• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) Detained by TSA.

Bob Blaylock said:
The Fourth Amendment sets the standard for invasive searches of a person's property, papers, or person. The TSA's actions do not meet this standard.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. I disagree. Oh well, but thanks for trying to pretend that your opinion is fact.
 
Re: Sen. Rand Paul ‘detained’ by TSA in Nashville, TSA denies

MaggieD said:
No one in this country is above the law. Being a Congress critter doesn't give someone the authority to throw his clout around and exempt himself from a lawful procedure. The guy was a jerk. And continues to be a jerk. I just heard an interview with him on the radio where he said something like this:



How absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Do you beleive Wold Blitzer is also a terrorist threat?

If not then what about the Fourth Amendment?

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How often does the TSA actually ever have "probable cause"?

What seems to be happening here is not any argument regarding probable cause but only that every American, and visitor, must be humiliated equally by the government. Until Americans rise up, as Rand Paul did in his own meek way, will this intrusion into personal privacy be thrown out and a respect for human dignity be restored.

All of it should be challenged by a submission to the Supreme Court with special attention being paid to the Fourth Amendment.
 
Paratrooper said:
As far as the political correctness in searching, the terrorist want to fit the profile, they are doing these attacks for a reason and they want you to know it was them. How many 80 year old ladies in wheel chairs have been caught in a terrorist attack?
Click to expand...

We can take it a step further and ask how many terrorists were caught by the TSA.

Those terrorists who have been stopped were done so by private citizens. Yet a government rep will publicly lie that "The system worked".

Sunday Show Synopsis: "The System Worked" - Marc Ambinder - Business - The Atlantic
 
Ikari said:
No, that was hyperbole of course. Those not dedicated to the never ending fight to keep freedom and liberty should go elsewhere. Not because the US will become elsewhere, but rather just to get rid of them. And of course that can't actually be done. But when enough people seek to give up their rights for safety, they have negatively impacted me.
Click to expand...
Most people in this country are dedicated to keeping freedom. They're just not dedicated to keeping your definition of freedom so your argument that people who don't agree aren't dedicated to freedom is unfounded and quite arrogant.

I think, in fact, that I have said at least once if not more at this point that US and Cuba are different. Yet the yielding of rights for safety is dangerous and one which has negative impact upon myself. Terrorism will affect us only randomly, government affects us daily.
Click to expand...
You have said they are different, but your argument that people should look at Cuba to see the 'other side' is what I take issue with. As I said, people are quite aware of the other side and many citizens consistently act to ensure that we don't get there. However, because you disagree with their definition of freedom, you assume that they do not know about the 'other side'. That's an unfounded and arrogant claim. You need to accept that other citizens can have broader definitions of freedom than you do and still understand the 'other side'.

It's actually not a slippery slope argument at all. There is an absolute, those being the rights and liberties of the individual. I do fear that we've lost our will to fight for it. I do think that we've become so complacent with our daily lives that we'll allow government to do anything it wants so long as it does not disrupt the normalcy of our lives. TSA goes too far on a lot of the regulation and searches. That is not a slippery slope and I don't see how one could logically conclude that it was.
Click to expand...
This is a slippery slope argument:

Ikari said:
Perchance, but there is still an absolute. And I fear that we've lost our will to fight for it. Rather so long as our tomorrow can be the same as today, we'll allow government to do anything; including its gross expansion and exercised force against us. TSA goes too far on a lot of the regulation and searches.
Click to expand...

You've argued several times now that people's approval of the TSA may/will lead us to let the government do anything. That is the definition of a slippery slope argument.

Mmmm, yes. But we are talking government force here. You don't get to apply government force and say "prove it wrong", it's in fact the opposite. Until someone proves that 0 record since 9/11 had everything to do with the TSA, I'll remain unconvinced that the expansion of power to the degree it was taken was necessary.
Click to expand...
Mmmm, yes. You stated an opinion as fact when you said, "TSA is unnecessary". How do you know that? You don't. Hence my reply. This is the same trap you always fall into: stating opinions as absolutes and then trying to shift the burden of proof onto those who've made no absolutes.
 
misterman said:
Are you that dumb?

The terrrorists aren't that dumb.

They'll hide a bomb in an old lady's wheelchair, or disguise themselves as an old lady. Duh.

Profiling is stupid, not PC.
Click to expand...

It's been argued that the TSA is working because there haven't been more hijacked planes. Israel uses profiling and they haven't had hijacked planes.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
When did I say it wasn't causing any problems? Strike one for putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

No, but you argued that searching people on the street would cause problems so it's impracticle. The TSA causes problems.

You asked me how TSA actions would be different from having random searches in the inner city.
Click to expand...

Legally.

Fine by me. I'm already pretty certain how it will turn out.
Click to expand...

If they are randomly searching people with no reasonable suspicion that the person has done anything wrong, so am I. We have plenty of precedent there.
 
1Perry said:
No, but you argued that searching people on the street would cause problems so it's impracticle. The TSA causes problems.
Click to expand...
No, I argued that the scale of problems that such searching would make it impractical. Those are two completely different arguments.

Legally.
Click to expand...
...yes? Everything I listed would presumably be legal and checkpoints are a part of it, so what's the problem again? How am I supposed to answer your question without stating what I think such searches would entail?

If they are randomly searching people with no reasonable suspicion that the person has done anything wrong, so am I. We have plenty of precedent there.
Click to expand...
No, random searches are easily defended in court by simply pointing to the fact that profiling people by specific standards of who looks 'suspicious' enables aggressors to defy the standard and work the system. Moreover, random searches are pretty prevalent in the country - in schools, at the border and so on. I don't think that there is much of an argument there.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

misterman said:
How did he do any of that? He just got searched. Big deal.
Click to expand...

Actually, he did NOT get searched. He went through the scanner again. The second time he did not set off an alarm.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
...yes? Everything I listed would presumably be legal and checkpoints are a part of it, so what's the problem again? How am I supposed to answer your question without stating what I think such searches would entail?
Click to expand...

Legally you think the government could search random people on the streets, it would just be impractical?

No, random searches are easily defended in court by simply pointing to the fact that profiling people by specific standards of who looks 'suspicious' enables aggressors to defy the standard and work the system. Moreover, random searches are pretty prevalent in the country - in schools, at the border and so on. I don't think that there is much of an argument there.
Click to expand...

Yeah? I'm betting you'll never find an example where the court has ruled that way. The courts have already ruled on this. While I do not agree with it, the courts have ruled your belongings can be searched. I disagree with that ruling but there is nothing I can likely do about it. They ruled that routine searches can be performed. Like walking through a metal detector.

To search a person there still has to be "reasonable suspicion". A random alarm is never going to be ruled a "reasonable suspicion".
 
I wish the media had given this more coverage.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Most people in this country are dedicated to keeping freedom. They're just not dedicated to keeping your definition of freedom so your argument that people who don't agree aren't dedicated to freedom is unfounded and quite arrogant.
Click to expand...

Disagree. There are many whom are currently ok with the gross expansion of government power as is. We rather ensure that our daily lives are undisrupted, and so long as that occurs then any action of the government is deemed ok.

ThePlayDrive said:
You have said they are different, but your argument that people should look at Cuba to see the 'other side' is what I take issue with. As I said, people are quite aware of the other side and many citizens consistently act to ensure that we don't get there. However, because you disagree with their definition of freedom, you assume that they do not know about the 'other side'. That's an unfounded and arrogant claim. You need to accept that other citizens can have broader definitions of freedom than you do and still understand the 'other side'.
Click to expand...

Other people have varying concepts of comfort. Rights, however, are rights.

ThePlayDrive said:
This is a slippery slope argument:
Click to expand...

I fear that you don't quite understand the meaning of "slippery slope"

ThePlayDrive said:
You've argued several times now that people's approval of the TSA may/will lead us to let the government do anything. That is the definition of a slippery slope argument.
Click to expand...

No, the argument is that the approval of these gross expansions of government power against our rights and liberties is currently a demonstration of that lack of will; not that it will lead to it.

ThePlayDrive said:
Mmmm, yes. You stated an opinion as fact when you said, "TSA is unnecessary". How do you know that? You don't. Hence my reply. This is the same trap you always fall into: stating opinions as absolutes and then trying to shift the burden of proof onto those who've made no absolutes.
Click to expand...

My relative safety has not been affected by TSA. My probability of death due to terrorism is no different now than it was before TSA. It's called statistics.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, I argued that the scale of problems that such searching would make it impractical. Those are two completely different arguments.
Click to expand...

The base is the same, however. All you're arguing is efficiency. If there were instead a method which can passively scan everyone, you'd have no quarrel with that (at least by your arguments presented).
 
Ikari said:
The base is the same, however. All you're arguing is efficiency.
Click to expand...
No, I'm arguing that one is reasonable and the other is not for several reasons. Whether or not an action is reasonable is the foundation of the topic being discussed so in the context of this argument that base is not the same since the base of the two sides is either reasonable or unreasonable.

If there were instead a method which can passively scan everyone, you'd have no quarrel with that (at least by your arguments presented).
Click to expand...
I agree that a passive method of scanning would be best, but I don't mind a quarrel, because at the end of the day, I think the TSA's actions are reasonable.
 
Ikari said:
Disagree. There are many whom are currently ok with the gross expansion of government power as is. We rather ensure that our daily lives are undisrupted, and so long as that occurs then any action of the government is deemed ok.
Click to expand...
How does being okay with expansion of government mean that people aren't dedicated to freedom? All you've shown is that people aren't dedicated to your definition of freedom. However, people not guarding freedom as you see it does not mean that they are dedicated to the fight nor does it mean that they will let the United States go to the 'other side'.

Ikari said:
Other people have varying concepts of comfort. Rights, however, are rights.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, our Constitution is not black and white. It requires interpretation. So again, your making unfounded assumptions about people simply because they disagree with your definition of freedom and in turn, your interpretation of rights in the Constitution.

I fear that you don't quite understand the meaning of "slippery slope"
Click to expand...
A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Your argument fits that definition, but I don't fear anything about you or it since I know that you're in the minority.

Ikari said:
No, the argument is that the approval of these gross expansions of government power against our rights and liberties is currently a demonstration of that lack of will; not that it will lead to it.
Click to expand...
No, you argued exactly what I said you argued - that we'll let the government do anything:
Ikari said:
And I fear that we've lost our will to fight for it. Rather so long as our tomorrow can be the same as today, we'll allow government to do anything; including its gross expansion and exercised force against us.
Click to expand...

Ikari said:
My relative safety has not been affected by TSA. My probability of death due to terrorism is no different now than it was before TSA. It's called statistics.
Click to expand...
Unless you have proof that the TSA has not increased the safety of Americans, then your 'statistics' are irrelevant to your absolute, "the TSA is unnecessary". Good luck stating your opinions as facts.
 
1Perry said:
Legally you think the government could search random people on the streets, it would just be impractical?
Click to expand...
What do you mean "just" impractical? I don't recall using the word "just" so I would like you to clarify what you mean by using it and what you inferred from my argument that makes you think I meant to use it.

To search a person there still has to be "reasonable suspicion". A random alarm is never going to be ruled a "reasonable suspicion".
Click to expand...
No there doesn't (not in all cases).

United States v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation (9th Cir. 2008), is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion before searching laptopshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laptop or other digital devices at the border, including international airports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Arnold#Reasonable_search
Click to expand...

I suspect that the same thing would be ruled for domestic flights and people going through metal detectors.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
What do you mean "just" impractical? I don't recall using the word "just" so I would like you to clarify what you mean by using it and what you inferred from my argument that makes you think I meant to use it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was very clear in what I said and what I asked. You simply do not want to answer.

No there doesn't (not in all cases).
Click to expand...

Please, find me the law that states that.

I suspect that the same thing would be ruled for domestic flights and people going through metal detectors.
Click to expand...

I enjoy discussing topics like this but it gets old when people don't read what you wrote and reply based upon what was said. I clearly said that the courts have ruled that a persons property can be searched. They were just as clear that it does not extend to the person without a reasonable suspicion.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
How does being okay with expansion of government mean that people aren't dedicated to freedom? All you've shown is that people aren't dedicated to your definition of freedom. However, people not guarding freedom as you see it does not mean that they are dedicated to the fight nor does it mean that they will let the United States go to the 'other side'.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. People allowing expansion of government against our rights and liberties is evidence of non-dedication to keeping freedom; as acts of government necessarily must be constrained to proper roles else freedom is lost.

ThePlayDrive said:
Unfortunately, our Constitution is not black and white. It requires interpretation. So again, your making unfounded assumptions about people simply because they disagree with your definition of freedom and in turn, your interpretation of rights in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

There is some interpretation, but it doesn't change base rights. People have varying opinions in comfort, but a right is a right.

ThePlayDrive said:
Your argument fits that definition, but I don't fear anything about you or it since I know that you're in the minority.
Click to expand...

Yet it wasn't a slippery slope argument. Just because you keep trying to say it is, doesn't make it so.

ThePlayDrive said:
No, you argued exactly what I said you argued - that we'll let the government do anything:
Click to expand...

Not let the government do anything, but so long as their tomorrow is the same as today, as demonstrated by current action.

ThePlayDrive said:
Unless you have proof that the TSA has not increased the safety of Americans, then your 'statistics' are irrelevant to your absolute, "the TSA is unnecessary". Good luck stating your opinions as facts.
Click to expand...

You don't understand how proof is made. If TSA has increased my safety, then it will be reflected statistically. If statistically my probabilities have not changed, it cannot be said that TSA has increased my safety. It could in fact have no more affect than procedures already in place. Even if statistically my probabilities decreased, that decrease cannot be said to be attributed to TSA without supporting evidence.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

misterman said:
How did he do any of that? He just got searched. Big deal.
Click to expand...

He refused a physical search and made the public aware of the inconsistency and capriciousness of the TSA's search methods.

Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom