Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: seeker_two on January 23, 2012, 10:59:22 AM
-
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/23/report-tsa-detains-sen-rand-paul-in-nashville/
Please don't poke the bears.... :facepalm:
-
Please tell me they went all "I am the law" with appropriate Stallone accent.
-
"Hey, that *anomaly* is God-given. If you want to pat it down, you'll have to at least buy me dinner first"
-
"Hey, that *anomaly* is God-given. If you want to pat it down, you'll have to at least buy me dinner first"
"Normally, I have to pay for that kind of treatment."
-
"Hey, that *anomaly* is God-given. If you want to pat it down, you'll have to at least buy me dinner first"
Or be a Catholic priest...........
-
Thou shalt not detain congressmen on route to Washington dc
-
though shalt not afford them special privilege. hes gonna drive? take the train? bus?
-
He is being interviewed on Hannity's radio show right now. He is not saying he expects any special priviledge necessarily. Few points:
1. He has been told the machine beeps randomly not just when it sees something so they are doing random searches.
2. The people at the airports are given no discretion whatsoever in following policies. There should be someone there who has some discretion with these policies. The completely blind approach to this is foolish.
3. He said that you already have to take off your shoes, remove metal and other stuff, along with other requirements. If you comply with all that, you should be rewarded with not getting a pat down, not be subjected to additional random searches.
He interviews very well and comes off very reasonable. I like him.
Not one mention of abolishing the Fed. :lol:
-
so what should they do if the machine goes off? let him pass? why? or why just him
-
though shalt not afford them special privilege. hes gonna drive? take the train? bus?
The constitution exempts them from arrest, in some situations, because the English used to have Parliamentary opponents arrested in (or on the way to) session.
-
paul wasn't arrested just wasn't afforded special privilege of boarding without passing security
-
paul wasn't arrested just wasn't afforded special privilege of boarding without passing security
I agree with C&SD. Make the congress-critters go through the same crap everyone else goes through.
-
Either their nude-o-scans are registering false positives or they are generating them for the purpose of harassing / feeling people :mad:
-
If this act of protest helps change the system for all of us, it's a good thing. More congressmen going through the treatment might effect some results.
-
If this act of protest helps change the system for all of us, it's a good thing. More congressmen going through the treatment might effect some results.
Agreed. In his statements, Rand Paul was advocating getting rid of this ridiculous procedure for all people. Not just Senators/Congresspeople.
Lets face it, a sitting US senator is one of the few individuals who has a sufficient enough bully pulpit to do this and get some attention.
-
As stated above, he thinks its ridiculous for EVERYONE, not just him.
Also, he's flying commercial air, is he?
I like that. Some senators use private jets.
-
As stated above, he thinks its ridiculous for EVERYONE, not just him.
Also, he's flying commercial air, is he?
I like that. Some senators use private jets.
Not surprising that Rand Paul gets it.
He was willing to be re-scanned, according to the article I read, in order to clear the "random selection for perp-frisk" buzzer. Team Sexual Assault refused, and stated that they were determined to grope him. He left the checkpoint accompanied by actual LEOs, though not under arrest (IOW, SOP for failure to pass the Nude-O-Scopes and refusal to be groped). Good on him for taking a stand!
Me, I'd be the other way 'round. I'm not going through the Nude-O-Scope, not even the millimeter-wave radar one Paul went through rather than the ionizing-radiation backscatter-xray version that's more common nationally. You get perp-frisked anyways if the machine goes beep for any reason, or if Team Sexual Assault decides they don't like your attitude or whatever - so they can just get it over with out in public right up front, and I'll make it as uncomfortable for them as they do for me. A karate-chop to the testicles will be regarded as assault, and result in an immediate, vocal call for the nearest actual law-enforcement officer, as it should, and complaints will be filed both online and in person as a result of TSA's policies regardless of whether or not the screener plays the "Respect mah authori-TAH!" card, as so many of them sadly seem to do.
Of course, that's only if I absolutely HAVE to fly. I recommend against exposing oneself to such unpleasantness and idiocy as TSA deems "security", myself, unless you simply MUST fly. I'll fly again when we get ACTUAL security in the airports, as opposed to the pointless and counterproductive security theater TSA is foisting on us.
-
paul wasn't arrested just wasn't afforded special privilege of boarding without passing security
Actually the language forbids government officials from detaining them or interfering with their travel on the way to congress. His detention was unconstitutional.
-
Not that he flies commercial but I wonder how it would have played out if it had been Harry Reid instead of some filthy conservative/libertarian prole like Rand Paul.
-
paul wasn't arrested just wasn't afforded special privilege of boarding without passing security
That wasn't the situation, C&SD. He objected to the pat down that was to follow the random "failure" of the machine. He offered to be rescanned, but the Thousands Standing Around refused and insisted on performing a pat down. Re-read the story.
-
so what should they do if the machine goes off? let him pass? why? or why just him
Because, though scumbags in their own right, the chances of a member of the Senate hijacking an airplane is hovering at about nil.....
-
So... piss off a guy responsible for setting your budget for the next year. Real smart move.
-
Actually the language forbids government officials from detaining them or interfering with their travel on the way to congress. His detention was unconstitutional.
He was on his way to a speaking engagement (which he missed), not Congress.
If there is any special privilege, it was that he is able to make headlines when it happens to him and gets a chance to sell his viewpoint.
-
paul wasn't arrested just wasn't afforded special privilege of boarding without passing security
Didn't say he was arrested. Just explaining what Harold Tuttle was talking about.
-
That wasn't the situation, C&SD. He objected to the pat down that was to follow the random "failure" of the machine. He offered to be rescanned, but the Thousands Standing Around refused and insisted on performing a pat down. Re-read the story.
they say they found an annomaly
their sop is to examine further
as a congressman you believe hoe should be exempt? do you feel all congressmen are exempt? or just your pet congressman?
-
they say they found an annomaly
their sop is to examine further
as a congressman you believe hoe should be exempt? do you feel all congressmen are exempt? or just your pet congressman?
It's not unreasonable to ask them to run a scan again instead of submit to an invasive pat down.
That's what he wanted. Another scan.
-
and that would amount to special treatment for him. i find his allegation the machine throws false alerts so they can do random patdowns interesting. and it should be verifiable.
-
and that would amount to special treatment for him. i find his allegation the machine throws false alerts so they can do random patdowns interesting. and it should be verifiable.
I heard the same thing from a TSA employee last time I was there.
He's not asking for special treatment. He's asking for the same treatment for everyone, including himself.
-
Yes, he is using the incident to point out that the TSA needs to change their rules.
-
they say they found an annomaly
Yes, that is what they say ;/
But they continually "find" anomalies when there is nothing there :mad:
-
if they are playing games there is no way to keep it a secret. someone will prove it
-
if they are playing games there is no way to keep it a secret. someone will prove it
Ok, so are you saying the machines are showng things that aren't there ???
You can't have it both ways. :P
-
its been alleged the machines are rigged to create random patdowns
-
its been alleged the machines are rigged to create random patdowns
It's more than alleged, I'd say, if TSA employees say it.
-
if they are playing games there is no way to keep it a secret. someone will prove it
From the reporting I heard, the machines are programmed to throw a false positive sometimes. This is done so that passengers will be selected at random for pat-downs. I don't think it's supposed to be a secret.
But that's just something I heard on the radio.
-
if they are playing games there is no way to keep it a secret. someone will prove it
Unless, like many of the regs and procedures used by the TSA, they are given an official security classification by TSA honchos so as to preclude any FOIA disclosures. Any disclosure would then be a violation of federal law.
-
From the reporting I heard, the machines are programmed to throw a false positive sometimes. This is done so that passengers will be selected at random for pat-downs. I don't think it's supposed to be a secret.
I have heard the same thing as a result of the reporting on the Rand Paul experience. I personally think they should have just run him through the scanner again.
I don't think they knew who he was either (at first).
I was always curious which airport Rand Paul commonly used since he is from Bowling Green KY... Nashville or Louisville... guess this answers my question. Why? Trivia mostly for me....
-
They are teaching us obedience--you got a problem with that? =D
-
and that would amount to special treatment for him. i find his allegation the machine throws false alerts so they can do random patdowns interesting. and it should be verifiable.
Saw them do that with a metal detector. Usually when attractive ladies were going through.
-
Saw them do that with a metal detector. Usually when attractive ladies were going through.
Unpossible with federal professionals.
-
I personally think they should have just run him through the scanner again.
Why? That's not an option given to any other passenger. He should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us. If he doesn't like them then he should fight to change them, but in the meantime he should have to live with it too.
I don't think they knew who he was either (at first).
And theoretically not relevant.
I was always curious which airport Rand Paul commonly used since he is from Bowling Green KY... Nashville or Louisville... guess this answers my question. Why? Trivia mostly for me....
It's about 70 miles from BG to Nashville. More like 110 from BG to Louisville. (I live near Nashville and drive to BG and Louisville at times)
-
Why? That's not an option given to any other passenger. He should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us. If he doesn't like them then he should fight to change them, but in the meantime he should have to live with it too.
Isn't that what he's trying to do?
-
Isn't that what he's trying to do?
The lesson to be learned here is that when you are a private citizen and you do not like what TSA does to you, then you are sticking up for your rights. But if you are a politician (or maybe just a Paul), and you do not like what TSA does to you, you are a jerk who wants special treatment.
-
The lesson to be learned here is that when you are a private citizen and you do not like what TSA does to you, then you are sticking up for your rights. But if you are a politician (or maybe just a Paul), and you do not like what TSA does to you, you are a jerk who wants special treatment.
Not at all. If he had simply said "This is unacceptable", left the airport and made a stink as he tried to change things, then he'd be sticking up for his rights. By standing there and demanding that they change their established procedures just for him he's being a jerk who wants special treatment.
-
Did he demand they change their procedures for him only? Seems like he used a little civil disobedience effectively.
-
they say they found an annomaly
their sop is to examine further
as a congressman you believe hoe should be exempt? do you feel all congressmen are exempt? or just your pet congressman?
Never said that he should be exempt. He should not. I simply said you misunderstood the situation, claiming that he thought he deserved exemption. No where in the stories was that indicated to be the case.
And he's not my pet congressman. Don't have one, wouldn't want one. They're impossible to housebreak.
-
I have a copy of the TSA procedures that was leaked a few years ago. If anyone wants a copy pm me you email. It about 2.5 Megs.
-
Not at all. If he had simply said "This is unacceptable", left the airport and made a stink as he tried to change things, then he'd be sticking up for his rights. By standing there and demanding that they change their established procedures just for him he's being a jerk who wants special treatment.
"just for him" is where your train of thought derails
-
Not at all. If he had simply said "This is unacceptable", left the airport and made a stink as he tried to change things, then he'd be sticking up for his rights. By standing there and demanding that they change their established procedures just for him he's being a jerk who wants special treatment.
I listened to him speak of the incident on teh toob. He said that he (his people, staff, whatever) had talked to the TSA, and come to an agreement that children under a certain age would be allowed to go through the scanner a second time instead of being groped. It was his understanding that the policy had been expanded to all people at a later time, and he was asking for the allowance that he understood was available to all. He was not looking for extraordinary or exceptional treatment... just treatment that he believed his team had negotiated for all to take advantage of.
DD
-
I'm late to this party and don't have anything particularly original to add. Just this: I don't fly. I do what I have to do to avoid the TSA. The fact that an entire federal agency exists for the purpose of ridiculously ineffective security theater designed to make cowards feel better is repugnant to me. The need to feel safer (without actually being safer) is something people ought to be embarrassed of. It is not something that should be used to justify violating constitutionally protected rights. Being subject to "random" (and I ain't bad-looking and tend to ooze attitude when .gov drones are busy showing how much control they have over me, so it's anyone's guess how random "random" would be) invasive searches is not reasonable and therefore violates my rights to travel freely and to be free from unreasonable searches.
I'm a single mom with not a whole lot of cash to spare. If I make a scene at an airport, I'm taking on an unacceptable level of personal risk. Therefore I don't go. Could be at some point I'll decide the travel is worth it. Two road trips to NOLA, one to CO, and one to NY (including twenty hour drive over ice-coated roads) later, I haven't gotten to that point yet. But I'm grateful to anyone who has the money/power/exposure to be willing to cause headaches for the TSA. If more congressmen would create a stir over security, it could only be a good thing. Not as good as if every American who thinks the TSA is fos made trouble, but still a good thing.
Seriously? We the little people can't afford to make a stink about it, and Congressmen shouldn't because somehow when they demand reasonable treatment they're being elitist scmucks? Really? That's a great way to ensure the TSA continues to thrive and grow in its size and ludicrosity. Any bar, any cross, any impediment anyone at all throws at the TSA is valuable. Even if congresscritters are involved.
-
I'm late to this party and don't have anything particularly original to add. Just this: I don't fly. I do what I have to do to avoid the TSA. The fact that an entire federal agency exists for the purpose of ridiculously ineffective security theater designed to make cowards feel better is repugnant to me. The need to feel safer (without actually being safer) is something people ought to be embarrassed of. It is not something that should be used to justify violating constitutionally protected rights. Being subject to "random" (and I ain't bad-looking and tend to ooze attitude when .gov drones are busy showing how much control they have over me, so it's anyone's guess how random "random" would be) invasive searches is not reasonable and therefore violates my rights to travel freely and to be free from unreasonable searches.
I'm a single mom with not a whole lot of cash to spare. If I make a scene at an airport, I'm taking on an unacceptable level of personal risk. Therefore I don't go. Could be at some point I'll decide the travel is worth it. Two road trips to NOLA, one to CO, and one to NY (including twenty hour drive over ice-coated roads) later, I haven't gotten to that point yet. But I'm grateful to anyone who has the money/power/exposure to be willing to cause headaches for the TSA. If more congressmen would create a stir over security, it could only be a good thing. Not as good as if every American who thinks the TSA is fos made trouble, but still a good thing.
Seriously? We the little people can't afford to make a stink about it, and Congressmen shouldn't because somehow when they demand reasonable treatment they're being elitist scmucks? Really? That's a great way to ensure the TSA continues to thrive and grow in its size and ludicrosity. Any bar, any cross, any impediment anyone at all throws at the TSA is valuable. Even if congresscritters are involved.
That's good. You should print that on t-shirts and sell at the airport.
-
I concur with BridgeRunner. Anyone that hinders the TSA's activity against the American citizenry or publicly exposes their incompetence is a good guy. Regardless of the circumstances.
-
Well said, BridgeRunner.
-
Well thanks, guys. Just rambling :)
-
The "I'll just drive" dodge is only good for those whose livelihood doesn't depend on flying. And it's only going to work for a short time, until TSA can get a stronger presence on the roads too. Just give it a couple truck/train bombings and a few years of budget increases, and it won't be so easy to sidestep. The whole "well I don't fly" thing is basically the "I didn't stand up when the came for the X" meme all over again.
-
The "I'll just drive" dodge is only good for those whose livelihood doesn't depend on flying. And it's only going to work for a short time, until TSA can get a stronger presence on the roads too. Just give it a couple truck/train bombings and a few years of budget increases, and it won't be so easy to sidestep. The whole "well I don't fly" thing is basically the "I didn't stand up when the came for the X" meme all over again.
This. We must oppose these measures EVERYWHERE, not just avoid the mode of transportation. Because once they've locked down one mode, they'll start working on the others.
It's only a small step from "random vehicle checkpoints for TERRORISTS!!!!!111oneoneeeleleven" to "Papieren, bitte" for everyone
-
They ARE already working other modes of transportation with their VIPR program (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response). Haha, they probably thought that acronym sounded sooo cool when they came up with it... what dweebs.
Anyway, there doesn't even have to be an actual truck/train bombing to expand this nationwide. All they have to do is say they caught a truck with explosives with some random brown guy driving it, and then say "See!! We saved lives!!! Time for us to be on all highways, and byways..." and that is it.
-
Eh, it's less "...when they came for x" and more "I don't participate in tyranny when I can avoid it."
Of course, I'm lucky in that I'm young--I wasn't locked into a career where flying is essential. I didn't go to law school by accident. Lot of flexibility, even if the market does suck.
But I don't know where in "any bar, any cross, any impediment, etc." you guys are reading "eh, it's fine so long as I don't fly".
My apologies for not buying a ticket and showing up for the express purpose of refusing to participate right in their faces? I mean, I'll be happy to do so, when my kids are a bit older, soon as Allan Gura agrees to represent me.
What would you have me do? "I didn't stand up because I wasn't a Jew"? Come on, did you really have to Godwin my statement that I find the TSA repugnant and avoid them as much I can?
I'm just not sure what you are arguing for. I support any and all action towards the dismantling of the TSA; I'm not sure how is somehow mitigated by also not participating in it. How exactly does NOT avoiding flying do anything towards the destruction of the TSA?
-
Eh, it's less "...when they came for x" and more "I don't participate in tyranny when I can avoid it."
Of course, I'm lucky in that I'm young--I wasn't locked into a career where flying is essential. I didn't go to law school by accident. Lot of flexibility, even if the market does suck.
But I don't know where in "any bar, any cross, any impediment, etc." you guys are reading "eh, it's fine so long as I don't fly".
My apologies for not buying a ticket and showing up for the express purpose of refusing to participate right in their faces? I mean, I'll be happy to do so, when my kids are a bit older, soon as Allan Gura agrees to represent me.
What would you have me do? "I didn't stand up because I wasn't a Jew"? Come on, did you really have to Godwin my statement that I find the TSA repugnant and avoid them as much I can?
I'm just not sure what you are arguing for. I support any and all action towards the dismantling of the TSA; I'm not sure how is somehow mitigated by also not participating in it. How exactly does NOT avoiding flying do anything towards the destruction of the TSA?
Sigh
No one was godwinning anything. It was an extension of the conversation. No one was singling you out.
You should relax
-
I wasn't attacking you. I was just saying that I hate it when people dismiss oppression because it does not effect them, or because they, due to some circumstance or privilege, are able to work around it.
For example, many people think that concealed carry laws are pretty good because they are able to not patronize or just avoid establishments that prohibit legal concealed carry. But some people, like me, happen to work at such an establishments. If everyone was affected to the extent that I am, we would have a much stronger lobby for improving concealed carry laws. Similar if every US citizen had to fly every day, like some do.
-
Sigh.
What makes you think I'm not relaxed? :)
Nah, I'm not upset, but I am making, if you will, an extension of the argument. Ok, and laying a little bait so's to get in the following.
The trouble I see here is a false dichotomy. Not flying is not the same thing ignoring the whole of the problem.
I hear the comparison to concealed carry laws. Actually, I'm intimately familiar with the problem, having written a law school paper on how MI's CPL law unconstitutionally violates the due process rights of people with mental illness. Posted about it too, a couple years back.
But saying that not flying is to negligently ignore the problem is to suggest that no one should carry concealed anywhere until everyone can, everywhere. No, not flying is not the solution. But it's not the anti-solution or undermining of a potential solution either.
The point of my post wasn't "we should solve the problem by not flying. I don't and you shouldn't either." It was: th
The enormity of the problem is such that I don't fly, and fully support anyone who is a position to undermine the TSA, however incrementally.
-
Sigh.
What makes you think I'm not relaxed? :)
My apologies for not buying a ticket and showing up for the express purpose of refusing to participate right in their faces?
What would you have me do? "I didn't stand up because I wasn't a Jew"? Come on, did you really have to Godwin my statement that I find the TSA repugnant and avoid them as much I can?
-
Hm. Ok. First, the reason there's a ? At the end of that first is to indicate an enquiring tone. Possibly too subtle.
The second part, well that's a question. I asked it because I'm interested in people's answers. I'm weird, see. By and large I'm here--esp. in Politics--for the purpose of being pursuaded. Still hoping for an answer, if we can stop discussing my alleged pissy mood and get back to topic.
As for the Godwin comment, well, I calls 'em as I sees 'em. It's not a classic Godwin, but it isn't a well-reasoned comparison, either, nor does it respond to what I actually said. Thus I inferred an appeal to the emotional pull of the Niemoller quote. Instead of succumbing to it, I refuted it by recharacterizing it. From anti-Nazi negligent compliance emotional appeal to classic internet misdirection.
So that's what that is. I'm still hoping for some suggestions on what to do re the TSA. Other than not not flying, because I just don't see the point. Unless Gura's open to discussing finding a test case, that is.
-
Jesus.
Never mind.
Forget i said anything.