Sen. Rand Paul detained by TSA

[Exterous]

It really isn't

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/detain
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/detained
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detained

:hmm:

I'm sure this is not the first time Rand Paul has flown on a commercial flight, he should have known that you can't go back through the scanner. I've been flying for 20+ years and am fully aware of that rule.

And how does that equate to him making a point that he is above the law? I could have been but I think its a bit much to jump to that conclusion. IMO its more likely the point was that was the only thing that he considered acceptable. Doesn't mean that he thinks he is above the law only that he thinks the law should be changed

 

[Nintendesert]

On a slightly similar note, I'd rather be patted down then go through an X-ray machine. I'm not a big fan of being fukashima'd.

 

[PokerGuy]

When Craig and I are agreeing, those in opposition have to realize they are in the wrong.

Or -- more likely -- when you agree with Craig on something, it means you need to step back and re-evaluate your position. If you're on the same side as that idiot you're likely both wrong.

 

[Exterous]

I've only noticed backups on heavy travel days such as before and after a holiday but not during normal travel days. This also includes going through security at O'Hare, Miami, and LAX.

*shrug* It was early October weekday (Tuesday?) around 2pm. Actually I had a long wait time leaving Ft Lauderdale on that trip as well at about 10am. Thinking back to other recent trips: early November in Tampa was annoying as well (Which really suprised me). Dont remember how long it was but I was definately irritated by it. Chicago airports are generally pretty busy whenever I fly out through them. Dublin had a insanly long line but that was customs as well. DTW is usually pretty fast though. Haven't been through Miami or LAX but I'll have to make several trips through LAX in March.

Rambling aside it seems pretty hit and miss to me. What I really want is a section for veteran travelers and another section for clueless people/families with children. I've got my system down and try to get in the line with the most business/veteran flyer looking people but too often I get stuck behind some people who have apparently never been to an airport before

 

[cybrsage]

Or -- more likely -- when you agree with Craig on something, it means you need to step back and re-evaluate your position. If you're on the same side as that idiot you're likely both wrong.

Nah, we are almost always on polar opposite views...so when we agree, whatever it is we agree on must be the correct thing.

 

[cybrsage]

Rambling aside it seems pretty hit and miss to me. What I really want is a section for veteran travelers and another section for clueless people/families with children. I've got my system down and try to get in the line with the most business/veteran flyer looking people but too often I get stuck behind some people who have apparently never been to an airport before

I FULLY agree with you.

 

[Darwin333]

Actually it's the law. And we don't get to pick and choose which laws apply to us as individuals. It is a pretty strait forward concept really.

Are you familiar with the 4th amendment? It is pretty straight forward as well.

 

[Darwin333]

Yes, because clearly there is no difference between the situations. That must be what I'm saying.

Frankly there isn't much difference in the situation. In both instances basic Constitutional rights were being violated. In both cases a large portion of the "masses" are/were ok with the violation of everyones Constitutional rights.

 

[Darwin333]

*shrug* It was early October weekday (Tuesday?) around 2pm. Actually I had a long wait time leaving Ft Lauderdale on that trip as well at about 10am. Thinking back to other recent trips: early November in Tampa was annoying as well (Which really suprised me). Dont remember how long it was but I was definately irritated by it. Chicago airports are generally pretty busy whenever I fly out through them. Dublin had a insanly long line but that was customs as well. DTW is usually pretty fast though. Haven't been through Miami or LAX but I'll have to make several trips through LAX in March.

Rambling aside it seems pretty hit and miss to me. What I really want is a section for veteran travelers and another section for clueless people/families with children. I've got my system down and try to get in the line with the most business/veteran flyer looking people but too often I get stuck behind some people who have apparently never been to an airport before

So your ok with the government taking your rights away as long as it doesn't inconvenience you to much?

 

[Zargon]

I'm sure this is not the first time Rand Paul has flown on a commercial flight, he should have known that you can't go back through the scanner. I've been flying for 20+ years and am fully aware of that rule.

you are missing the point

Seems to me like these Paul people want to strip civil liberties away from everyone but themselves.

you are mising the point, he is the exact opposite

And how does that equate to him making a point that he is above the law? I could have been but I think its a bit much to jump to that conclusion. IMO its more likely the point was that was the only thing that he considered acceptable. Doesn't mean that he thinks he is above the law only that he thinks the law should be changed

exactly the point. he thinks the pat downs are ludicrous and has said so in senate session and rails the TSA anytime he can for violating civil liberties and privacy rights.

Hayabusa beat me to it, but here it is again.
What you're saying is that Rosa Parks should have just shut up and obeyed.

Yes, because clearly there is no difference between the situations. That must be what I'm saying.

is there though? civil rights apply to everyone. the 60's was different because minorites were oppressed by white, now EVERYONE is being oppressed by the government. different yet the same(though not to the same extreme)

the SCOTUS *JUST* ruled that Law Enforcement has to get a warrant to put GPS trackers on cars.

why did that even need a ruling? 20 years ago it would be assumed that you cant track citizens without warrants, now we are having to take out own government to court to secure rights we should already have according to teh constitution.

 

[shira]

Oh, well if it's the rules then anything they want to do is fine. It's the rules after all.

And if a bushy-bearded Muslim type refused the pat-down in the same situation and was detained, you'd assume the same, snide tone. Because you're really, really principled.

 

[Darwin333]

What rights are violated?

Nothing. Flying is not a right. Driving isn't a right either. To fly or drive one must do what the government requires of you. If you refuse, you cannot drive or fly.

The right to travel using the means of the day and time are inherent rights for ANY society that wants to even think about calling itself "free".

If what you say is true then they wouldn't need wiretapping laws. If you want to use a telephone these are the rules, using a telephone or a cell phone is not a right. Don't believe me than show me where it says using a cell phone is a right in the constitution. Funny that you used driving too since your 4th amendment rights (for the most part) are still intact when you are driving your vehicle.

PS You can drive on your own private property all you want without following most of the .gov "rules".

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The right to travel using the means of the day and time are inherent rights for ANY society that wants to even think about calling itself "free".

If what you say is true then they wouldn't need wiretapping laws. If you want to use a telephone these are the rules, using a telephone or a cell phone is not a right. Don't believe me than show me where it says using a cell phone is a right in the constitution. Funny that you used driving too since your 4th amendment rights (for the most part) are still intact when you are driving your vehicle.

PS You can drive on your own private property all you want without following most of the .gov "rules".

I suggest you read the 1973 ruling in U.S.A. vs Davis, which has been upheld repeatedly, to see why the fourth amendment isn't applicable here.

“noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

“[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

 

[Zargon]

Frankly there isn't much difference in the situation. In both instances basic Constitutional rights were being violated. In both cases a large portion of the "masses" are/were ok with the violation of everyones Constitutional rights.

yup this.

The right to travel using the means of the day and time are inherent rights for ANY society that wants to even think about calling itself "free".

If what you say is true then they wouldn't need wiretapping laws. If you want to use a telephone these are the rules, using a telephone or a cell phone is not a right. Don't believe me than show me where it says using a cell phone is a right in the constitution. Funny that you used driving too since your 4th amendment rights (for the most part) are still intact when you are driving your vehicle.

PS You can drive on your own private property all you want without following most of the .gov "rules".

and this.

those who think otherwise are likely sheeple scared by the mean terrorists that the government swears is coming to get us all

 

[monovillage]

*shrug* It was early October weekday (Tuesday?) around 2pm. Actually I had a long wait time leaving Ft Lauderdale on that trip as well at about 10am. Thinking back to other recent trips: early November in Tampa was annoying as well (Which really suprised me). Dont remember how long it was but I was definately irritated by it. Chicago airports are generally pretty busy whenever I fly out through them. Dublin had a insanly long line but that was customs as well. DTW is usually pretty fast though. Haven't been through Miami or LAX but I'll have to make several trips through LAX in March.

Rambling aside it seems pretty hit and miss to me. What I really want is a section for veteran travelers and another section for clueless people/families with children. I've got my system down and try to get in the line with the most business/veteran flyer looking people but too often I get stuck behind some people who have apparently never been to an airport before

Due to the pollution that's emitted by the airlines and the huge increase in the carbon footprint of people that frequently fly, I think that citizens should be limited to 6,000 flying miles per year. More than that they should be required to walk. After all flying or driving isn't a right.

 

[monovillage]

And if a bushy-bearded Muslim type refused the pat-down in the same situation and was detained, you'd assume the same, snide tone. Because you're really, really principled.

I am, especially compared to whiny little bed wetters like you.

 

[Exterous]

So your ok with the government taking your rights away as long as it doesn't inconvenience you to much?

Yes - thats exactly what I said I have posted many a time against the TSA - esp in regards to pat downs and body scanners. However, that doesn't mean I think their baggage scanners and metal/laptop/liquid rules violate my rights (different from being ineffective/over-reacting) and I certainly don't see those going anywhere any time soon. Therefore I would like a line for seasoned travelers who can actually manage to deal with these rules instead of getting behind a family that has a complete meltdown trying to get everything on the conveyor belt

 

[Darwin333]

Ok, lets look at all this Rand Paul accomplished.

Because Rand Paul would not play by existing laws, he not only slows up things for himself, he also slows down his fellow passengers.

But Rand Paul is US Senator and thus has a better venue, because he can introduce a bill advocating exactly those rule changes. But if Rand Paul can't convince at least 50 other Senators, he is going no where either.

So Rand glories at being the ahole who inconveniences everyone while getting nothing accomplished in the process.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem holding you up by refusing to have my rights violated by the government. Frankly, the only thing that upsets me is that I can't hold you up even longer and in a perfect world make the entire fucking line of sheep miss their flights. Maybe then you and the rest of the sheep might speak up about the blatant violation of our 4th amendment rights.

All this bullshit about "flying isn't a right". We have the right to freely travel from state to state using the mode of transportation of the day/time. I understand reasonable security but unwarranted searches that have absolutely zero cause (even unreasonable) performed by the government simply to get onto a private plane is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. All of the other arguments about being able to travel other ways are bullshit pure and simple.

Just like my example of cellphones. Using the exact same argument as yall are with air travel the government could record every single cellular call and text message without a warrant. Don't like it then don't use a phone its not like there aren't other ways to communicate like writing a letter and the constitution says absolutely nothing about your "right" to use a cellphone. Since the government owns the airwaves that those phones use, its their rules right? Don't like it then don't use a cell.

 

[Darwin333]

I suggest you read the 1973 ruling in U.S.A. vs Davis, which has been upheld repeatedly, to see why the fourth amendment isn't applicable here.

I am not arguing that airport security violated the 4th in 1973. It was perfectly reasonable in my opinion until 9/11 and has just gotten insanely worse since then.

Groping a 5 year old (otherwise called molestation when done without an insane amount of reasonable cause or a warrant) for weapons or explosives is not reasonable by any dumbass standard that you can think of.

The real irony of the entire situation is that we have completely removed the ability for another 9/11 type of attack to happen with the clever use of reinforced doors and the really ingenious use of locks in said reinforced doors.

 

[Darwin333]

Seems to me like these Paul people want to strip civil liberties away from everyone but themselves.

What makes you think that? I am pretty sure that Rand has argued against these very same TSA policies in the Senate. I could be wrong but you might want to check before you make statements like that.

 

[Zargon]

What makes you think that? I am pretty sure that Rand has argued against these very same TSA policies in the Senate. I could be wrong but you might want to check before you make statements like that.

you are correct, Rand HATES the TSA. and is very anti-pat down

and anti patriot act

and the defense authorization act

 

[Craig234]

Groping a 5 year old (otherwise called molestation when done without an insane amount of reasonable cause or a warrant) for weapons or explosives is not reasonable by any dumbass standard that you can think of.

If we didn't search 5 year olds, it'd be impossible for any adult to put something on them.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

In the specific circumstance of Rand Paul, which is what we are talking about, he set off the image scanner. It detected an anomaly at his knee that required further investigation. A potential risk or threat was detected.

Would you have had them not examine a potential threat further? Would you have them make arbitrary decisions after a detection on which threats to examine further?

Do I think everyone should be examined with full body pat downs? No. Do I think someone in this circumstance should have been? Absolutely.

If you can't see the diffence between that and the civil rights movement I can't help you.

This is definitely a civil rights issue and it's a great candidate for civil disobedience type protests. Frankly I'm disgusted by not only the TSA but the fact that Americans tolerate it. I'm ashamed that my countrymen allow themselves to be treated like sheep.

 

[fskimospy]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/detain
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/detained
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detained

:hmm:

Sorry, still not going to fly. The applicable legal definition in this case is:

1 : to hold or keep in custody or possession [property wrongfully ed] [a juvenile ed in a care facility]
2 : to restrain from proceeding [ed the driver and asked to see his license]

They did not hold him or keep him in custody. They also did not restrain him from proceeding. Had he attempted to enter the restricted area anyway then he almost certainly would have been detained, but the simple act of telling him that he was not permitted in there is not detention under any definition of the word.

Again, just from a sanity check standpoint, the US government is perpetually detaining basically the entire US population under your definition as it does not allow you to enter Area 51.

 

[Doppel]

What rights are violated?

Nothing. Flying is not a right. Driving isn't a right either. To fly or drive one must do what the government requires of you. If you refuse, you cannot drive or fly.

You are a fine citizen comrade. Flying and roads existed before the tsa or th security theater post 911. People built lives upon existing transportation. Your view, though common, is exceedingly naive.

My hope, but not belief, is that this brings things to the forefront to a degree necessary to curtail tsa significantly.