Sen. Rand Paul detained by TSA

[the DRIZZLE]

So your opinion is that the TSA's policies have zero effect on safety.

My opinion is that the extremely marginal increase in safety is far out weighed by the massive inconvenience and expense. Image the economic value of the hour of wasted time for each air passenger.

The argument that flying is voluntary so you give up all your rights is a cop out. Sure, it is reasonable to expect that you give up SOME degree of rights but not all of them. The police can pull you over and give you a breathalyzer but they can't search your car without probable cause.

The level of security at airports is completely insane especially when you compare it to other soft targets. It is not only offensive to our values but rationally unjustifiable.

 

[Jhhnn]

How about a senator traveling to office to vote?

If it was your road you stopped him on, that's serious crime.

Unless of course the mind of the liberal now suddenly is in love with promptly rights as long as it is to prevent those that disagree with the mind of the liberal.

I've got the liberal all figured out. This thread exposes them.

I'm not defending the TSA in the slightest, but I will contest the idea that any Senator has greater rights than the rest of us. If I have to put up with the lingering hysteria of the Bush Admin's Terrarist Threat! ravings in the form of the TSA, so does he. He puts his pants on the same way that I do.

We are a nation of laws, not of men, so we all have to obey them, even when we call upon or representatives to change them.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Witness the mind of the liberal. Nothing but insults when faced with facts

>Posts three demands: "Watch; watch; witness."
>calls them "facts."


Fact
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact (derived from the Latin Factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

Jesus, if English was the official language of the US, spidey would be deported.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Just so I can keep this straight when OWS uses civil disobedience that's good and morally justified but when Rand Paul does it's not?

 

[Jhhnn]

Just so I can keep this straight when OWS uses civil disobedience that's good and morally justified but when Rand Paul does it's not?

In the practice of real civil disobedience, the perps expect, even demand, to be arrested & tried under the law.

Rand Paul expects his position as a Senator to shield him from that.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Just so I can keep this straight when OWS uses civil disobedience that's good and morally justified but when Rand Paul does it's not?

Where was the civil disobedience?
By the story, he triggered the alarm, refused the pat-down, and so was denied entry to the secure area. Everything went according to the system.

 

[lothar]

Where was the civil disobedience?
By the story, he triggered the alarm, refused the pat-down, and so was denied entry to the secure area. Everything went according to the system.

There wasn't any.

Read the posts on the first few pages.
It's some people on the first few pages of this thread complaining about what Rand Paul did that are considering it an act in civil disobedience.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

In the practice of real civil disobedience, the perps expect, even demand, to be arrested & tried under the law.

Rand Paul expects his position as a Senator to shield him from that.

I don't think that's an accurate description of what happened. If anything the opposite is true which is that he didn't actually break the law so there was no civil disobedience which is of DominionSeraph's point.

But this is all just semantics. If he made his point without actually violating the law then that's arguably better than civil disobedience. My point is that people who defended far more questionable behavior from OWS and are now all of sudden talking about respect for the rule of law.

 

[nyker96]

... He's one of the greatest people in the Senate currently, I expect him to make an example out of this.

I think you are in love.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If he made his point without actually violating the law then that's arguably better than civil disobedience.

His action made no point, other than he's kinda stupid for having as his sole plan the use a mode of transportation for which he was not prepared to fully meet the prerequisites.

My point is that people who defended far more questionable behavior from OWS and are now all of sudden talking about respect for the rule of law.

It's terrorists who want to bypass this law to blow up planes. Having unsecured people in the "secure" area is a security threat.
OWS's goal was economic fairness, and they used civil disobedience to make a point on how much they wanted it. They did not want to blow up planes and so bypassed airport security to show how much they wanted to be able to do it.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

His action made no point, other than he's kinda stupid for having as his sole plan the use a mode of transportation for which he was not prepared to fully meet the prerequisites.



It's terrorists who want to bypass this law to blow up planes. Having unsecured people in the "secure" area is a security threat.
OWS's goal was economic fairness, and they used civil disobedience to make a point on how much they wanted it. They did not want to blow up planes and so bypassed airport security to show how much they wanted to be able to do it.

So people who think the screening process is unreasonable are terrorists? Call me Osama fucking bin Ladin then.

 

[DominionSeraph]

So people who think the screening process is unreasonable are terrorists?

Or really stupid.

I'm flying tomorrow. I sure as hell want to know that all the dumb-fuck conservatards who might be on that plane have been disarmed and so can be dealt with with a punch to the face.
The travel of the sane should not be disrupted by the need to have to go to extraordinary lengths to bypass the possibility of crazy armed people. The crazies should just be disarmed so everyone can go about their business.

 

[Siddhartha]

Since the Senate is in session....

"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."

Federal agency violates the constitution, is anyone surprised?

I was looking for this. I wonder if the TSA person knew with whom he was dealing?

 

[umbrella39]

TSA prevented his travel, unconstitutional. What next? Know why that's in there? It's so Obama can't have the TSA or his goons detain members of the opposing party from doing the work of the people. Hell, even ABC is commenting on it being unconstitutional what the TSA did.

Well gee, you almost made it through this OP without blaming Obama with some crazier than usual tangent...

 

[SViscusi]

Wow this thread is incredibly enlightening. Who knew that refusing to allow security to check you before boarding a plane was the equivalent to centuries of policies used to disenfranchise a race of people simply because of their skin tone. Ron Paul truly is a great American hero just like Rosa Parks.

 

[umbrella39]

Funny that Obama would side by the TSA.
He loves to rail on the 1% and then his smug ass flies AFO.

Yet another inane Obama diversion...

 

[CitizenKain]

Witness the mind of the liberal. Nothing but insults when faced with facts

Witness the mind of a rightwinger. Nothing but insults when faced with facts.

 

[umbrella39]

Fool.

Snipped all the usual small, blanket insulting coward tripe and saved your publisher a bunch of proofreading when reading your autobiography.

Fool.





The End.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I was looking for this. I wonder if the TSA person knew with whom he was dealing?

Probably wouldn't be relevant. He would have had to breach the peace to get arrested.

 

[umbrella39]

Witness the mind of a rightwinger. Nothing but insults when faced with facts.

Read the transition from his OP to his last post... it is like watching a small child figure out for the where that poopy smell is coming from...

 

[monovillage]

Wow this thread is incredibly enlightening. Who knew that refusing to allow security to check you before boarding a plane was the equivalent to centuries of policies used to disenfranchise a race of people simply because of their skin tone. Ron Paul truly is a great American hero just like Rosa Parks.

1st, it was Rand Paul.
2nd, forcing african-american people to sit in the back of the bus was the law.
3rd, the law was upheld by the courts.
4th, Rosa Parks broke a law that should have been broken.
5th, she is a hero because she placed herself at great risk to fight an injustice.
6th, that injustice was eventually overturned in court.

 

[SilthDraeth]

The guidelines are xray scanner or pat down.

He went through the xray scanner and failed to pass it, which if you refuse you dont get to fly.

If you fail an xray scanner or a traditional scanner YOU SHOULD be patted down. I don't see how that is controversial.

Right. So you go in, and go through scanner, it goes off, they say pat down, you can say no, and leave the air port. You do not have to consent to a pat down. Not consenting does mean that you know you won't be flying.

 

[RabidMongoose]

1st, it was Rand Paul.
2nd, forcing african-american people to sit in the back of the bus was the law.
3rd, the law was upheld by the courts.
4th, Rosa Parks broke a law that should have been broken.
5th, she is a hero because she placed herself at great risk to fight an injustice.
6th, that injustice was eventually overturned in court.

Rand Paul is pretty different than Rosa Parks. The latter tried to bring civil liberties to people. Rand Paul is more interested in removing civil liberties from the individual. He's like the anti-Rosa Parks.

 

[J-Money]

1st, it was Rand Paul.
2nd, forcing african-american people to sit in the back of the bus was the law.
3rd, the law was upheld by the courts.
4th, Rosa Parks broke a law that should have been broken.
5th, she is a hero because she placed herself at great risk to fight an injustice.
6th, that injustice was eventually overturned in court.

Rosa Parks situation was a racial / discrimination issue.
Rand Paul was an airport security issue.

Sure they both went against "the law" but in VERY different circumstances. They aren't even close to comparable.

Not saying I disagree with what you're TRYING to say, but you really need a better example. Using a racist issue as comparison to inconvenience at an airport is pretty offensive to black people.

 

[monovillage]

The issue of illegal searches isn't just an "inconvenience", it's a direct violation of the Constitution. What Ms. Parks was fighting against was a violation of the Constitution that was being upheld by the courts and the government. There are more similarities then there are differences.

It seems that you and others like you (both on the left and right) want us to just shut up and endure the searches, the scans, the pat downs, the restrictions, the humiliation of having the TSA rub (in the proper approved TSA manner of course) your wife's ass, your child's crotch, your mother's boobs and your balls. I don't want to shut up about what I see as a violation of the law and the Constitution, i'm glad that Rand Paul isn't going to shut up about it either.