Senator Rand Paul Detained By the TSA 941
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the your-dad's-not-president-yet dept.
from the your-dad's-not-president-yet dept.
cervesaebraciator writes "Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has been detained by the TSA in Tennessee for refusing a pat-down. Apparently an anomaly appeared when he received the full body scan. While he offered to undergo the body scan once more, he was informed that only a pat-down would be sufficient to clear him. He has since been detained and the story is developing."
This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
US Constitution Article I section 6
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Senator Paul was apparently on his way to Washington, where the Senate has votes scheduled for this afternoon. It appears that the Executive Branch (TSA) just violated Article I section 6 of the Constitution.
Re:Oh dear. (Score:3, Interesting)
So, will some TSA "agent" lose their job or is Rand Paul not big enough fish to throw that kind of weight around?
TSA is under the executive branch while Paul is a member of the legislative branch. Guess which party is in charge of the executive and which party Paul is a member of and ask yourself this question again.
Re:So what they've done is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So what they've done is... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure that Rand Paul is irritated by the TSA without even interacting with them. The existence of the TSA is enough to irritate him. And me.
Re:not detained at all... (Score:4, Interesting)
I could have sworn that, in previous cases (not involving a US Senator), people were told that, if the scan found something odd, you could either accept the pat-down or be arrested.
In fact, here's an article that makes it clear what the TSA plans on doing to you if you refuse the pat down: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/11/23/those-who-refuse-tsa-patdown-will-be-denied-airport-entry/
Granted, that's over a year old so the policy may have changed. However, under that policy, Rand Paul should have been escorted out of the airport by police officers. Then, if he tried to get back through security (via rebooking on another flight), the entire checkpoint would be shutdown and the terminal possibly evacuated.
I wonder what would happen if a non-Congressfolk tried doing exactly what Rand Paul did. Would they be arrested for refusing the pat down? Would they be kicked out of the airport with a police escort? Would their rebooking and attempting to go through security again require a shutdown of the security checkpoint?
Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep, the whole point of this is to prevent the party in power from squashing the opposition through bullshit moves. Call a vote and then have the president make sure that the opposition can't get there. Doesn't even have to be arrests, there could just be "checkpoints" and "blockades" on the road that they all have to pass through and get held up for a couple hours while the vote can happen unopposed.
As such the Constitution prevents that. Unless you are arresting them for a felony or worse, you can't impede congress on the way to a vote. Could a congressman abuse it? Sure, but of course in this day and age that's a great way to get all over the news in a bad way. However the potential for abuse going the other way is far too strong, hence we have this provision.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
Shed some light on this power hungry department.....
Pretty much all of the radiating equipment and invasive searches, could be done away with and replaced with having bomb sniffing dogs at the checkpoints...combined with simple metal detectors, this would save a lot of money, and give a bit of dignity back to travellers, and be MORE effective.
Will Rand Paul now be fined $10k? (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember in previous incidents the TSA has fined people people who fail to complete screening and decide to go the other way and leave the airport instead. Will they do the same to Rand Paul? If not why?
Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, if he wasn't a senator he probably would have been arrested for refusing to complete the security process.
This this this.
See:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/24/rape-victim-arrested-refusing-tsa-pat/ [rawstory.com]
additionally...
https://www.google.com/search?q=arrested+for+refusing+tsa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a [google.com]
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:2, Interesting)
Standing up for your Rights is NOT "weird".
The right time to stand up for your rights is before you've waived them. Yes, walking past the sign that says "anyone passing this point is subject to search" is waiving his fourth amendment rights.
It would be a lot more interesting if this wasn't someone who felt he had special privileges by being a member of congress. Yawn. Member of congress claims specials privileges. Film at 11.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
A former co-worker of mine did something innocent that aroused a lot of suspicion at a checkpoint a few years ago, she left an unused round of ammunition in a bag (following a hunting trip) and the TSA detected it. She was unarmed and it was an honest mistake. After a long ordeal she was let go, but she claims to have been put on a list that basically guarantees additional screening every time she flies.
I wonder if Paul will be put on the troublemaker list?
Pics or it didn't happen. This happens to lots of people. Happened to my wife (my ammo, one round of .223 at the bottom of a duffel bag). They looked it at, looked at her, told her she couldn't keep it, threw it in a pile with a bunch of other things. Happens all of the time. She hasn't been hassled since. Maybe your friend shouldn't have been hunting with a .50 caliber BAR...
Oh, and Ron Paul (both of them) is/are on the troublemaker list. They are, after all, troublemakers. Don't rock the boat, especially when your sloshing around in water up to the gunwales.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
anyone that refuses a pat-down is free to leave
...except when they aren't. I've heard of people being detained _at gunpoint_ for doing nothing more than refusing a pat-down. Here's one, slightly less extreme, example from _a freakin' pilot_ (if he wanted to bring down the plane, he wouldn't need a bomb to do it...):
http://www.expressjetpilots.com/the-pipe/showthread.php?39523-Well-today-was-the-day [expressjetpilots.com]
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
Believe me, I used to proctor the TSA exams, and you're far more right than you know. The vast majority of applicants looked (and acted) like they were driven to the test facility by their parole officer or drug dealer.
The bulk of these people receive less training than the average assistant manager at Taco Bell...
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
You must've failed civics class. Rights CANNOT be waived.
You must have failed civics class. Of course rights can be waived. You can waive your forth amendment right against search by simply saying "yes" when a cop asks you if they can search your vehicle. You can waive your fifth amendment right against self incrimination by simply answering a self-incriminating question.
Where did you get the moronic idea that you cannot waive a right? If your civics class taught you that, then you must have gone to a cracker-jack school. And I mean that literally. It came out of a box of Cracker Jacks.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:5, Interesting)
Then dont fly commercial.
I fly group charter and return flight Corporate. It's the same price as a normal airline ticket. No, not the deep discount priceline prices. but I rarely get those as I cant book it months in advance.
Company sent 10 of us out to Vegas for a event, They wanted us to fly Delta. I saved the company $1500.00 on the tickets by chartering a small jet for us. Worked great, we brought a lot of booze and none of us went through any security checks. Hell I drove the minivan up to the airplane to unload luggage.
yes it takes more work to FIND the charters and fill them, but I already have a list of 5 companies that will give me a discount so I dont have to look hard.
Plus a Learjet from Chicago to Miami, from stepping out of the cab to waiting for the cab you called for when on approach, in 3 hours is worth every penny.
Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is the answer to this question is a secret. Nobody is talking about it.
More than one (nameless) FBI folks I have talked to have said there have been multiple incidents where TSA stopped someone actively bringing harmful materials onto an airplane. Obviously, they might have been making it all up, but probably not. So where are the news reports on this? How come the TSA didn't shout this from the rooftops about what a great job they are doing?
The story seems to be that the TSA (and a lot of other law enforcement agencies) feel that if this information were made public it would assist people in understanding how these people got caught and be able to more easily evade detection. As we have not had a successful terrorist incident since 9/11 in the US the question is really whether it is such a bang-up job being done by law enforcement at all levels that is preventing things from being successful or is it that there have simply been zero competent attemps? Right now, the folks that know aren't talking for the record.
I think this is extremely damaging. Either the TSA is a complete and utter waste of time because there is nobody there - other than grandmothers and small children being harrassed in the name of Political Correctness, or the TSA is keeping its role a secret and allowing people to think it is useless and pointless. In the latter case the only proof we will ever have is after the TSA is shut down and disbanded and aircraft start falling out of the sky. Kind of a rough way to prove a point, wouldn't you say?
What is absolutely needed is a lot more disclosure.