolutely essential to keep the war machine going with out of control spending, no real attempts to balance a budget or pay the deficits, and clear destruction of liberties with legislation like Patriot Act (extended by Obama), NDAA, and attempts like SOPA/PIPA. Of, course it's easy to forget bills like the "Internet Kill Switch" bill that was pushed by Democrats that would give the President the power to shutoff the internet in the private sector anytime he deemed there was an issue of "security." Or, the “Enemy Expatriation Act” introduced by Senator Joe Liberman that would strip American's of their citizenship at the Government's discretion. That is, if they think anyone is seen as "an enemy" they'd lose their citizenship.
And Rand Paul is "the threat." Riiight. Keep thinking that...until hopefully one day you or someone you know is illegally detained. Maybe then will the people fighting for freedom and liberty not seem "so stupid" to you.
Obviously, you don't understand that having to have pictures of your junk taken and/or get felt up so you can get on an airplane is a ridiculous invasion of privacy.
They seem to have demanded that Mr. Paul leave the airport, hmm?
It has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the integrity of security checkpoints.
Exceptions, personal 'judgement calls' outside of policy, and profiling serve to undermine security at checkpoints. All those exceptions do is open doors for exploitation and manipulation of security practices.
Children for example: stop checking children and you give smugglers an easy and obvious way to smuggle (ON CHILDREN).... stop checking Grandma and they do the same with Grandma.... it's how it works. You allow judgement calls outside of policy, and you will have potential smugglers appealing to a person's emotions, to the varied and inconsistent emotional capacities of individual agents, in order to bypass security.
Exceptions are targets for would-be terrorists.
Toasty, I'm tired of this old saw. The RIGHT to travel unencumbered trumps this weak argument that liberals/progressives keep bringing up. I personally don't want to see this cop-out excuse for the TSA to overturn my right to travel unencumbered just because there are cowards and fools out there that are willing to turn over their 4th amendment rights to government/TSA because they are doodleing their pant in fright that a terrorist may be on the plane. Just stop it, people that think this way are taking my rights away for my free travel, man up.
The Right To Travel
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
To the one whining about babies being searched.
You fall right into the trap. As drug couriers had known for years babies are great camouflage for hiding something (remember in the film Goodfellas which is a true story for instance)...just as easy to put something else in there as it is drugs..knives, guns a grenade etc. Same goes for a Teddy Bear etc.
Or are you so naive as to think that all Terrorist would be nervously walking in a turban and a Bin Laden T-Shirt. If these people are willing to die, do you think they have any qualms about using a baby that way? Theirs or one they kidnapped?
I thank the TSA for their hard and unappreciated work every time I go through. I have never been 'patted down' but maybe that is because I follow the simple guidelines of 'de-metaling' etc before I get to the scanner. They checked my small carry on a couple times, typically I forgot I had tucked a bottle of water in it for the ride to the airport. Next time you go through, give them a smile and a thank you. Karma is a boomerang
In normal human tradition the people of this country, likes those of other countries too, will trade their liberty for the facade of security. TSA, regardless of what you think about their effectiveness, will not catch the next fanatic wanting to bring down a plane. Our enemies are bright enough, believe it or not, to avoid trying to take down a plane with box cutters again, and not because TSA is on the job. It's because no group of passengers would allow the plane to be taken again.
We could do something truly helpful and profile passengers, but that little loss of liberty is a loss too far for our liberal friends. A full-body pat down for 83 year old nuns? Not a problem. But look askance at the 24 year old middle eastern-looking guy who happens to appear nervous and skittish and holy heck, there goes the constitution.
TSA does something far worse than just pat people down who don't need to be. It places the belief in far too many people that they are made safer because the federal government is on the job, and so for many people trading those liberties away is a better deal to them than doing the harder work of thinking through real solutions. Remember how hard it was (and the left still vociferously opposes this) to simply allow the pilots to be armed while in the cockpit? But it was virtually nothing for these same liberals (this is not to grant amnesty to republicans, btw) to simply assert that flying on a private carrier was an economic activity they could impose themselves on. Using this logic there is nothing you do, ever, that includes in any way more than just you, that the government cannot control.
What a shame.
GreenTimer
Mr Amazing, and we all know that terrorists would NEVER EVER set up little children or crippled old people as suicide bombers, because that just wouldn't be nice.
#1.49 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:00 PM EST
nor could they use a private plane either.or just buy 1 too.start acting like a man and stop being afraid of your own shadow.and to the fools saying where where u on 9-12-01 asking why wasnt the gov there to protect u.i was yelling at my tv saying the buildings where falling at free speed.then i hear on the news the fire dept and cops saying bombs going off in the building before they collapes.then building seven was hit by no plane.cops had a count down more bombs going off and a big pile of dirt.
.
Again, if you have a problem with particular policies - please point them out and possible alternatives. In my post above I explained why such policies are an unfortunate necessity for the proper application of security.
I agree that tweaks should be made, and technology should be updated in order to speed up this process especially for the elderly and those with implants of all sorts - yet whenever they try to accomdate them while still maintaining security integrity, we get people complaining about how the TSA agents can see their tally-wacker on the scanner or some petty nonsense.
It is too bad that real passengers are NOT subjected to an Infiltration Team while on board an aircraft. Actually, it might change all of the mindsets against Airport Security. All Branches of the Military have such teams which tests the average military personnel by pretending to be real saboteurs and terrorists and rate the responses.
The alternative is to have a real terrorist gain entry and overpower the crew and passengers or blow themselves, the plane, and all the passengers to h*ll.
PS: It is entirely possible for a Senator or Representative or a mucky-muck to engage in an act of terrorism. How many times have you read that a policeman being guilty of a felony, or a fireman being guilty of arson or a reporter writing a bogus story. It happens.
Imagine a person that has several metal pins located about his or her body and a partial plate in the skull. Now imagine what it is like to try to pass a metal detector. That is I who pings and has pinged metal detectors throughout this Nation for 40+ years. Yet I am all for it. Be-moaners shut up and take the search like gentlemen and ladies.
Fred Evil, you can opt out of those "pictures" that you're talking about and have a pat down. Also, there's no law saying you have to fly. You agree to fly. It doesn't seem like an invasion of privacy when you know what to expect and agree to it.
Also, TSA didn't demand that he leave the airport. The local law enforcement officer did by escorting him out. TSA just didn't let him fly, which is all they can do. Nice try, though.
Do you realize how ridiculous this statement is? A scan IS a search!
He is a known member of a terrorist organization (Tea Party) and should be on the "NO FLY LIST" anyway!!!!
I would hope that as an US citizen, my word that there must be something wrong with your machine would at least get me a second screening if I did not want to submit to a pat down. Failing the second screening, I would then have a choice to make about how badly I wanted to get on the flight. It is not like the action of being polite to the American traveling public is going to bring the downfall of the United States. Regardless of your feelings about Rand Paul, his politics, or anything else I can only hope the fact that he is a United States Senator is not lost on you. If they will treat a Senator like this, how do you think the rest of us will fare?
That you agree to when flying and is entirely expected. Or is this the first time Rand heard about airport security?
Seriously, try to keep up.

Does being a Senator make him special or something? I didn't know we had Royalty in this country.
Voter in LA, you are a PINHEAD!! Nancy Pelosi couldn't "demand" a private jet. She was given one by the Department of Defense. The Speaker of the House is third in line in presidential succession. That's why they get the jet! Hastert had one before Pelosi. Pelosi's was bigger, due to her district being in California, a longer distance away. What's Boner flying these days?
Good for Rand Paul, someone needs to stand up to these overbearing should-be unconstitutional TSA searches.
... and for the life of me I can not figure out why it is that the Tea Party members seem to hat those on the left, lets take Frank for example ... /sarc/
My wife has replacements. Hips Knees wrists and one shoulder. It used to be that a letter from her surgeon would get us through in a reasonable time. She is now required to go into a room with a female and basically strip down. It takes almost an hour and sometimes if they dont have a woman near by up to two hours. We dont fly anymore for that reason.
Why did Rand Paul raise his right leg while being checked out? A Gun? Was he about to kick the Security person.
There may be details (a cover up) that the "Little People" do not know about.
Something is fishy here.
It wasn't the pat down he found so objectionable.
It was that big woman wearing boxing gloves who insisted that she perform a full cavity search on the senator that aroused his ire!
Auntie Fascist, maybe if you read multiple sources of news you would be aware that Pelosi did ask for special treatment (she inquired about the possibility of a military jet) even if that was later deflected onto a request by the Sergeant at Arms. Who cares where she lives or who she represents. Does the fact she had to fly to California make her any better than all the others elected? BTW you also might want to check exactly how Boehner flies. Or did you miss all the stories when he announced he would continue to fly commercial. There are a multitude of stories about it on websites from both sides of the aisle. Of course your retort will simply be that he was only flying to Ohio thereby deflecting the fact you shot from the hip and got caught out in a mistruth.
And btw your reasoning that because her plane was bigger because her district is larger is the most absurd line of reasoning I've ever heard of. Distance or size should not and does not have any bearing of how they fly.
AS I SAID (Mr. Reading Comprehension), your option is to have pictures taken, OR BE FELT UP.
Neither seem particularly 'free' to me. Do they make America feel 'free' to you?
de·tain/diˈtān/
Verb:
Don't forget, airport security WAS privatized prior to 9/11. It was the conservatives (and everyone else) who said we need to kick the security companies out of the airports (who paid screeners $7 per hour) and make it a federal security issue.
People have very short memories.
I agree that Rand and Ron paul is/are insane, but I also agree that the TSA is entirely unconstitutionall. Even if they stopped every thing going in, you could still highjack a plane...WITH YOUR BARE HANDS!!! All those terorists would have to do is strngle the poeple in the cockpit and lock the door behind them...
You know, something just occurred to me, Cynthia McKinney. This woman blew past security and assaulted a Congressional Police Officer and the only thing the "law and order, rules are rules" that are so upset with here defended that very same woman that took it to a whole new level.
But the fun part here is that Cynthia McKinney was black, and it was because of her race that they stopped her, as was accused.
I'm wondering what all of these people who are complaining about senator paul being stopped would say about this story if it was a Muslim man?
"[The Muslim] was eventually permitted through airport security, according to Soule. “The passenger has since rebooked on another flight and was rescreened without incident,” he said in a statement at about noon on Monday."
So we will let certain people get through the security checks? Just imagine the uproar if this was a spooky person let through the checkpoint AFTER an irregularity was found, but they didn't want to be searched. I guess privilege does have it's rewards.
The Senator was on his way back to Washington for a session that started earlier today. So, yes, this would have been unConstitutional detainment.
Bunch of crybabies. Rand Paul can be be detained just as any oher traveler. Only the ignorant think otherwise. You boys cry to fight terrorist than cry when we do. Tough Rand. You know the rules when you fly. Quit bawling.
Nope, If everybody traveling on a plane has the same backround check as a U.S. Senator gets that goes with a Top Secret Clearance NOBODY would have to get any screening. If a Senator or Congressman presents their I.D., they should go through the screening, saves time that way and everybody benifits. It has nothing to do with being above the law folks.
Talking about Tea Party people blowing stuff up and being terrorists. The only person I know of who has blown things up i.e. the Pentagon, was Bill AYERS. Is HE a terrorist?
For those who don't remember, TSA is a creation of the Republican Bush presidency.
Many objectors above are obviously right wing anti Obama republicans.
Just so you all know, you are pissing into your own wind.
I could heartily applaud and commend Sen. Paul for his actions or condemn him for the very same actions regardless of his political affiliation.
Did he resist the TSA because he believes such government authority is misplaced as well as an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional? If so, he was at the perfect time and place to demonstrate that belief. To go along just to get along would have been an act of cowardice or;
Did he resist the TSA because he believes that his high office and stature in the public eye makes him immune to the same laws and humiliation as the common people that he is sworn to serve?
In the first instance, he is in a position of power to initiate a change in law that he believes to be unjust and unwarranted. In the second instance, I hope he would be strip-searched in public before he is allowed to enter or exit the Senate chambers.
EXCELLENT CITIZEN911!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The reason we have rights disappearing left and right is people think the RIGHT is a PRIVILEGE and thus let the government take it away from them at will.
I have a RIGHT to move my person where I please and how I please. This is why speed limits, seat belt laws, etc. are not FEDERAL because it is unconstitutional. An airplane is no different than a taxi. A means of travel. Taxi's can take out entire buildings as well. Tim Mcveigh proved that. Do we need TSA pat downs to get in a taxi???
People need to quit giving up their RIGHTS.
He who trades liberty for a little security deserves neither.
All you TSA supporters do you think you should be searched any time you enter a public building just in case? How about when you board a bus or hop on the subway?
I am glad we have the TSA to keep America safe from the boogey men terrorists who, in the last 10 years, have killed far less Americans than gangs in America have.
All of you forget that this screening process is for only OUTGOING international flights! When I fly INGOING international flights to the U.S. I am not screened.
DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Anyone think of a reason why some insane religious fanatic will not use this loophole??????
And I get pissed off at all this $hit. I use metal orthopedic supports in my shoes. I have a metal implant in my hand. Why should I, a natural born, 65 year old American citizen be subject to searches, intimidation and mistreatment by my government?
I was in Brownsville, Texas on a business trip and went through 3 security checks and had a ticket voucher that I was returning on a round trip ticket to San Antonio, Houston and New York. I was yanked out of the boarding line AFTER I got my ticket accepted by the stewardess and a fu**ing TSA agent put his hands down the front of my pants and fondled my testicles. I yelled at the top of my voice "GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY BALLS!" Immediately he withdrew his hand.
I was coming back from a grueling 30 hour trip to Australia and I had my computer case and brief case with me in Newark Airport, looking for my luggage. Along comes a big black woman who demanded that I put my briefcase and computer case outside the luggage area??????
There were signs plastered all around about keeping your eyes on your luggage. I pointed them out to the woman and she started yelling and screaming at me. It was impossible for me to put my computer and briefcase where I could see them and watch for my luggage at the same time.
She called the police. I went and called the police to have her removed. Both police came at the same time and removed her.
Such a bunch of fu**ng idiots!
All you socialist anti republicans forget he is standing up for your rights! Can you imagine if for one hour all people in one airport refused to be screened???
Hell it would make congress and OBUMMER stand on their ears.
There is a simple and smart way to stop all this $hit. It is called fingerprint check, facile recognition and Iris recognition software that would put 90% of TSA people out of a job.
It would require 5 minutes the first time. You line up at a site with a computer screen and an eyepiece. You place your passport up to the computer, your fingerprints are taken, your iris image is stored and your facile recognition information is stored. BINGO that is it. The huge master government computer has everything on file and then in the future you just walk to the computer look at it, put your fingers on it and look in the iris screener, up pops the green light and you go to your plane.
There was talk about making frequent fliers not going through TSA and other special fliers. Not what the hell is wrong with this idea??????
publicity stunt!
Paul Rand refuse to vote on TSA director... now he is irritated with TSA and its direction??? I did not know he was down in polling?
So he set the example for others in the Tea Party to follow.
Wonder how many civilian men, in particular, "angry white males," are going to proudly reject pat downs, x-rays, magnetic detectors, and secondary searches to hide the fact that they're packing weapons they're trying to smuggle aboard the flights?
And how many in their defense will yell that socialists, communists, nazis, illegal minorities,and other "buzz-words" (and more denigrating ethnic, political, religious and racial labels they'll throw at the TSA workers) are denying them their constitutional rights when they're caught with the goods?
Hey, I'm no fan of the TSA, but I've seen these hot-headed right-wingers make an angry show of it when they had to go through the detectors like everyone else. They don't like anyone telling them what to do, so it's no wonder they want to make the government disappear -- so they'll be less laws to inconvenience them, while at the same time they demand more laws against everyone else that doesn't share their beliefs.
Shucklack you are a shill period. anyone who thinks they need security checkpoints from some made up non exsisting threat is only living in fear and i feel bad for you because you can not live a normal life without the fear that has been woven into your soul. Like 90% of Americans you do not even know the real definition of terrorist get educated and learn that you are causing the downfall of the country. A life living in fear is not worth living.
*terroirst meant to be terrorism on above post. Ill save you the time of actually researching it also. Terrorisms true definition: a govt that uses propoganda to make its citizens follow a hidden agenda. But of course the rich will change the definition of every word in our language to suit their needs.
SHucklack i would also like to say without even reading half of your comment i assume you have been in the military because just by the nonsense brainwashing you preach on your fellow innocent civilians like we are all terrorists the truth to your propoganda is if there was really a reason to fear everyone around you how would you be able to live in any city in any part of the country with thousands of different people with thousands of different views without us acting like animals and wiping each other out. I know exactly how the military teaches you immature kids fresh ot of high school to think ive seen the training you go through thinking the innocent woman and child minding their own business will all of a sudden run up on you and blow you up. Dont think you can fool educated citizens with your brainwashed training and straight up ignorance of not being able to think for yourself.
being a shill is actually illegal so i would watch out for the comments you make supporting the system you are working for.
I'm neither right wing nor Republican, I'm an ex-Democrat now independent who is libertarian by political philosophy. But one thing I can tell you for a number of the Republicans who are anti-Obama, few of them care that the TSA is a creation of W's, they see it as wrong, dislike Bush for his expansion of government, and want the mistakes of those policies fixed. They don't consider it 'their wind', they see it as a grotesque violation principle and policy that now needs to be remedied that instead has been handed over to those who already like to grow governments influence and power over people's lives in order to meddle with them. They see what someone in their own party did as a betrayal, not something they own... little different than how progressives in the Democrat party viewed what Clinton did with regards to welfare back in the 1990's.
Well, I guess if your rand paul and think you don't have to pass the oral medical board exam to practice medicine you probably think you don't have to pass security measures to fly, either.
Mr. Mora asked, "Is the US Constitution void where prohibited by law or edict?" The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is superior to any law or edict. The proper question isn't whether the US Constitution is void, but whether laws or edicts are invalid because they're unconstitutional. Mr. Mora turns the relationship between laws and the Constitution on its head.
The Fourth Amendment protects each person against unreasonable detentions and arrests. However, there are many governmental actions that detain groups of people for reasons other than gathering evidence of crime. Supposedly, such actions are motivated by reasons like public safety. It's why those found by cops to be drunk, without a license, or carrying loaded firearms, etc. at a DUI checkpoint cannot invoke the Fourth Amendment to defeat their prosecution. The TSA checkpoints are no different; their stated purpose is not to ferret out crime but instead to protect members of the flying public. As much as constitutional knuckleheads like the Pauls and many Teapublicans might believe otherwise (these folks often throw the word "unconstitutional" around when they dislike something about government despite the fact that there isn't any constitutional basis for doing so), they're not unconstitutional. Just in practical terms, if they were, the Pauls of the world would have litigated their unconstitutionality long before now.
And finally, Article I, section 6, clause one of our Constitution provides (I've highlighted the pertinent language):
Section 6, Clause 1. Compensation of Members; Privilege from Arrest:
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
The actual language of this constitutional provision states an exemption from arrest, but not detention, and since Rand Paul was never placed under arrest, the constitutional exemption didn't apply to him. Indeed, he has no constitutional right to defy TSA for any reason. TSA is just a target for the dittoheads who've been inculcated to hate government and all its manifestations.
Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's Degree in Law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)
Publicity stunt.
I agree, but I'm also glad he did it. The TSA is a colossal waste of money. It's just another huge government works program that sucks up tax dollars and inconveniences travelers. I don't feel one bit safer due to TSA...I just feel a little lighter in my wallet from having to pay for it.
@Ron, and your solution is?
I love a good pat down. I moan and grunt and then thank them afterward handing them my phone number.
Always gets a good laugh by those watching
Ron made his suggested solution clear: abolish the TSA. How did you miss that?
There is a greater risk of dying from an automobile accident than dying in a terrorist attack. Why are you not crying about that?
It's quite amusing to see people say "and your solution is??" while offering none of their own.
I feel safer. No one likes to talk about the fact that they have caught people with weapons and potentially explosive devices. No one comes out screaming about their rights when that happens. Anyone going out to a night club these days gets patted down. Pat me down all you like. Some people just need to get over theirselves. It really isn't that big of a deal. And if you think for a minute terrorists won't use babies, or get get "good ole American looking" eldery people to do things you are mistaken. Look at Jihad Jane, who would suspect her from a glance.
boom!reason - So the answer is simply eliminating the TSA. So who does security then? What measures do they use to insure safe travel? Your solution isn't actually anything, other than stupid.
So the only way a terrorist can cause death on a place is getting into the cockpit??? Come on man!! Think a little. They can still blow it up and kill a couple hundred people. Let one of your kids or relatives die from a terrorist attack on a plane and see how worried you are about people getting searched.
@Ron-1861300, What were you doing on 9/12/2001? Back then, were you one of the ones crying "Where was the governement to protect us? Or were you still in grade school?
My thought exactly. Grandstanding for attention over Dad's "civil liberties at risk" platform. Phony-doc Rand will martyr himself for the cause by resisting the indignity of ensuring the safety of other travelers. What a Drama Queen.
Disband the TSA and passengers sign a legal waiver stating that if they are blown up or hijacked, their families will not sue the government or airlines as they understood the risk of "unsecured airports". and also stating they do not want any police, fire or military personel to risk their lives to save the passengers - since they knew the risks involved.
They would so need to submit a DNA sample when buying their tickets, so in case of an "incident" their body parts can be identified and returned to their families for proper disposal.
Ron Paul is an idiot and the "apple" didn't fall far from the tree.
Jason, with respect, you're wrong. TSA screening has never stopped a single terrorist. The shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, even the times square bomber were cleared to fly. No one has ever been arrested as a terrorist threat because of the TSA.
What they have done is compromised the dignity of millions, invaded their privacy needlessly, and slowed the economy by making air travel more difficult.
@boom! reason,
No, but terrorists can still try to smuggle explosives on board in their underwear and shoes, etc...
Reason!
Duhhh, Eric-913730 - The solution is to get rid of TSA and all of the tax burdening Federal programs.
Enough is Enough already!
Yeah, it's a publicity stunt and he got the TSA to go along with it and purposly make themselves look bad. lol No wonder stupid American jokes are so in vogue right now.
jason i love when they talk about how much things they have stopped from getting on the planes i think it makes the case of having the tsa a lot weaker. how many incidents compared to how many flights of known terrorism type @!$%# on planes had happened before the tsa. the only reason you feel safe is because the govt has done its job to make you live in fear. I'm glad I have a brain and can use it to reason fear out of my brain because life is not worth living if you live in fear. patting down to go in a nightclub is a joke so what if i carry a gun not that i do but its my right to protect myself by bearing arms if i so choose in America. What should i allow a criminal to shoot me without me being able to protect myself so the cops can then come after the fact of the crime and never solve it. The security blanket you think that is offered to you is actually false there is no one to protect you except for yourself. I haven't done anything wrong to anyone so im not worried about criminals and if it happens randomly then well i guess its my time to get born again because i havent done enough wrong to get the second death.
It's not illegal to detain a senator. Don't take my word for it: Ask Jim "Wide Stance" Craig.
Boom, Obviously, Frankfurt KY needs to have 3,000 plus of its people killed in a single day by terrorists before these lunatics get it. KY needs to live with the toxins for months after an attack when their government buildings crumble like a house of cards.
Doesn't anyone else find it so strange how the only places Republicans ever notice money spent is when it is for the safety, health or education of the country? They never notice all those tax credits their prison industry brings in from other states, or the huge number of tax breaks handed to their rich and corporations.
You want to stop spending? Start with the trillions we hand out to obscenely profitable industries like Big Oil or Big Pharma. Otherwise, stop being two-faced.
The TSA has stopped thousands of illegal items from getting on aircraft: Baby oil, tanning lotions, fingernail clippers, grooming aids, shampoo, contact lens solution, pump hairspray larger than three ounces, Dr. Scholls orthopedic shoe inserts, bottled water, and on and on and on. Then they point to this as successful siezures to make the idiots that gave up their civil rights think the TSA is doing a really great job.
Israel uses a simple short interview process by professionals that identify nervous individuals and those that may seem suspicious. They have a much better record than TSA without confiscating, bullying, patting down, or xraying.
Our invasive and expensive TSA system does not work, is money wasted and violates our civil liberties. The alternative? Use the system the Isralies use. It involves profiling and having agents with real training involved. Their safety record is fantastic and they have had more fanatical enemies for much longer than we have. It costs less and doesn't violate the rights and freedom of the entire population.
Although post # 1 is collapsed, folks should read the commentary at post # 1.47. It rationally identifies all the basic issues in one short paragraph.
Thanks, differnet
Hmmm... I would like to know if the TSA agents searched Senator Paul's hairpiece. There's no telling what one could hide in the tangle of hair he wears.
Phil: The two cases you are referring to (the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber) were actually inbound flights (the shoe bomber PARIS/MIAMI and the underwear bomber AMSTERDAM/DETROIT), so there is no TSA on either airport, and if there is, it's the French and Dutch authorities mistake, not ours). On the Times Square bomber, he was a US resident, and he was brought down when he was on board of a flight leaving Kennedy. Like they posted before, flying is not a right, it is a privilege. And if you don't like the way it's run... there is always Greyhound and Amtrak...
No one likes to talk about the fact that all those things were caught prior to the existence of the TSA, just like no one likes to talk about the fact that the TSA has not stopped a single terrorist attack.
Yeah, you really do.
If you think there was no security before the TSA, then you are too far gone. If you think the TSA has stopped any terrorist attacks, then you are too far gone.
You are the one who needs to think. I love the mental rejects who can't comprehend that they are not safer now, who love to say "but they'll kill so many people, how dare you be so heartless?!" then follow that with "I hope you and your family DIES!" without realizing the irony of their words.
You are the lowest common denominator that gets tricked the easiest by these scare tactics.
For your information, I was scheduled to visit my father who worked in the World Trade Center on 9/11. I love how people how people such as yourself who are wholly uninvolved in any of this, unaffected by the reality of the situation, cry and assume that anyone who disagrees with you should just have a friend or family member die so that they may "finally" see the light of your argument.
Not going to happen. Since you clearly have no understanding of how the TSA works, allow me to enlighten you -- the TSA would not have prevented 9/11, had it existed then.
You would rather consume the propaganda than take a hard look at reality.
Tell me, how many people have died in terrorist attacks in the past decade. Then compare that with how many people die per year in automobile accidents.
Cry some more. Oh, I mean, "Come on man, think a little!"
And they still do, even with the TSA checking people.
Thank you for proving my point that the TSA is pointless.
Rand Paul and his father are Bat-Sh-t Crazy Arrogant Racist Pigs.
Plain and simple
Not that I would engage in name calling
You mistakenly assume that inbound flights are unaffected by the TSA. You also apparently don't realize that the new TSA scanners would not have noticed their bombs.
Navy Patriot, you are right on the money. Many countries do the short interview and catch way more terrorists than the USA. We just do not hear about it in the news.TSA is a collossal waste of money.
I've had pat downs several times. What's the big deal? Do you people really think these TSA folks are getting off sexually when they pat you down? Get real. They're just doing their jobs, so stop being babies. Air travel is a privilege, not a right. And I for one want to be able to safely enjoy that privilege.
And yes, ampal2003, re: interviews, I have heard about that in the news. If feasible we should do that, too.
Hmmm... a perfect candidate for the "Special Anal Cavity Search\Probe" Bend over, spread your cheeks and cough, Senator!
Navy...Israelis don't act like big babies. They live every day with terrorist threats. They adjust their attitudes and behaviors accordingly. As for what a terrorist will use to achieve the desired result, "Shoe Bomber"? "Underpants Bomber"? Get real.
So what if these poor degenerate Republicans have to be patted down and searched. Most of them are homegrown ideological terrorists we have to protect from themselves.
You don't save money on safety, health or education. You save it by putting an end to spending tax dollars on big military industrialists and Big Oil bois who live off our tax dollars.
Uh huh. And how safe will you feel when a terrorist figures out he doesn't even have to go through security? He can just detonate an explosive device in the food court, or in the security line, or in any other crowded area without ever having to pass TSA? He won't even have to be in an airport. Any crowded public place will do. Now can you grasp why TSA is really nothing more than a waste of tax dollars and an infringement on our rights? Or would you rather not talk about it?
Um, no. Air travel is a convenience.
Yes, smuggling things on board in their shoes and underwear.... why is that? Maybe because they would be caught by security otherwise. What is the primary reason those devices failed? Because designing bombs that cannot be detected and can fit into shoes and underwear is very difficult, and such devices would have a very high failure rate. Why, again, were they designed in such a manner that virtually ensured their failure?
Boom, reason... I know you can think logically about some topics. I don't really much like the TSA - but I must call you out on your logic here. You keep citing that they haven't "stopped any attacks" as evidence for their failure .... but you seem to skip over the fact that a security agency is primarily designed as a deterrent.
Their 'success' cannot be measured on "stopped attacks" because security exists primarily to keep anyone from even trying in the first place. You cannot measure something which doesn't happen, as you well know, one can only speculate how many would-be terrorists have not attempted an attack via airplane due to the obstacles posed by security policies.
If you ask me, the fact that there has not been a loss of life on a TSA screened plane due to something the TSA could have prevented in a decade is proof of their success as a security agency, not their failure. "Days without incident" is indeed the only way to measure such things.
@ewent
No, that's just you parroting the drivel your puppet-masters spoon-feed you. Republicans LOVE spending money on "security", Rand Paul is more libertarian than republican.
flbikerchick,
Interesting that your demand for passage on a privately run airline a right. As long as no discrimination can be alleged, I'm not sure you have that right.
The airlines have certainly hornswaggled the American public into paying for the security of passengers, but you may still opt out of airplane security by taking the bus - or chartering a plane. You are not being forced into submitting to any government search that you deem outrageous.
Biker, that doesn't make much sense to me to be honest....
Obviously you can't protect everything - and obviously Terrorists can indeed attack other places..... but the entire point is to limit their options. Airplanes have been and will continue to be a favorite target due to a variety of reasons (captive audience, mobility, destructive).
I don't follow your logic there....
He is a member of a known Terrorist Group (Tea Party) and has said vile things about a sitting president and as such he should be on the "No Fly List" anyway.... Along with any other Tea Toating right wing fascist!!!
I don't have a problem with TSA 'violating' Rand Paul's so-called 'civil rights', any more than he has a problem with the government or bigots violating the civil rights of African Americans or other 'minority' groups.
At least the government has a vital interest in 'violating' Rand Paul, to minimize the probability of a successful terrorist attack.
There is no commensurate benefit to allowing Rand Paul and his ilk to violate the rights of millions of Americans.
TSA and EPA, both are part of the Obama gestapo
If I had a jet I would fly down and pick up Rand Paul or if I was rich I would buy him a jet- HE IS OUR SENATOR -HE DESERVES RESPECT-Iam so ashamed this happened to him at a Tennessee Airport.
Rand Paul don't judge Tennesseans for what unjustly happened to you = Ron Paul your Dad is my next President- I love and admire him- GO AFTER THEM BIG TIME THEY DESERVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What in the world makes you think that a full body scanner wouldn't detect a bomb in someone's underpants, or that the scanners are the only asspect of security provided by TSA in the first place? Read the article, Rand Paul is pretending to be upset because someone wanted to pat him down after he triggered a scanner and acted suspiciously.
I'm not a big fan of the huge growth in federal government caused by the Republicans during the first decade of this century, but airline security is, for the time being, a necessary inconvenience.
Airdog,
I was in my 30's on 9/11 - not grade school. I wasn't crying about where was the government, I was worried about a co-worker from Iran that was supposed to be on a flight out of NYC (happily, he was fine and able to come home after 2 days of questioning by the FBI - which he didn't object to given the circumstances).
I am not anti-security. My problem with the TSA is I think it is ineffective because it's mainly a politically correct jobs program. I think we would be much better off spending the hundreds of billions we've spent on the TSA on human intelligence and spying in source countries (mainly the middle east) instead. At airports I would rather see us focus on surveillance and profiling - that's what Israel does and it works well for them.
We also need to keep in mind we will never have 100% security - even if we spend trillions every year and take away everyone's constitutional rights. Look at countries like China and Russia - they have far less rights than Americans, but they still have terrorist attacks. I didn't agree with much GWB said, but I agreed with him when he said this isn't an enemy that can ever be totally defeated.
The problem is you're damned if do and you're damned if you don't, Here in our great country money is what its all about people always try to find a reason to sue, and not to mention their constant crying and whining, give people freedom and they think they own the world and try to dictate what can and should be done, see I don't like the hassle of the TSA creates but if that keeps Joe Schmoo and his family safe I'm willing to put up with it, that's the difference between the Right and the Left, We think of others before our selves .....
Why not have a wand to scan for metals and an explosive sniffing dog for the gates? The wand can detect metal and the dog would/should be able to sniff out drugs and explosives. Easy fix that can minimize the power trip of some of those guards or agents. Whatever they are called
Regarding the shoe bomber -- the TSA did not exist at that time, so they were not designing hidden devices with that in mind. There already existed a method of security.
You say that the TSA functions as a deterrence, however take a look at the rates of attempted terrorist plots involving airplanes (targeting the United States) before and after TSA and you will notice the lack of correlation.
Multiple failures in intelligence allowed the underwear bomber to board the plane, since they were already aware of the guy. Combine this with a failure of the TSA to notice the guy (and the fact that the new scanners would not even detect it anyway, had they been installed at the time), and you can see that there is a problem. The simple solution would be to optimize intelligence so that when a person is deemed to be a threat, he is prevented from boarding the plane (a novel concept).
The TSA is like carpet-bombing a city, you attack everything but still can miss your target; but all you really need is a sniper.
People don't seem to remember that there was terrorism before 9/11, and that there is still terrorism.
I see that you are unfamiliar with the underwear bomber. Neither the new scanner (which was not yet at the airport) nor other TSA method, including the pat-down, would have noticed the bomb.
-
Says who? You have no evidence to support your confidence. We have so few attempted terrorist incidences, both before and after 9/11, that such an inconvenience, with no real benefit, it by no means necessary.
Again, take a look at the probability that you will die from a terrorist attack and compare it to the probability that a left-handed person will die from using equipment designed for right-handed people (hint, lefties are in greater danger).
Not to make light of 9/11 (see my post above, #2.22), but more people die per day, every day, from automobile deaths, than who have died from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Everything is about perception, you feel that flying is dangerous, whereas in reality you have a much greater chance of dying from driving (each day) than you do if 9/11 happened every day.
Obama did not create the TSA (or the EPA) The TSA was created by the right wing to "keep amurica safe from turrists" So Paul gets searched and suddenly the right wing wakes up and feels their rights threatened? Settle down, they didn't try to tax him.
Byl, you must be new to this. Paul has always been against this.
Gang violence has killed more Americans than al qaeda has the last ten years.
Boom Reason:
Don't try to reason with these people. They have been brainwashed by the government into thinking that the boogey men terrorists are gunna get them if they fly.
My assumption/hope is that what they "know" is not as strong as how Creationists "know" that evolution is a lie, and that facts and figures do the talking.
But if you look up, my original comment received 32 thumbs up (even though this sub-thread was collapsed for much of today), so I'm thinking that since I get more thumbs up than comments saying "I agree, and..." that they feel that their position is sufficiently covered/argued by me and others.
Here's your solution: Profile the passengers! Pull them aside and question them if they appear nervous. Talk to people with the one-way ticket without a checked bag. We could learn a lot from the Israeli model of airline security, and accept that as a condition of travel. Patting down grandmothers and babies under the guise of "equality" only takes away from real security screening and makes the travelling public less safe. Reactive security policies will only ensure that the next "underwear bomber" or "shoe bomber" and the like will exploit the next available hole in a rigid security structure.
Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution. Am I the only one who has read this thing? "They (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; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
Read more: #ixzz1kIe6rjRQ
Yeah but did you read the patriot act which all of the conservatives supported under bush. It basically made parts of the constitution like that irrelevant.
nice that somebody actually reads the constitution. Now if only the TSA would get a copy....
I'm confused ... was he arrested? Or detained?
He wasn't arrested or detained. He was escorted out of the area and allowed to go on his merry way.
Seems to fit the breach of the peach part to me.
was he in "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."
Or, was he traveling on behalf of his father's campaign?
Ok, well its probably an arguable position to say that refusing to be checked for weapons at an airport constitutes "breach of the peace." Neither was he arrested in the first place. Or am I out to lunch on this one? Disclaimer: I do love lunch.
Aram, he was not arrested. He refused a pat down, thus the TSA didn't let him on the plane. It's unsurprising that the rich and privileged think the law never applies o them.
This falls under the umbrella of counterterrorism, "breach of the peace."
Being detained for setting off the metal detector in an airport is not being arrested. Arrested is being dragged off in handcuffs, booked, thrown in a cell and wait for arraignment. To read being detained for a pat down as being arrested is a major stretch. As is claiming that being escorted out of the secure area of the airport by officers is detaining someone. You are being escorted out, not being escorted to the police station for booking. Also, TSA regulations say if someone refuses a pat down and leaves without making a scene, there is no problem.
Basically, Rand Paul had two options. Submit to the pat down, or just leave. He chose the third option and it got him escorted out by officers. Not arrested.
Good question - it seems like a number of posters didn't bother to apply a bit of reading comprehension to their interpretation of the Constitution....
Not surprised when it comes from people in support of Rand, a Dominionist which displays a complete and utter lack of comprehension when it comes to the Establishment Clause.
Maria, the first poster was in fact correct. it is illegal to detain a sitting senator, or other legislative official for that matter. Sorry it's not above the law but rather compliance with existing law. And yes certain people, diplomats for one, are in fact above most laws. Is it right, don't know. Is it the law, yes in fact it is. These laws were passed for solid reasons. The fact that you don't happen to agree with them is irrelevant.
Where does the article say he was arrested? The point is, the arrogant prig apparently thinks he's above the law because he's a "libertarian." If he doesn't like our laws, then he should consider leaving for China or North Korea where he can join the ruling party nomenklatura.
"These laws were passed for solid reasons. The fact that you don't happen to agree with them is irrelevant." Same applies to Ron Paul. The fact that he does not agree with TSA procedures does not exclude him from them.
Rand Paul
"Because sometimes in really poor families, kids just have to pitch in."
"Yeah, those things just get so jammed — everybody playing the blame game. I mean, sometimes mines just collapse, you know? Nobody's fault. I think it's called gravity."
"I mean, if you don't trace your ancestry to northern Europe and you're really hungry, if you ask nicely, maybe they'll let you come in. I mean, these are things we can solve without laws and stuff."
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rand-paul-quotes-05210#ixzz1kIn3CkIP
Unfortunately, a law is not automatically "passed for solid reasons." Would the anti-Semitic laws of Nazi Germany be "passed for solid reasons?" How you can simply assume a law is a good one is beyond me. That kind of thinking is what alowed theNazis to take over Germany and in the end destroy Eu rope in Hitler's quest to exterminate all of Jewry. If you lived in Germany in those days, those would be "laws" and would youobey them, thinnking they are "passed for solid reasons."
Give me a break. All the excuses given by the war criminals were "just obeying orders." Or, "just obeying the law." Yoiu have to consider with your own independent mind what is the ramification, and purpose, and outcoome of enforcing any particular law.Laws are not made by God, they are maade by fallible human beings and as such can be repealed by said human beings. They are not immortal or immutable. They are n ot the Bible. Laws differ from country to country. Are they all passed for "solid" reasons? Hell, no.
very nice good to see someone knows what they are talking about. For those who don't understand this, and it seems there are a bunch on this site, it says while the person is in congress participating in government business such as voting on a bill or debating it the bill. Not walking on the street. Also if the person is charged with a felony or treason he can be removed from congress.
W. Lockridge,
You are correct, but what you said is only true when Congress is in session. Or, as the Constitution puts it, "during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses." Congress is not in session, so Sen. Paul does not currently enjoy this priviledge.
He certainly wasn't arrested, and the article didn't say that he was "detained." If he had been free to leave the airport, then the Constitution doesn't appear to have been violated. Of course, that assumes that Congress was in session at the time and that he was on his way to/from the session.
People...I urge you to attend at least one Libertarian meeting. You'll learn just how 100% pure Libertarian Rand Paul's reaction to law really is. Unless you see and hear for yourselves, you can't imagine the degree to which Libertarians would thusly nullify most of our Constitution.
To Libertarians, THEY are their own set of laws. Course now, how that fits into the realm of a few hundred million Americans in our society is intriguing.
I attended 2 Libertarian meetins back in the late 1970's. If I didn't know better, I'd say their ideology isn't far off what Charles Manson preaches. Civil liberties is how rich boi Libertarians couch flouting laws they believe are for the great unwashed masses.
He's not "detained," he's just not allowed to fly out of that airport unless he complies with safety regulations. He can drive, he can take a train, he can ride a red-white-and-blue bicycle.
If Rand Paul drove, he'd have to still follow the rules of the road. If he rode a bus or a train, safety rules would still apply. And in most states, if he rode a bicycle, he'd have to also wear a helmet and follow the rules of the road. Libertarians don't like rules, regulations or anything they consider an inhibition to their "civil liberties". What they are really saying is "Anything goes and if it does, just don't blame us." How isn't that irresponsible, not to mention dangerous to the rest of society?
They should have removed his toupee so they could take an accurate mug shot, and then they should have gave him a good old fashioned body cavity search while using excessive force as per policy and procedure when dealing with people trying to hide their true identity.
Screening passengers for bombs seems to be reasonable. "Exterminating" people because of their ethnic heritage does not.
TSA 1, Rand Paul 0. Reasonable laws (such as a Bill of Rights) 1, Nazi Party 0.
Don't hate me for being the bearer of bad news, but the Constitution is NOT "irrelevant". It boils down to a matter of knowing how to deal with it.
"16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law."
Sounds like "The People" need to get busy...
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=FE5F1C3637549739
Absolutely amazing..............out of about 30 people...........only one had any knowledge of the Constitution. No wonder we are in deep Sh**
Senators ARE EXEMPT..............
Spiddas....well as our resident Constitution expert...please give us the Article and Section where mandatory militia duty is required. While you are at it - also find the Article and Section where is states citizens must obey the Constitution, help enforce it & under penalty of death. We'll be waiting with baited breath.
Flying is a privilege not a right. Per the article he raised his pant leg which might of caused the issue, also it states that he would like to abolish TSA could he have done it on purpose. As a elected offical he should respect every citizen of this country and their safety. It only takes one terrorist - and Senators should not be exempt nor should any other elected offical. If you do not like it, do not fly it's simple as that.
He can bitch and claim privilege all he wants, but he's not getting on MY plane until TSA says he's cleared to do so. Just go with it. Jerk.
Ed....Senators (and members of the House) are NOT exempt. So you can understand here is the actual section of the Constitution you are referring to:
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.
He was NOT arrested.
He is NOT in attendance at a session.
He was NOT on his way to or from a session.
He WAS causing a scene and could be considered in breach of the peace.
What part of this do you NOT understand?
Pedestrian-in-SF
Yes he is. Failing to comply with TSA instructions doesn't allow one to just walk away... It's not like "Oh, you picked me? Never mind." and they walk out to try your luck again... LOL
Since we are at war, doesn't anything go? The good Senator should be glad he was not targeted by a drone.
Don't forget, airport security WAS privatized prior to 9/11. It was the conservatives (and everyone else) who said we need to kick the security companies out of the airports (who paid screeners $7 per hour) and make it a federal security issue.
People have very short memories.
Read the Constitution.....................as stated above ........traveling to and from' .......
and shall not be questioned in any other place.
Totally beside that point..........we have a TSA agent that does not recognise a Sitting United States Senator, ..................... did he take think this was an terrorist.............
Another ignorant TSA agent........didn't know who he didn't know
Aren't these people required to be educated beyond the 6th grade lever. Most 6th graders in Nashville recognize their own U.S. Senator
What "Good Reason" was it that created the TSA and the HOMELAND SECURITY GESTAPO? As an airline pilot with a major airline I seen this inept group of NAZIs stepping on every freedom we enjoy every day. WHY? BECAUSE THEY CAN.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST GOON SQUAD EVER CREATED IN AMERICA. The conservatives and the liberals joined in hysterical kneejerk reaction to 9-11 to give us this FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY that is both the TSA and HOMELAND SECURITY. Bafoons with extraordinary powers that obviate the Constitution and make a mockery of true security.
Damn them all to Hell along with all those morons in the do nothing Congress which continues to fund such a bureaucrat boondoggle.
TSA violating the constitution?
THEY WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A-
wait...nevermind.
Regardless of whether he was exempt or not he is a US Senator. The chances of a US Senator being a terrorist is pretty much nil.
Let's not forget that the purpose of the TSA is to screen for possible terrorists in order to prevent another 911 type of terrorist attack. I can't believe so may people on this site are in support of what the TSA did.
If it had been anyone else, they would have been arrested.
This whole thing seems fishy to me. Ron Paul is running for President, is running low on money, and wants to get his message out... The timing of this is amazingly coincidental, and the Paul campaign's choice of words ("detained", "police state", etc.) is a bit overboard.
I suspect that Senator Paul well knows the TSA procedures and knew that, while he could request a second scan, the procedure would dictate a pat-down (which of course he would refuse)... I have to wonder why Senator Paul didn't just submit to the patdown, because that's what any of his constituents would have to do? Of course, had he done that, his dad wouldn't be able to use it for his campaign.
I was working on other things and ran out of time to add the link where the post was referenced from. (I at least got it in quotes.) Here is where the above is from:
http://constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm
{16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 is Volume 16 of American Jurisprudence second edition, Section 177. The later edition you will find this information in section 256.}
As far a the mandatory militia goes, you might want to check your individual State Constitution for details on that, considering that they virtually mirror the United States Constitution. Being an Ohioan, in the Ohio Constitution it reads in Article IX that:
Many people like to say that the state's "National Guard" is the equivalent of the militia. This is only partially true. The state's National Guard is the state's 'Organized' Militia. The balance of the people constitute the state's 'Unorganized' Militia.
In the Dick Act of 1902, the federal government acknowledges that States have both organized militias (National Guard) and UN-organized militias (the People). And according to the Dick Act the feral federal government CANNOT confiscate anyone's guns... But I digress. It is our right to defend ourselves, from invaders, both foreign and domestic. You can go here for more info: http://www.constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm
As far as the second part of your query goes, I am without current knowledge of and would have to do research on to find out if it is real/not real, true/false, or what not. I'll put it on my "to-do" list...
Look, the senator has a right to his own form of civil disobedience. It may not be legal to arrest him, as with OWS protesters, but they sure as hell don't have to let him on the plane. I wouldn't: his father is a radical, and maybe he coached his son into bringing a gun on board to prove some point. He can find an alternate form of transportation, but if he won't go through the safety procedures that everyone else does, don't put him on a plane with me.
@ED you are one of the morons that make this nation great. If you think TSA is bad, try going to another country, say Isreal.
Also, try and live in China or N Korea. That might change your mind on how small these things in life really are that you are crying about here in the US.
He's just a big dick trying to make a scene.. oh look at me - those bad federal guys are doing stuff to me..help me Tea Party! God help us if he's asked to fight for his country!!
Sorry, guys, but snce 9/11 we have had many reasons to be wary of who gets on a plane.
You see, I don't look at it as a violation of my rights...nor anybody else's. I DO think that trying to get on a plane to blow it up while I am on it IS a violation.
I do agree that searching little old ladies and little children is a bit much, but if I'm standing next to a guy who is pitching a fit because he doesn't like the TSA and thinks they have no right to search him, ESPECIALLY after he set off an alarm, then you better freakin' keep him from getting on the plane with me until you are sure he isn't a threat.
Jarhead, being a pilot I can see you know a lot more than I, but I would appreciate it if any pilot that is flying a plane I am on is more worried about the safety and security of our plane than anything else.
Besides...this idiot should have just done what he was supposed to do, what we are all supposed to do, but I would imagine he had to make a scene and prove a point. That doesn't prove anything other than he is an @!$%#.
http://www.scottbieser.com/ironic_curtain.html
Aram Garabed..
1. No airplanes back then.
2. You were probably on the other side of the argument with regards to the Representative Cynthia Mackenny incident.
3. Have a nice day.
Look people. Think about what you say.
How many flights do you think U.S. Senators have flown since 911?
Wouldn't you think that if U.S. Senators were exempt from scanning or pat-downs or from detention, that both the Senator and the TSA agent would have exchanged a credentials flash and moved on? Of course.
Senators are not exempt from simple airport security procedures. In fact, Paul never claimed he was exempt.
Paul chose to make a scene. He was either hiding something in his pants or wanted the publicity... most likely the latter.
Congress was in session today, and Rand Paul's flight was to Washington, so he may well have been going to attend the session. However, since he was not, in fact, arrested, the point is moot. His situation was closer to that of a motorist pulled over by a cop. You're not under arrest, but you better not up and leave, either.
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx
Sen. Ted Kennedy ran into trouble more than once with the TSA because someone with his name was on the terrorist watch list, and he had a hard time getting clearance. So Congress is not exempt from TSA requirements. And while we can all agree that TSA needs major modifications, I don't really think Congress should get some kind of special treatment when they fly. Rand Paul needs to grow up.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-08-19-kennedy-list_x.htm
Looks like the TSA are patting-down HOME-GROWN TERRORISTS!
What is the complaint? This is the guy who's bodyguard kicked the Shiiiz out of a girl when he was on the campaign trail. THAT wasn't an issue to him, so what is the big deal, now?
Come on the TSA should know that Mr. Paul is ABOVE THE LAW! Just ask him!
Profiling at its best, he couldn’t blow up a balloon!
Lock up some Mexicans…………………
mikethespike banned, deathwishing a Senator. Don't deathwish anyone.
He DID request a second scan and was refused.
from the letter I got this morning:
I certainly hope he goes all Cynthia McKinney on them an gets an apology.
Senator Rand Paul is back on a plane back to DC - he is going to call Alex Jones show when he lands..it out of detainment (NDAA) by Janet Napolitano good squad..he is pissed..update to come..
Poor lil rich boi...somebody detained him and wasted his and only his precious time. Didn't the TSA realize God had just walked through the airport? Shouldn't the TSA have bowed on bended knee to Little Mr. Spoiled Ass?
Just another example of a red state Republican who forgot he is as much as "public servant" as the TSA employees.
I have flown many times since 9/11 and I have never had a problem with TSA, but then again I am a real American unlike that pompous sanctamonious spoiled brat who is ashamed of his own bald head.
Good for Rand Paul! Now if, only the rest of you brainless twits would
understand that the TSA is not about 'scanning for bombs', but about sticking
their hands on your private parts. Long live libertarian thought, the rest of you
Obamanoid twits can go and suck an egg!
So I guess the TSA said: "Sir, there's some anomaly on your foot, but to know for sure I have to grab your croch and maybe a pat on the buttocks". Well that makes total sense! Why do you think the perv got the TSA job?
lol. once again, the republican irony button is broken. they were more than happy to toss our rights and freedoms to the wind to pursue the contrived neo con wet dream that is the war on terror.
of course, when mr. paul says that the TSA should not bet patting down 6-yo girls, he means that they ought to strictly patting down the moslems. which, once again, irony, because there has been dozens of terrorists attacks by christians in this country since 2001. is he going to be outraged when we start profiling christians as well? im guessing yes.
Too bad they didn't lock the idiot up.
which idiot.........there are several, including most of the TSA. I wouldn't want those perverts groping me. Yuk1
Read the constitution.
Pilgrim4... I gather you don't have much faith in the US Constitution. While he's going to or from sessions, he is for all intents and purposes immune from arrest or detention.
Well, the TSA got this one right. Rand Paul is a terrorist, just not a radical muslim terrorist.
He is a Tea Party Terrorist!
Speaking of idiots, Pilgrim4 you are one! Congressmen and Representatives are not above the law, but the constitution states that neither can be detained. The TSA Nazis knew who he was, I'm sure and they wanted to make an example. I suppose you think 10 million illegal immigrants are above the law?
Sueb; "Congressmen and Representatives are not above the law, but the constitution states that neither can be detainerd" WRONG. " The TSA Nazis knew who he was" Glad that you can read minds duh. And, who the hail is talking about illegal immigrants?
Thank you Sen. Paul !
Rand Paul back on plane to DC - as soon as he lands, he is going to call in to Alex Jones show..
Rand and his pappy certainly won't stand for any federal employees feeling them up.
They'd much rather have State or Walmart employees do it.
Have a nice day, now..
Someone has some balls to stand up to the government thugs.
To: Michael Anderson-1130906
"I have flown many times since 9/11 and I have never had a problem with TSA, but then again I am a real American unlike that pompous sanctamonious spoiled brat who is ashamed of his own bald head."
You wouldn't have a problem - because you don't care about freedom - you're too concerned with personal attacks against someone who is fighting FOR your freedom.
I truly hope Rand Paul drags the fat bimbo Napolitano in front of the Senate to explain why TSA rent a cops she employs thought they had the authority to refuse passage or detain a sitting US SENATOR.
And while he's at it, how about getting Holder to further explain Fast and Furious and all the other illegal gun running schemes his minions are doing.
I wonder if anybody goes to jail for violating the constitution.
peanut: no, there are no criminal penalties prescribed in the constitution. But any violator of the constitution gets bad juju.
Like all good conservatives you either refuse to admit or are to ignorant to understand that the TSA and the financial meltdown were products of the Bush administration. But hey, that damn black Obama has to go.
It does not appear that any of our politicions "go to jail for violating the constitution". They violate their oaths of office daily, read Patriot Act, the recent NDAA. When you swear to uphold and defend the constitution, which I understand includes the Bill of Rights, and then write bills or vote to make them "law" that clearly violate said Amendments. How is that not treason? How do we define treason?
I don't think Sen. Paul was in "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. I think he was at the Airport.
Tom, the TSA may have been a product of the Bush administration (the financial meltdown is much more complicated, and blame goes more to several congresses past than any president), but it's current actions, head, and form are all on Obama.
And like all good Democrat attack dogs, you either refuse to admit or are "to" (sic) ignorant to understand that Democrats controlled Congress during most of Bush's Presidency and overwhelmingly voted for such bloated government as the TSA, as well as having a hand in financial policies that helped cause the financial melt down (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, anyone?!). But hey, let's place all the blame on the Republicans! <<eye roll>>
I applaud the TSA. Under no circumstances do I want to share a plane with an armed Rand Paul. Although not personally responsible, one of Rand's campaign workers did boot-stomp a female critic. Birds of a feather?
mmr_bzn that is irrelevant. Just because congress writes something it is still at the mercy of the president meaning the buck stops with him. And if you remember that was just after 9/11 when everyone was still voting united in congress. And last the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans controlled the House an far cry from controlling congress (do a little research on your claim Democrats controlled congress during most of Bush's presidency). So if you know how congress works the house crafts the bills ie. they all start with the house. In this case it was my idiot congressman Don Young(R) Alaska who sponsored this bill. See now that you know the truth look back on your comment and see how utterly foolish you look.
mmr_bzn, you are wrong. The Democrats did not control Congress during most of Bush's Presidency. The first 2 years the Republicans had one house and it was a tie in the other. Then there was 4 hears of the Republicans having a bare majority in both chambers. Then the last 2 years of the Democrats having a bare majority.
You can't rewrite history to suit your own political view.
mmr...As any canine would tell you if they could, dogs only attack out of fear or mistreatment. Grow up. Republicans are bullies now and always will be. The days of Republican gentlemen are over. Oh sure. They dress like gentlemen and try to pretend they are. Until they open their bullying, bossy, overbearing, meanspirited mouths.
Sicko Republicans actually expect to dish it out and walk all over the rest of the people in this country. Sorry, we give as good as we get.
It didn't take long before this became a Party Bashing Event by Boneheads. Everything isn't about democrat vs republican...This is about someone who doesn't agree with how the TSA conducts is searches but some people use any opportunity to bash someone else because they belong to another political party. Both sides have people who constantly argue like children on the playground. Grow up party extremist.
Blah, blah, blah all of you (ewent, michigan voter, Corey)... So sad that your blind loyalty and complete ignorance of facts cloud your "opinions" so much. If you can't see that the entire political machine of the past 40 years (Dems AND the GOP) has lead us to where we are today, then you all are living with your heads in the sand. The same goes for only GOP being "bullies" and your accusations of re-writing history. Please you guys, read some books and don't believe everything the MSM and the Democratic party tells you to believe and to parrot all over the place. Foolish? Yes, that would be the three of you! I don't even know where to start with you all. The sad part is that you obviously believe everything you're spoon fed by your party and you'll take it all to the voting booth. Education, be damned!
And as for the assumption that I'm a Republican just because I don't bow down to the fallacy that the GOP has caused every single one of America's current problems, it couldn't be further from the truth. You couldn't pay me to support either mainstream party these days!
Both parties are more concerned with keeping American in line than anything else. How do they accomplish this, you ask? By circumventing the Constitution on a daily basis. Open your eyes.
mmr_bzn, I spoke only to your statement that the Democrats had control of the Congress for most of Bush's Presidency. You are in error and that is a mater of historical fact, not opinion.
I agree that it doesn't matter which of them is is power, those of us who work for living are screwed. They will only be concerned with the welfare of the top 1/10th of 1% of the population.
Who we blaming this time, Congress or the Pres? Seems like both sides like to switch up who they blame depending on who is in power...
Blame the Pres! No, it's not the Pres, it's the (opposing) Congress!
Blame Congress! No, it's not Congress, it's the (opposing) Pres!
(insert proper party bias above)
People are silly with their nonsense blanket blaming. The only way to be accurate and truthful is to focus on each individual bit of legislation and determine the actual levels of support and any other circumstance involved.
mmr_bzn: Can name one Republican that took it on himself to ACTUALLY re-write History in conjunction with the State School Board (Texas). In fact, his new textbook changed so much of American History and the History of his State, that future students would find it very difficult to answer test questions from a National source. His initials: R. P. and PS, his new History books are being analyze for inclusion in several States (all Republican).
Shuk...I thought I was the only one who thought that way. I also believe you should look at the person, not the party...
Mmr_bzn..
You go and do a little research as to how much of G.W.'s term the Democrats controlled congress.
Get back to us with some of those "facts."
If I had a dime for everytime a conservative tries breathe "facts" into life in order to distance themselves from the stench of their nonsense, I could pay down the National Debt.
Have a nice day..
Rand Paul is a lunatic, plain and simple.
Lunatic or no, the TSA security measures are all very expensive theater, and don't protect anyone. I wouldn't vote for him, but I surely can support his stand against the invasive patdowns and screenings of people.
He is no better than anybody else is.
well stated june
A vote for ANY of the other candidates, including Obama, shows support for TSA, Patriot and NDAA as written.
Ron Paul 2012!
More like an imbecile. Hate it if he ever gets to be President. The acorn doesn't fall farm from the nutty tree.
In the past, people were called Patriots for standing up and protecting the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Sometimes with their lives. Now they're called "nuts". Thank you liberal America.
This is about passenger safety carter.
It has nothing to do with passenger safety. We are not at war with standing senators, children, or eighty year old grandmothers. However, if safety and security is of more importance to you than liberty, feel free to take your freedom hating values to a country more aligned with your socialist beliefs. I suggest North Korea. Terrorism is nearly non-existent there and the state will keep a very close eye on you and your neighbors. I'm sure you'll feel much safer then.
Carter,he set off the alarms and they wanted to check him. Its no big deal. All of a sudden your calling everyone a socialist and a hater, my god calm down and go have a cocktail or something. Better yet, make the world a better place, go plant a tree or some flowers. You MIGHT have some fun.
And what are you? Welfare check late?
hjack, childish.
People. This is not 1776. Hasn't been for over two hundred years. If the Constitution reverted ONLY to its original writing, imagine the chaos that would sweep over this Nation like the Biblical Flood. This is why we have amendments. In the same vein, imagine that each of the Fifty States were allowed to follow their own path and enact laws they each felt befitted their own State with impunity regardless of laws of other States.... A flood of utter Chaos again. Now imagine that Corporations were allowed to replace our Congress, our Judicial Systems, our State Governments and have total control over our freedoms and our lives. Now you realize what Libertarianism is all about.
Anarcho-capitalism also referred to as “libertarian anarchy” by anarcho-capitalists, “market anarchism,” “free market anarchism” or “private-property anarchism) is a libertarian and individualist anarchistpolitical philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes would not be punished.
Additionally beware of any politician expressing a belief in the The Austrian School of economics, the premise of today's Libertarianism.
SGuardian,thanks for showing intelligence.
royalstar05
Rand Paul is a lunatic, plain and simple.
I had a full pat down, it was no big deal. They offered me a room, but they (two women) & I knew what was setting off the machines - the wire in my bra & they checked me there. I just bought a new one when I landed and had no problem coming back home.
The TSA was set up during the Bush Administration, it might be over kill so what - you either want to be safe or sorry. I for one want to be safe. It was during his administration that we were told we have to give up some freedoms to live in a safer society. I didn't see you guys shouting out then. Senator Rand was being an ass - I would say that for any politician, besides I don't see you all pissing & moaning when they find some who is carry a gun. If he doesn't like the search - like one writer said he can take the bus.
Also those that use or I should say abuse the Constitution to make their point should make sure they know what it says.
Do Ron Paul trolls ever sleep?
Puleeze, with the Ron Paul fanaticism.
Insane little shoulder shrugging imp. He'll sit idly by and watch as States do whatever they want to do to it's citizens.
Missippi, Arizona, Alabama, Utah, Texas, Georgia will be free to trample upon the rights of whoever they see fit to profile.
The border watch will expand to astonomical proportions, and along with it, the Prison-Industrial Complex.
Robber Barons will return to glory.
The Love Canal will look like a beer can in a stream compared to the ensuing pollution following a Ron Paul "deregulate everything" presidency.
The Woolworth lunch counters will be, once again, an everyday occurance, thanks to Paul's Libertarian, do nothing policies.
Not to mention the backwards march with regards to gay rights..
Ron Paul 1912!
Have a nice day.
It is so pathetic to see how many of those posting here just lie down and allow the government to intrude on their freedoms - giving them away so easily while missing the very point that Ron and Rand Paul are actually trying to save YOUR liberties! If you don't respect your rights (or those you USED to have) then why don't you all go live in a communist country... oh, I'm forgetting YOU ALREADY DO!
When I read this kind of stuff, it tells me the "terrorists" (those in the white house) have already won:
__
"I had a full pat down, it was no big deal"
(well, maybe the rest of us DO think it's a big deal)
"Do Ron Paul trolls ever sleep"
(Vigilance is what protects your rights - apathy is how you lose them. At least the Paul's are concerned - unlike you.)
"This is about passenger safety carter."
(Wrong. It's about indoctrinating the public to be good little sheep (it's working) and to always be afraid. Don't worry - the government will protect you. I'm sure 80 year olds and children are a REAL threat - grow a cranium already)
I could go on forever - seeing how brainwashed and resentful so many of you are.
One day your kids will wake up in a Nazi-like country with NO rights. And you can say you helped.
Ron and Rand Paul are all about some racism. In their limited worldview if somebody gets discriminated against then that is the right of the discriminator to chose to discriminate against people based on their race. They cannot fathom that the person being discriminated against has rights too. These two really are just pissed off because the South lost the Civil War. They believe it is in our Nation's best interest that the States have all the governmental power. That is why Ron Paul wants to cut the defense budget to strip power from the Federal government. He would allow every rogue Nation to run wild and without constraint because he thinks the states should be the centers of power not the Federal government. I think of Al Capone, who when confronted by the small time state prosecutors and the state court Judges had his way as all the crooks will have if we allow this cook to have any say whatsoever. It takes the power of the Feds to stand up to these fat cats and crooks. His son wants to strip power from the federal government so that the states can have all the power to discriminate if they chose too and that the Feds have no authority or say. That is why they believe the 1964 Civil Rights Act goes too far. They don't think the Feds can tell a state that they can't have slaves if that is what the state wants. These are some warped racist people. Why would he want to limit the power of the United States? Is there something wrong with these fools? Kentucky's Army would not be able to keep pace with Iran's but the US Army, Navy , Air Force and Marines will keep the Iranians in check. Texas doesn't have a navy so how will they keep the oceans free from obstruction and pirates and keep our enemies and competitors in check? When examined closely it is apparent that Ron and Rand are insiders. Ron has been in the Congress for almost thirty years and his son is a sitting US Senator which is the first time in our Nation's history that a father son has been sitting Congresspeople. Just because they are cook and odd doesn't mean they are outsiders. When is Ron Paul going to apologize to Chairman Bernanke for all the false things he said about him, the Fed and the monetary policies of the Nation? Ron Paul was saying the sky was falling because the Fed was "debasing" the dollar and according to the Pauls bankrupting the Nation. They could not have been farther from correct. Chairmen Bernanke stuck to his plan even in the face of withering criticism and time has proven him correct and Rand and Ron Paul wrong. They should eat crow on C-Span. Hey Ron Paul where is the hyper-inflation you have been screeching about for the last few years? At some point he must admit he was wrong to keep saying the things he said about Chairmen Bernanke and the policies that have pulled our Nation out of the Second Great Depression the GOP caused with their failed economic policies that they continue to cling too.
I understand the TSA is supposed to be about safety in our airlines but I believe it has all been carried too far and each time an incident like this happens America looks foolish. It seems like the pick out big media names, older people, or children just to draw attention to themselves and make us look even more foolish in the eyes of the world. They need to put safety first and stop drawing unwanted attention and bad press to themselves, as it is no one takes them serious. It is just another government organization creating bad press for America!
I think Rand Paul looks foolish....and arrogant, and one of those 1% who is above the law, or has the laws changed to suit them.
I think TSA looks foolish. How about president Obama... he is supposed to be in Atlanta this Thursday, subpoena to court to discuss his eligibility to run for president. If he doesn't show up, it is a felony and should be arrested... that won't happen either.
You are a doofus.
How fascinating that Senator Rand Paul believes himself to be so important and so privileged that his own out-of-touch ideological kookiness ought to come before transportation safety and the kind of security screenings that every single other American has to go through. TSA screening is fine for the rest of America, but it's too much for the delicate libertarian sensibilities of Senator Paul? Please. This man needs a major ego-check from the citizenry. Rand Paul is a symptom of what is so wrong with Congress these days... http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Here's a little Constitutional passage you might want to consider. Courtesy of Aram Garabed above:
Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution.
"They (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; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
What is so difficult to understand? Yes, at certain times and places Congressmen and Senators ARE above the law, or at least not held to the same standard as you or I would be under the same circumstances.
So, where was Paul going? That could determine whether or not he can be detained or arrested.
If he wasn't going to a session of Congress, Article 1 Section 6 does not seem to apply. You posted the text of it, not me.
Also, airport security could very well be considered "breach of the peace".
When insanity is the norm, a sane person appears "kooky."
I didn't see anywhere in the article that he was ARRESTED. He was just not allowed to proceed past that security checkpoint. He requested to be run thru the same screening a second time. I travel thru airports frequently. If every passenger was allowed to request changes to the way they are screened every time that they set off a screening device, the backup would be horrendous. I don't care for some of the screening policies, but they are the rules in place now for air travel. They should be applied the same way for everyone including politians.
Well said, mattpfl. For better or worse, this procedure is the law. Rand Paul is not exempt. Of course, in his radical libertarian fantasy world he lives in, he feels he can do what he wants.
hey matty, a senator is what is wrong with congress? you are a real einstein!
@Matt - did you read the article? Did you miss the part where it showed excerpts from previous Rand Paul statements speaking out against TSA? He wasn't expecting special treatment because of who he is all the while feeling the rest of America should have to go through the screening, he doesn't like the policies of the TSA in general.
Matt, it's that kind of ignorance that brought us the TSA mate.
IF ALQUEDA HAD WANTED TO ATTACK US AGAIN, THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT ALREADY
oh wait, did someone forget the fact that they dont even have enough fuel to drive to work? what are they going to do? KAYAK ACROSS THE PACIFIC OCEAN?
it's stunning ignorance like what you have just displayed that makes our country a bad place. I need a shot of whiskey.
Have any of you been thro TSA security check points lately? This is the same that they would do to you. The only difference may be that you would go to a room and get questioned, where he was just lead away. You would not have been arrested or detained unless you started freaking out or threatening to cause harm to someone.
I wouldnt have freaked out. Go ahead and search me. I dont have anything to hide.
Yes a lot of us have read it but did the TSA? NO they don't read they only can pat you down thats how they read!! When they didn't find any thing he should have gone thru,. It doesn't matter who they are but they have got to figure this out, you won't be touching my grandaughter and getting your jollies.
He liftted his pant leg and set off the alarm. For all we know he probably planted somthing there just to see if he'd get caught. If they would have let him on the plane and he did have something, it would have been a field day and he would have been a hero to all of you who think he somehow could ever possibly be one. I would certainly hope that a US Senator would never allow someone who set off an alarm at the screening to board a plane and put Citizens at risk. No matter who it was.
At least it wasn't me this time. I have several metal screws and a partial metal plate in my head and I have set off metal detectors for 40+ years and it has never bothered me. In fact, that new detector would show exactly what was detected and it still wouldn't bother me.
This episode seems to be a planned test by a kook to get detected. Raising the pants leg probably dislodged the device in the process. Imagine a coin in the pants cuff! Yes, the detector would sound off making it a good excuse of TSA mishandling especially when you despise the Security checks. Wouldn't put it past any Libertarian/Republican.
LOL this is crazy and getting out of control. When will the whole truth abot 9/11 come out not just the osama bin laden part because that wacko is dead now.
I'm sure FOX will be telling all of the right-wingers/fake christians that this is another example of how white people are under assault by President Obama and Eric Holder....lol
Wow, didn't see someone playing the race card at all. Thanks for staying on point .
NotJustWhenACertainPartyIsInPwr - Well now your comment is VERY Racist !
The TSA is not looked upon favorably.......for instance the two older women who were stripped down (one to the colostomy bag) and they later had to apologize for.........that is totally unnecessary, and did they think that a senator would blow up the plane that he was traveling on??? Let him go back through the scanner again.............good grief, use some common sense!!!
You're just finding this out about the TSA?I'm glad this guy refused that STUPID CIVIL RIGHTS BASHING PAT DOWN!I'm no fan of Rand Paul but in this case I'll Tip my hat to him.
The TSA can go Straight to Hell!
It is NOT a civil rights violation. Before anyone enters a secure area at an airport, there are signs that inform the person that they are subjected to search at any time. By attempting to enter that secure area, you are giving implied consent to being searched.
I see many comments collapsed by the community - but so far see no actions from the Moderator for anyone being suspended for their comments and most are pretty rude and racist.
Whats up????
Really signs informing them that the person is subject to a search in a Secure Area?Don't get me started!
To Gloria . . . 13.1
Are you implying that hhijacking an airplane is your CIVIL RIGHT?
I have never approved of the pat downs. In my opinion,the government trys to keep the terrorists fear going so they can continue to take our rights away from us. I have never flown, but since the tsa pat downs I never plan to fly. I am not submitting to the insult. Those scans and pat downs are not catching or preventing terrorist activity.
gloria fabiaschi: You are also subject to searches if you enter any Federal Office and, indeed to State Offices such as Criminal Courts and some Civil Courts. Don't forget about most Military Bases. A word of caution: If you don't want to be searched, stay at home. Even Department Stores can be your enemy!
And age doesn't have any bearing on searches. A little old woman or man can be snookered into carrying an explosive or weapon on board planes or be, in fact, a terrorist. Even young children can be cajoled in carrying something on board. It was proven in Vietnam and in the middle east that children can be suicide bombers. Do we want to take any chances here in America? I'd rather that EVERYONE was checked than risk any innocent's death or maiming. Bet deep down that you would too.
SCGuardian, deep down I would not. To live my life with that level of fear is not something I will do. The reason the September eleven event happened was the intellegence branch of our government was ignoring the information they were given. Doing pat downs this many years later is foolish. It happened, it is done, just get on with living.
To Dallas Brantley!Do you have any idea of what the hell your talking about?Guess what? You DON'T!
To SCGuardian!Gee you mentioned state offices that's funny I was in my State Capital just last week and nobody subjected me to being scanning or molested!As far as courts go in my state was never scanned or molested there either.
Federal Buildings,Hell I just avoid them at all costs.
You know what your problem is SC Guardian?You've been spoon fed a little too much Paranoia Juice and it really starting to take effect.Watch out because the HANG OVER IS A DOOZY!
Bottom line SC Guardian the difference between you and I is I don't buy or drinkl Paranoia Juice.The whole Terrorist thing is a lot of Bull @!$%#.At least that's what this Nazi Corrupt Government has it blown up to and having you believe.You better figure out who the real Terrorists are, and it ain't foreign ones either.They're right in your own backyard.
they don't put their hands on me either, Rand! good job!
He complains the government is "too invasive" while on the way to an anti abortion rally. Hypocritical fathead. If only he could be forced to be pregnant.
You know, there is a good way to never have an abortion (besides being a man), it's called birth control, and its easily accessible in today's world. If you don't want a baby, use some birth control, this is not rocket science people.........
What is not invasive about an abortion? Hypocrite, really? coming from someone who agrees with murdering innocents.
Dear recyclecongress,
It is my understanding that Republicans are against birth control as well as abortion.
They are always wanting to shut down Planned Parenthood. Abortion is only one tool in family planning.
It is also my understanding that Republicans are also against sex education of any kind - well, except abstinance or "just don't do it" (unless you are a congressman and especially if it is in an airport bathroom)
Estfan: What is your stand on Capital punishment? And yes Senator Paul complains that government is "too invasive"; yet he and the Republican and TEA party wants less government in our lives. And yet they want to control what we do with our lives. They somehow think that they should legislate religion and morality . Gotta' wonder. You also make the assumption that the responder agrees with murdering innocents. Perhaps the responder only wants the government to get their noses out of our lives.
Hers's some food for thought: why do you think that someone has the right to tell someone else how to live their life simply because it is counter to what you believe? No one is telling you that you have to partake of that life style so you really shouldn't be telling someone that they need to partake of your lifestyle.
recyclecongress: a bit off the subject of TSA, but I feel compelled to respond to your comment about abortion and birth control. Yes, birth control is easily accessible, but is remains so in spite of repeated attempts by Republicans to change that. Rick Santorum would ban all forms of contraception if he could because it permits sexual behavior which he's decided is not "the way it should be". Republicans have assaulted Planned Parenthood and other sources of birth control information and the "personhood" laws popping up in various states would, in many cases, criminalize hormonal birth control (the pill) as well as life-affirming procedures like IV fertilization. Preach what you practice...
I got a good chuckle out of {if only he could be forced to be pregnant." And Rand Paul's pregnancy ought to be terminated by abortion, because do we need yet another kooky libertarian running around wanting to take us all back to the 1700s? Yes, the rugged individualism is good but it has its limits of sanity, beyond which are we ready to do away with paying taxes so we can have roads that are paved, fire and police, pllus education? Are we ready to do without garbage pickup, clean water from water treatment plants, or do we all go back to washing our clothese in streams (some of them filthy with runoff from hog or cattle manure), do we heat our houses with wood fires, as well as heat our cooking water and our bath water by lugging big pails from whatever running stream or well has been dug? In Ron and Rand Paul's eyes, these laborious details are better handled by indentured servants or slaves. While massa' expounds his philosophy of total individual liberty....for the white guys like him and his son. For therest of us, including all women, it's work, work,, work to make the priviliged males liek these two comfy.
Northern, you need to update your understanding, and use more than just liberal blogs, please. While most Reps are against abortion (for a variety of reasons, religion being only one), most support some form of sex ed (we just want a form that works and is honest), and most support access to and use birth control (though the morning after pill, as it is essentially an abortion, is a more grey topic).
As for abortion rights, off-topic as it is, you should all realize that the real debate isn't whether the woman has rights or not, but whether the fetus has rights or not. If it is a human being, it does. If it isn't, it doesn't. Biology tells us it is a unique and separate member of the human species, but most of us want more than that for 'human beings'. What we generally mean is some level of sapience, which is hard enough to define or measure as it is, but is almost or entirely impossible to measure in many stages of pregnancy. Thus the left claims it (probably) isn't a human life, while the right claims it is. In any such argument, when the truth is uncertain, the principle of erring on the side of caution should be applied. In this case, that means weighing the freedoms and pleasures of the woman against the possible life of the child. If we decide the fetus is a human life and we're wrong, we're only violating the woman's freedoms and comfort for 9 months (not a minor thing, but not everything by any means). If we decide the fetus isn't a human life and we're wrong, we're executing an innocent person without even the semblance of justification. Regardless of your religious or moral beliefs, the above logic is sound.
Thus, we're not really talking about invading private life any more than laws against murder and rape are invasions of privacy.
You know your right he was going to protect life. Lets kill those babies and send all our kids to war. Thats what we need to be statis quo. While where at it lets borrow $ from china to fund it tell every tax payer is so far in the hole there never getting out. Thats the polices rational americans stand for. This Rand Paul guy and his father "crazy" We dont need civil liberties. Down with the Bill Of Rights. Thats just a old paper anyway.
NorthernLights4Me. I'm a Republican, and I'm not against abortion, birth control or sex education. Stereotyping political ideologies like you just did is what is wrong with America today. There are plenty of Republicans like me, and there are plenty of Democrats that are anti-abortion, anti-birth control and anti-sex education too.
Dear Anthony California,
If you are not against abortion then you can't really be a Republican. You are what they call a RINO. Republican In Name Only. There would be absolutely NO WAY you could ever run for high political office, especially President, unless you are firmly against ALL abortion, even rape, incest, etc. Hey, it is your party, not mine. Don't believe me, go ask any of the current or former GOP presidential candidates.
@NorthernLights4Me- to say you can't be a Republican unless you are against abortion is tantamount to saying you can't be a Democrat unless you are against gun rights. I typically lean Republican, though I don't believe it is the governments place to tell you what you can do with your body, therefore, I am pro-choice. Neither party is black and white, there is a lot of grey area, as neither party is determined on the sole basis of one belief.
People should be able to have a choice and have a say as to their own personal well being. However - I do not think that it is ok for the Government to use Tax Payers Money for Abortions or Birth Control.
NorthernLights4Me - you want to have an abortion or use birth control or whatever - Fine!!! Not with MY Tax Money.
Big difference! But now if you really Want to go there - then I would have to say that Democrats just want all the money to hand out to people who do not support themselves.
THAT is what's wrong with politics...Republican...Democrat...Liberal...Conservative..you people will follow anyone because of the party he or she is in.
You should look at the person and see what they stand for.
No wonder politics is so screwed up.
Susie Cue-4302731 I don't know of a fetus or unborn person who has been tried and convicted of taking another persons life. Not one. I don't now of an unborn who was responsibile for being here on their own . I do know people who are the result of rape who have and are making a difference in this world. I know plenty of adopted folks that are happy to be here, have and are making a difference in this world. I don't know of one aborted baby that ever was given that opportunity.
Estfan,
There are only "unborns" in your mind. It's a concept you believe in, nothing more. There's a big difference between a collection of cells with the potential for life and a life in being, a distinction your religious beliefs won't allow you to recognize.
Yep. A real law abidding citizen.Guess his status sets him above all.
No he doesnt think you should have to be groped either.
Aww...is mr. Paul mad because he has to follow the the rules like everyone else? . Am I happy because detaining mr.paul was the procedural correct thing to do? Or do i just enjoy seeing Republicans get stiffed? Answer correctly and win tickets to super bowl XLVI!
ElatedRhino...
What the TSA did is a violation of the Constitution. There is a SPECIFIC passage in it to avoid having Senators and or Congressmen arrested to potentially change the outcomes of votes on the House or Senate floor. WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS CONCEPT?
Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution.
"They (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; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
My vote is "enjoying Republicans getting stiffed"
That's what I would do if I was in the TSA.
Could not airport security be considered "breach of the peace"?
And where was Rand Paul going? If to a campaign event, he is screwed. Article 1 Section 6 wouldn't apply in that case.
Boo hoo. The scanner turned on. more steps required. Its as simple as that. I'm sure he needed the humble experience anyway.
Hey, XD - he WAS NOT ARRESTED! Stop with the copy and paste already.
It's simple, XDm9mm, if you'll just get off your closed-minded, dogmatic horse. You've said the same thing twice here, and you were wrong both times.
The Fourth Amendment protects people and their belongings from unreasonable seizure by governmental agents. But the extent of such seizures are different. An arrest involves being taken into official police custody, and you have no choice to leave and are usually restrained by either handcuffs or by other force preventing your movement. Upon arrest, you will be taken before a judge and will, except in certain cases like murder, be entitled to recover your liberty by paying something called bail. As stated in the most famous United Supreme Court cases on point, Terry v. Ohio (1968) 329 U.S. 1, "An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows." Id. at 26. To be subject to arrest, the police must have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed the offense.
By contrast, a detention is a temporary interference with your right to move as you wish, usually for the purpose of allowing law enforcement officers the opportunity to ask further questions to gather more information or to dispel the original suspicion. Detentions may be accompanied by a limited right to conduct what is called a "pat down" of the detained person when there is reason to believe the detainee is armed and presently dangerous. A detention is justified only if there are "articulable facts" showing that criminal activity is afoot and the person to be detained is involved or has knowledge of a crime that occurred, is taking place, or is about ready to take place. The legal standard for a detention is not probable cause, but rather a "reasonable likelihood." One can walk away from a temporary detention. One can never walk away from an arrest.
The language of the actual exemption is found in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1. Compensation of Members; Privilege from Arrest:
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
XDm9mm, Paul was not detained within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, see my post 1.99 above, and he certainly wasn't placed in handcuffs or had his right to leave taken away, as he, in fact, walked away. Since he wasn't arrested, the constitutional exemption you've cited, albeit in abbreviated form, never came into play.
So XDm9mm, WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS CONCEPT?
Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's Degree in Law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)
Not a fan of Rand Paul AT ALL, but it seems to me that the TSA has gone beyond its bounds when they detain a US senator for any reason. If the terrorists have invaded our government to this level then we might as well do away with the TSA completely! It's a sad day when we can't even trust our senators and representatives when boarding a commercial flight!
Do away with TSA?
Most folks reaction would be to do away with our Constitution; a vote for Obama, Gingrich, Romney or Santorum (all supporters of TSA, Patriot and NDAA as written) will ensure that that will happen.
Ron Paul 2012!
Why is it wrong? He beeped, he needs to be searched. I beeped once due to my watch (beginning after 9/11) and then another time due to coins in my pocket.
Silent Majority,
It's a sadder day when we think our elected officials (who work for us voters, are given nifty fringe benefits at all taxpayers' expense) are somehow so superior, special and better than us so they can be above the law and get special privileges when they are really supposed to be "just one of us." Or are yoiu from a country that is a monarchy or a dictatorship?
Why should we let the crazy Republican through security when even the pilots of the planes have to go through security???
PS. Who would, in their right mind, would NOT consider that Senators, Representatives, or mucky-mucks CANNOT be a TRAITOR to his Country (or a Terrorists). It has happened in the past. That theory is busted.
As far as inbound flights from overseas, the rule of thumb is that the original point of departure of passengers was responsible for checking and verifying. That is erroneous in its very premise IF the passenger debarked at any point (even to change planes) or wasn't properly screened at the originating point.
Another point that rakes TSA screenings is that there have been NO terrorists stopped by TSA. The public doesn't KNOW this for a fact since it, probably will not be published until much later, if at all. Secondly, can any person state that the screenings DID NOT deter someone from an act of Terrorism. The facts may show a completely different story: That they actually stopped an act of terrorism passively ( by changing someone's mind).
How about he just go through to make a good example of what we should all do? This "do as I say, not as I do" is rediculous. I don't care who he is.
He says you shouldn't have to either blue, if he didn't stand up and say something that would make him a hypocrite.
Shameful.
TSA has a decade-long record of failure: not a single terrorist stopped, but a huge impact on the US economy by hindering business travel and an erosion of individual rights through ever-more-invasive searches... though high-tech, cancer-inducing scanners that can be subverted simply by secreting contraband in body orifices.
I couldn't differ more with Senator Paul on politics, but I'd never question his patriotism. Seriously, who thinks that preventing a SITTING US SENATOR from boarding a flight has made anyone safer?
Geez Phil - will you show the link that backs up your statement "preventing a sitting US Senator from boarding a flight".....was he prevented from boarding his flight or are you writing headlines for FOX News?
Maybe not a sitting senator, but I think preventing some of the sitting house members from boarding a flight would make all of us safer.
Dune, I'm no Fox news fan, but the TSA says they didn't clear him for his flight. He was, therefore, prevented from boarding his flight.
And, Debbie, while I also hold the opinion that there are plenty in Congress who are making things worse rather than better, the purpose of the TSA is to keep bad guys off planes. People who respond that Paul is a jerk and deserves what he gets miss the point. We have casually handed over a right to privacy in exchange for a dubious amount of increased security. I think we need to re-evaluate that transaction.
The only thing that "prevented" Paul from getting on the flight was "himself"! All he had to do was submit to the "pat down" as prescibed by regulations in place...
Spin it like you want.......aren't the Pauls the ones who proclaim "accept personal responsibility"?
btw - don't feel too sorry for Rand - I'm sure he is pulled to the side every time he wants to go on a ride at Disney World for failing height requirements!
He did accept personal responsibility, he refused the pat down, asked to be scanned again, after two hours of arguing with them he was finally scanned again without incident boarded another flight and continued on to DC.
I doubt it was a political stunt, but so what if it was? This is what many Americans go through all of the time and have little to no recourse.
Remember folks, Obama fully supports TSA, as does Gingrich, Romney and Santorum. Issue by issue, there is no difference between any of them except for the initial (D or R) that follows their name.
Ron Paul 2012!
I've had with the naivete of Ron Paul's supporters. Here's the scoop as I see it:
Paul allowed his name to be used to publish racist rants like "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Paul has no problem banning abortions, which was outlawed by Rowe v. Wade, but just thinks it's a state's job to do the banning because of his warped view of the 10th Amendment. Paul has stated that because he delivered 4000 babies, he knows that life begins at conception (this is as stupid a statement as he's ever uttered--when life begins has been, is, and will always be a question for philosophers or politicians, and certainly not some quirky physician who delivered babies). Ron Paul is a also global warming flip-flopper and now a global warming denier.
In 2008, Ron Paul had this to say about global warming: "It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations. By 2009, Paul was singing a different tune: “The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years, has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” Even if Ron isn't being paid off by Big Oil, he's still a dupe doing their bidding. The concept that humans cause global warming is shared by the vast majority of legitimate climatologists in the world; only scientists hired by Big Oil promulgate the myth that global warming is a hoax or is not caused by human activities. Moreover, his claim that global warming has been a hoax for hundreds of years is so obviously wrong: concerns about global warming have not existed for “hundreds of years.” I was around (as were you) for the first “Earth Day” in 1970, and global warming or climate change wasn’t an issue then. I’d say it became a topic of discussion about 15 years ago. Paul’s statement about there being a global warming hoax for hundreds of years is patently ridiculous.
However, the most frightening thing about this dogmatic old fart you find so irresistible is his belief that we are a Christian nation. According to Ron, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." This is demonstrably wrong, according to no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court, which has consistently recognized that the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was to build or erect a wall separating Church and State, as stated by Thomas Jefferson, who chaired the committee that drafted it:
"[A]t the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: ‘Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878) (emphasis added).
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’" Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, citing Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164 (emphasis added).
"This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947).1 Relying on the history of the Clause, and the Court's prior analysis, Justice Black outlined the considerations that have become the touchstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa.2 “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’ ”Everson, 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S.Ct., at 511 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878)). The dissenters agreed: “The Amendment's purpose ... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion.” 330 U.S., at 31–32, 67 S.Ct., at 519–520 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.); accord, Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577, 599-600 (1992). So what does Paul say about these court decisions: "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." So this arrogant twit, who was not and is not educated in law, purports to be a higher authority on what the Founding Fathers intended by the religious clauses in the First Amendment than the Supreme Court, the final judicial authority, has consistently ruled since 1878.
Just because Paul wants to dismantle the federal government, as you may want, and will allow you to smoke pot (unless the states continue to outlaw it) doesn't make him a fit candidate for President of the United States. His brand of government may have worked in the 19th Century, but certainly not in the 21st. He keeps being rejected by the electorate because too many of his ideas are just plain kooky.
But fear not, Paulists; if he survives the next four years, he'll only be 80 years old, and will be able to trot out his ego once again to be rejected for a fourth time by America.
Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's Degree in Law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)
RON PAUL 2012!
But Chaz and Valley Girl, I thought Ron Paul was against all government intervention in our livves? As a good libertarian why wouldn't he want all of us to board a flight entireley without government attention? That's a hypocrisy if he thinks the government should do any screening at all to catch possible terrorists? Like all the other liberatorian canon, to follow Ron Pual to his l ogical conclusion, we'd abolish all government oversight of air,, highway, water and clean air safety andn let us all individually deal with it ourselves. Not to mention abolish all government involvement in building and maintaining public highways andn utilities.Let's go back to the ox cart day when all of us individual pioneers built our own wagons, trusted to whatever cattle path or unpaved road might let us negotiate, o r better yet, dig a bunch of canals and let us all go back to towpaths and just plain old stayiing home, getting water from a creek, stream or river, or swamp, building fires to heat our water and our cabins, and if we get sick, no 911 (a government interference there) to call for emergency assistance. Let us learn again the herbal remediees of Native Americans and use that for homegrown medical attention. There are too many people n the wold anywway, so why would we want a baby to be delivered in a hospital? If it isn't healthy, let nature take care of that. And for that matter, who the hell needs birth control except for hos and their pimps? No vaccinations to protect us from deadly childhood diseases of the 19th century no food and drug administration to protect us from poisonous and useless nostrums sold by patent medicine men? Those were the good old days. Keep all the women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, the bedrooom or the washtub, or growiing vegetables. Or mmilking cows or birthinng cows.
Lil' Debbie
I read two of your posts as I scrolled down this page and you have no idea what youu are talking about. maybe you should research the positions of someone before you put out misinformation that is so far off base it is laughable.
Elect his father Ron Paul for president and the TSA will be abolished and replaced with effective counter terrorism screening. The TSA is just another government boondoggle that does not prevent terrorism but does violate basic personal liberty not to mention the violation of basic human dignity. The body scanners exist because of private lobbying money to Congress in exchange for buying their scanners. It's corruption by our own lawmakers. Vote for structural change, Vote Ron Paul 2012.
Could you describe the "effective counter terrorism screening" methods that Paul recommends? And can you explain how he could do it with executive authority?
Simply adopt the Israeli method of screening. I'm not suggesting he would do it with "executive authority" but with leadership and taking the message to the public.
The TSA does these things to people who are obviously not going to hijack a plane to avoid the charge of racial or religious profiling. It would not be politically correct to concentrate on those most likely to hijack one based on their circumstances, religion, and ethnic background.
I don't have a problem with the TSA doing to him what they do to the American public everyday. Politically correct screenings mean they should apply to EVERYONE!
It would not be CONSTITUTIONAL to concentrate "those most likely" to hijace a plane based on their "circumstances", religion, and ethnic background.
How do you determine someone's circumstances and religion at the airport. And what "ethnic background" are you talking about? Arabic? There are many Christian Arabs. BTW, there are many muslims that come from many different ethnic backgrounds. Since Islam spreads from Europe all the way to the Pacific Islands.
chaz, the Israeli method is only used by one air company in a relatively small number of airports. It would not work for U.S. airline companies.
The TSA and our government is so afraid to profile but they have no problem strip searching an 80 year old women on oxygen or a six year old girl coming back with her family from Disney. Random searching is fine I suppose but to really make me feel safe they better start profiling. If the random method allows some 28 year old male from Yemen to go through without any extra screening or attention because the six year old girl is in the middle of being violated then I have a problem with it.
Agreed !
Your ticket is ready. Board flight XXX. PS: Be sure that your Insurance is paid up and for good measure, purchase Travel Insurance at our booth. "Please note that An Act of War nullifies your policy with us" (very small print). Please have a good flight and be assured that your safety is our top priority "unless your flight is hijacked or blown up by a terrorist. In that event Rest In Peace" ("very small print").
I think he, like the rest of us, should be free to fly without being groped. I applaud that he complained, and I'm a Democrat so idk why this had to become a party issue.
It's not the terrorists, but the TSA, that are the reason I avoid the airports. That will have to change if I wind up studying abroad since taking the train to London is impossible.
I'd rather be blown up by the terrorists than be groped by the TSA. Feel free to disagree with me if you want, but please do it in a respectful manner.
Perhaps one of the requirements for a TSA screener position should be understanding and knowing what the US Constitution says, but then again the "Patriot" Act did strip some of those guarantees from the citizenry and nary a peep out of us.
Susie... that's because the sheeple actually think the facade of security that TSA and other "security measures" actually work to make them safe.
It's sad how seriously ignorant the American people are on their "security" and the slow insidious erosion of their Constitutional Rights.
XDm9nun i agree with you except for the "slow insidious erosion" part. The erosion seems to be moving pretty fast to me but I'm getting old and everything seems fast :)
He wasn't detained or arrested. He refused to follow protocol and was escorted out and allowed to go on his merry way, totally by his own choice. By your thinking he should also be allowed to board without a ticket because he cannot be interfered with. The constitution was in no way infringed on. Like all republicans they think there are royalty and rules only apply to the peasants.
This country has to be run for the masses. To run it for the corporations and wealthy so they can provide for the peasants is hilarious.
The "sheeple" still believe that it would have been impossible for 9/11/2001 to have been an INSIDE JOB along with its COVER_UP. Cheney palnned it, and its aftermath for 30 years, so that the Constitution could be legislatively subverted, and so that the West's oil conglomerates could grant themselves access to all of the world's remaining known oil reserves.
Exactly how many totally honest American men and women have been held under the "Patriotic Act"? Or sent to our facility in Cuba? Can anyone answer these questions, honestly?
Now can anyone name who were interned in a fenced in and heavily armed interment camps within the U. S. in the 1800's. How about at the onset of WWII. The answer for these to questions were (1.) Native Americans and for (2.) Japanese Americans. Both had their property and valuables confiscated by the U.S. Government never to be seen again.
Now name the two American entities that served within WWII, honorably. Answ. Navajos (Army Code Talkers) and Japanese American volunteers (Army foot soldiers).
What was the end result. Was he allowed to proceed or as indicated, was removed from the secure area? Did he even have a ticket?
Read the article.
ah he did not want a pat down, because he might have been hiding weed in his underwear LOL
Old fashioned grandma.... I like your theory!
They first make you think it is OK to be searched at every turn. First airport, then train, then bus, boat, movies, then work, then shopping mall, then random searches in your home will come. To make life easy, they will give you special ID if you disclose everything to them and be their servant. They will tell you, put this chip on and you will have VIP status and you can proceed without a search in some cases. Then when everybody has the chip, they will have total control. Without the chip you won't be able to buy-sell goods or services. Without the chip, you won't have a bank account. Paper money will not exist. All your virtual money will be under their control. You won't be able to move. You won't be able to take a job. If you object them in any way, they will turn your chip off and it will be as if you never existed!
Really franku, you dont have to fly, thats not a right, its a privilege. Have you already forgotten planes crashing into the twin towers? Short term memory is a sign of mental instability. Perhaps you need a check up?
Flying is a right. You pay the fare you have the right to get on the plane. Unreasonable search and seizure is not a right of the federal government on U.S. citizens. The government can not enter your home or car or place of business. Your person is your private right. This has gone too far. Extreme prejudice and moral insult is not what we want from our government. There are other ways and those ways have been proposed.
old fashioned grandma's theory makes sense to me. It sounds like he had something to hide which was non-metallic (willing to go through the screener a second time) but which could be felt in a pat down (which he refused).