• 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.

Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

cpwill said:
Airline Security. Sky Marshalls, for example - paid for by the respective airlines.
Click to expand...

You want to privatize the Federal Air Marshals / Sky Marshals? You want a private police force?
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Look, I personally think that the pat-down procedure is overreaching on the TSA's part but in what freaking universe should congresspeople get special treatment under the law? Maybe being forced to get an embarrassing pat-down would make more congresspeople rethink this TSA problem. Paul, obviously, was already of the opinion that this is too much, but that still isn't a reason he should be exempt from it.

There's two possibilities here: Paul really did think he should be treated as a special snowflake or Paul was trying to make a political point by protesting. (a point I agree with) In either case, the TSA personnel did exactly what they were supposed to do.
 
Tigger said:
I'm well aware of who he is and what he's about. I also disagree with him about as completely as possible. If I were a TSA agent, I'd be singling him out for additional screening every time he came through. The same with his father.
Click to expand...

I understand your view that the primary function of government and law enforcement is to target, harass and arrest citizens who state any opposition. Fortunately you are not a TSA agent or in any law enforcement or government position.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Deuce said:
Look, I personally think that the pat-down procedure is overreaching on the TSA's part but in what freaking universe should congresspeople get special treatment under the law? Maybe being forced to get an embarrassing pat-down would make more congresspeople rethink this TSA problem. Paul, obviously, was already of the opinion that this is too much, but that still isn't a reason he should be exempt from it.

There's two possibilities here: Paul really did think he should be treated as a special snowflake or Paul was trying to make a political point by protesting. (a point I agree with) In either case, the TSA personnel did exactly what they were supposed to do.
Click to expand...

I absolutely disagree. If a person refuses a pat down the most they should be able to do is escort him out of the airport.
All statements about airport security first given have been proven a lie. Searching people is no longer by voluntary consent.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Somebody trips a scanner in front of me, and refuses a pat-down should be tazed until he complies, then thrown off the premises.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

cpwill said:
Airline Security. Sky Marshalls, for example - paid for by the respective airlines.
Click to expand...

The last thing an airline wants is a private employee killing a passenger.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

I guess the law that applies to us does not apply to him.
 
Tigger said:
I don't believe the article states that he was arrested. He was detained pending a pat-down which he refused to agree to. In my mind that SHOULD be a Felony (though I am well aware that it is not).
Click to expand...

What ought to be (and in fact is, if one properly considers the Constitutionality of the whole TSA clusterfoxtrot) a felony is compelling any innocent civilian—in the lack of sufficient evidence to satisfy the Fourth Amendment's standards for such searches—to submit to invasive searches of their persons up to what amounts to a sexual assault; as a condition of being allowed to freely travel.

This is of course, true even if one doesn't further account for the special protections given in Article I Section 6 of the Constitution, to elected representatives traveling as necessary to perform their duties. What happened here to Senator Paul in this instance, if it doesn't outright cross the line, it certainly comes very close to exactly the sort of abuse that this provision is intend to prevent. This has the look of an intentional effort to prevent the Senator from returning to Washington in a timely manner, in order to perform his role in the legislative process. Given his previously-stated opposition to the abuses of the TSA, this can certainly be seen as a deliberate effort on their part to corrupt the legislative process in their own favor, by preventing the legitimate participation of an elected representative that they know is likely to vote against their interests.

Someone needs to be arrested for this, and someone needs to spend a very, very, very long time in prison, as an example to others who might consider similar attempts to corrupt the legislative process in any similar manner.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

MaggieD said:
He's a Senator, right? Unless he's introduced or otherwise supported legislation to stop patdowns, he's a hypocrite. He's not above the law. Seriously. Gimme' a break. I can just hear him: "Do you know who I am????!!!! STFU and spread 'em.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he has introduced legislation or not, but he is very much publically on record as being against the TSA screening program.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

MaggieD said:
Well, first of all, he wasn't arrested. Secondly, what makes you think he was headed to or returning from Washington, DC? Now, you may say, "Yes, but he was "detained!" He wouldn't have been detained had he turned around and left the airport. Congress Critters are not immune.
Click to expand...

The point is that the TSA willfully, deliberately interfered with his attempt to return to Washington to perform his duties as a Senator. There is nothing whatsoever in this situation that gives the TSA the authority to violate Article I Section 6 of the Constitution, which very clearly prohibits any such interference with the travel of elected representatives to and from the capital in the performance of their duties. There is no evidence that this Senator was in any way guilty of any felony, treason, or breach of peace; therefore he had an absolute right, under this provision of the Constitution, to travel unmolested to the capitol to perform his duties. The TSA violated this. The agents responsible need to be arrested and thrown in prison.
 
Re: Sen. Rand Paul ‘detained’ by TSA in Nashville, TSA denies

misterman said:
Wow, this was a great time to make a point about how either the TSA was going overboard, or how even Senators have to be treated like everyone else.

Instead, you find a point about how Senators get special privileges.
Click to expand...

In this case, yes, they get a special privilege. The Constitution specifically grants them this privilege, because without it, lower legal processes could be used in a targeted manner against legislators deemed likely to vote in a particular manner, in order to hinder them from voting, in order to corrupt the legislative process. In fact, I think that this incident demonstrates exactly how this abuse could occur, and why the Constitution has a provision specifically to prevent it.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Bob Blaylock said:
The point is that the TSA willfully, deliberately interfered with his attempt to return to Washington to perform his duties as a Senator. There is nothing whatsoever in this situation that gives the TSA the authority to violate Article I Section 6 of the Constitution, which very clearly prohibits any such interference with the travel of elected representatives to and from the capital in the performance of their duties. There is no evidence that this Senator was in any way guilty of any felony, treason, or breach of peace; therefore he had an absolute right, under this provision of the Constitution, to travel unmolested to the capitol to perform his duties. The TSA violated this. The agents responsible need to be arrested and thrown in prison.
Click to expand...

Then the argument becomes completely different to the one Rand Paul is making. He's making an issue of random pat-downs, using an example of a young girl who most people would agree is an abuse of TSA powers but it isn't really comparable to what he was subjected to.

Context then becomes important after we move the goalposts. Did the TSA know he was a senator? Did he make that clear? If senators are protected from detention on the way to the Capitol, why don't they just bypass all scanners and security checks? What's the point of them if they can't be detained?
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Thats kind of his point. The acts empowering the TSA contravene the constitution in more than just this one area regarding traveling representatives. Paul would like to change that.
 
Re: Sen. Rand Paul ‘detained’ by TSA in Nashville, TSA denies

Ikari said:
Nope. But I was surprised that Congressmen have to go through TSA. I thought they all had ways around that. I wonder if Pelosi and such need to go through TSA.

It's not so much that I think that Congressmen should be above the law, but rather that the law in this case is wrong.
Click to expand...

Judicial Watch Uncovers Documents Detailing Pelosi’s Repeated Requests for Military Travel | Judicial Watch

I dunno if she is subject to the same type of screening though. From my understanding, our reps usually take regular planes to DC so they go through the same procedure as us.

It took them a hour and a half till they put Rand Paul back into the scanner and his right leg came up clear. Time wasted imo.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sen. Rand Paul ‘detained’ by TSA in Nashville, TSA denies

Ikari said:
Nope. But I was surprised that Congressmen have to go through TSA. I thought they all had ways around that. I wonder if Pelosi and such need to go through TSA.

It's not so much that I think that Congressmen should be above the law, but rather that the law in this case is wrong.
Click to expand...


Well, in this case, it's both.

The “law” is indeed wrong. The Constitution sets very strict limits to the circumstances under which government agents are allowed to perform any kind of invasive search of individuals or their property. The current TSA procedures are not in any way consistent with these standards. Every invasive search performed on every airline passenger for whom no specific evidence exists to connect that passenger to any suspected terrorist activity or other criminal activity, is in violation of the Constitution.

But there is, in fact, a very good reason why, even if the TSAs activities were legal, elected representatives should not be subject to them.

Suppose that the Senate, in the very session that Senator Paul was trying to return to Washington in order to attend, was going to be working on a bill to curtail the unconstitutional activities of the TSA. His positions on this subject are well known. The TSA would have a very clear motive in trying to prevent Senator Paul, and others of similar view, from attending that session. If they can, by force or intimidation, hinder such senators from traveling to D.C. to participate in that session, then they can corrupt the process by which the bill affecting them would be written and voted on. Perhaps even the thread of such hindrance could be used to intimidate representatives into voting in favor of the TSA.

If the TSA is allowed to freely do what it has openly done, in this instance, to Senator Paul, then this gives them substantial power to corrupt the legislative process in their favor.

Any power to hinder the travel of elected representatives,or in any way interfere with their ability to perform their duties, can be used in a targeted manner against representatives that are deemed likely to vote in a manner unfavorable to the interests of the one wielding that power.

It is for very good reason that Article I Section 6 of the Constitution clearly prohibits this sort of interference with the travels of an elected representative to and from the capital.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Hatuey said:
The last thing an airline wants is a private employee killing a passenger.
Click to expand...

I don't think that would be the last thing. Somewhere well before that would be one passenger killing a whole bunch of other passengers, and destroying one of the Airline's aircraft, along with other property on the ground for which the airline would be held liable.

Give the performance and behavior of the TSA, I would very gladly much rather trust the airlines themselves than the government in this regard.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Ben K. said:
Bob Blaylock said:
The point is that the TSA willfully, deliberately interfered with his attempt to return to Washington to perform his duties as a Senator. There is nothing whatsoever in this situation that gives the TSA the authority to violate Article I Section 6 of the Constitution, which very clearly prohibits any such interference with the travel of elected representatives to and from the capital in the performance of their duties. There is no evidence that this Senator was in any way guilty of any felony, treason, or breach of peace; therefore he had an absolute right, under this provision of the Constitution, to travel unmolested to the capitol to perform his duties. The TSA violated this. The agents responsible need to be arrested and thrown in prison.
Click to expand...

Then the argument becomes completely different to the one Rand Paul is making. He's making an issue of random pat-downs, using an example of a young girl who most people would agree is an abuse of TSA powers but it isn't really comparable to what he was subjected to.
Click to expand...

I would guess that he figures that the argument about how the conduct of the TSA is affecting ordinary citizens would have more traction than any argument he might make about special privileges that he, as a Senator is due, beyond those of ordinary citizens.

He would be equally right to make either argument, but I think the former is likely to be more persuasive, especially given that that's a side he's been taking since well before this incident.

As a senator, he should not be subject to the abuses that the TSA has been perpetrating, but then neither should any other citizen be subject to these abuses.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Zyphlin said:
You want to privatize the Federal Air Marshals / Sky Marshals? You want a private police force?
Click to expand...

she asked what Rand Pauls' position was - as I understand it, that is it. I think that Sky Marshals would be an excellent security measure, as would profiling, as the Israelis do.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Bob Blaylock said:
I would guess that he figures that the argument about how the conduct of the TSA is affecting ordinary citizens would have more traction than any argument he might make about special privileges that he, as a Senator is due, beyond those of ordinary citizens.

He would be equally right to make either argument, but I think the former is likely to be more persuasive, especially given that that's a side he's been taking since well before this incident.

As a senator, he should not be subject to the abuses that the TSA has been perpetrating, but then neither should any other citizen be subject to these abuses.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. I accept that him playing the senator card wouldn't have gone down well with Joe Public. I think the issue that affected him could be sorted out by senators carrying an ID badge allowing them to bypass security checks on flights into DC. What happened to him doesn't necessarily associate with other issues regarding the TSA however.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Ben K. said:
Then the argument becomes completely different to the one Rand Paul is making. He's making an issue of random pat-downs, using an example of a young girl who most people would agree is an abuse of TSA powers but it isn't really comparable to what he was subjected to.
Click to expand...

How is it different? There was absolutely no chance he was carrying a bomb or weapon.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

1Perry said:
How is it different? There was absolutely no chance he was carrying a bomb or weapon.
Click to expand...

If they knew he was a senator then they were legally wrong. I don't see anywhere that they were aware of that however. To say any adult, elected official or not, could not possibly be carrying a weapon is a strange assertion. You do have laws protecting the former however, contingent on this specific situation.

I'd wager most other passengers slowed down by his antics weren't quite ready to don their V for Vendetta masks in support of him.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

1Perry said:
How is it different? There was absolutely no chance he was carrying a bomb or weapon.
Click to expand...
That's not true. It's also not true that a young girl would absolutely not being carrying a bomb or weapon. There is a chance for everyone. In fact, if I were a terrorist, I would choose the least likely people to get a pat down to smuggle what I need through. It's this kind of lackadaisical attitude towards security that puts us at a greater risk.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Ben K. said:
If they knew he was a senator then they were legally wrong. I don't see anywhere that they were aware of that however. To say any adult, elected official or not, could not possibly be carrying a weapon is a strange assertion. You do have laws protecting the former however, contingent on this specific situation.

I'd wager most other passengers slowed down by his antics weren't quite ready to don their V for Vendetta masks in support of him.
Click to expand...

He steps back and pulls up his pants leg and shows them and then requests to step back through the scanner. He was told no. Paul is stating that it's because of random alarms that go off even when there is no indication of a problem.

Things would have went even faster if he would have been allowed to simply pass through the scanner again. When he was allowed to pass through later there were no alarms. IMO this is no different than randomly picking people walking down the street and telling them that they must consent to a search.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

ThePlayDrive said:
That's not true. It's also not true that a young girl would absolutely not being carrying a bomb or weapon. There is a chance for everyone. In fact, if I were a terrorist, I would choose the least likely people to get a pat down to smuggle what I need through. It's this kind of lackadaisical attitude towards security that puts us at a greater risk.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no concern. I feel zero risk getting on a plane with a U.S. Senator or 8 year old girl.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

1Perry said:
I have absolutely no concern. I feel zero risk getting on a plane with a U.S. Senator or 8 year old girl.
Click to expand...
Then I think your assessment of security risks is problematic. But I have two questions:

1. If you were a terrorist aware of increased security for people who look like you in the United States, would you not attempt to get someone least likely to be searched to carry your weapons on board?

2. Are US Senators superhuman in such a way that they are incapable of being influenced by 'the enemy'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom