• 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

Ikari said:
Terrorist attacks will happen from time to time. The rules of hijacking were different back then. If you played the good victim, you stood good chance of making it out alive. That's over with now.
Click to expand...

Huh?

You're saying terrorists wanted, or want, to get out alive?

A few tweaks to the existing system would be all that was warranted.
Click to expand...

Nope, sorry, not good enough.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

1Perry said:
Life is never without any risks whatsoever. When they get so small and we are willing to give up our freedom over such incredibly small risks, I'll pass.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But lets look at this a different way.

Let us suppose we had no security methods in place to stop terrorists from hijacking airplanes. None at all.

If I were to board an airliner, what would the chances be that terrorists would try to hijack that airliner? What would my risk be of being affected by the actions of a terrorist? One in a thousand? One in ten thousand? I doubt if it is nearly that high. There are an awful lot of airline flights, and relatively few terrorists. Truly, I think the risk is too small to be worth much worry.

On the other hand, if I choose to fly by airline, what are my chances of being subjected to an invasive and degrading search by TSA agents. What are my chances of being subjected to treatment that would, in any reasonable mind, constitute sexual assault?

In this case, one risk being traded for another, I think we're making a very bad trade. It seems to me that current TSA procedures are a much, much greater threat to the safety, security, and well-being of the passengers they purport to be protecting, than the threat from which they purport to be protracting these passengers.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Hatuey said:
That's not what I meant by any stretch. Private companies are notorious for overstepping the boundaries of lethal force in order to protect their assets. Some private employee making 1 mistake would mean a multimillion lawsuit against the company and if the passenger is American, they'd most surely win. Now multiply that by 1 mistake a year (this isn't even the average of **** ups airlines have on their own) and you have a few millions gone down the drain simply on human error. Airlines would either call for the creation of a government agency like the TSA or getting on a plane would be nothing short of a nightmare.
Click to expand...


Airlines—like all businesses—have a vested in keeping their customers happy. Part of that, of course, would be having their customers feel safe while riding on their planes; but another part would be having these customers not feel like they are being abused and treated like criminals. If individual airlines are allowed to set their own security procedures, in order to strike the best balance between safety and a pleasant travel experience for their customers, then I would trust these airlines to do a much better job of finding the right balance than I could ever expect of government. If one airline tends to err too far on one side or the other, so that passengers either do not feel safe riding with them, or else so that passengers feel like they are being abused and mistreated, then that airline would lose business to other airlines, that strike a better balance.

The TSA, as implemented, has no such incentive to find any reasonable balance.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Ikari said:
Terrorist attacks will happen from time to time. The rules of hijacking were different back then. If you played the good victim, you stood good chance of making it out alive. That's over with now. A few tweaks to the existing system would be all that was warranted.
Click to expand...

Here's a suggested tweak.

Allow passengers to carry weapons. Don't stop anyone from carrying, at least, a good knife. A gun if he can demonstrate that he's qualified to use it safely.

If the passengers on the 9/11 flights were armed, and they knew what the hijackers had in mind, how do you think that day might have gone differently?

The thing that most made it easy for the 9/11 hijackers was that the passengers were unarmed, and relatively powerless to stop them. The hijackers themselves needed only very minor weapons (box cutters, mostly) to subdue the passengers.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Bob Blaylock said:
Here's a suggested tweak.

Allow passengers to carry weapons. Don't stop anyone from carrying, at least, a good knife. A gun if he can demonstrate that he's qualified to use it safely.

If the passengers on the 9/11 flights were armed, and they knew what the hijackers had in mind, how do you think that day might have gone differently?

The thing that most made it easy for the 9/11 hijackers was that the passengers were unarmed, and relatively powerless to stop them. The hijackers themselves needed only very minor weapons (box cutters, mostly) to subdue the passengers.
Click to expand...
I think a bunch of guns going off in such a confined space would mean certain disaster in situations where disaster could be avoided.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Bob Blaylock said:
Airlines—like all businesses—have a vested in keeping their customers happy. Part of that, of course, would be having their customers feel safe while riding on their planes; but another part would be having these customers not feel like they are being abused and treated like criminals. If individual airlines are allowed to set their own security procedures, in order to strike the best balance between safety and a pleasant travel experience for their customers, then I would trust these airlines to do a much better job of finding the right balance than I could ever expect of government. If one airline tends to err too far on one side or the other, so that passengers either do not feel safe riding with them, or else so that passengers feel like they are being abused and mistreated, then that airline would lose business to other airlines, that strike a better balance.
Click to expand...

And yet the airline security gave us 9/11.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

ThePlayDrive said:
I think a bunch of guns going off in such a confined space would mean certain disaster in situations where disaster could be avoided.
Click to expand...

Yes, especially on a plane with a pressurized hull made of thin metal that a bullet can go through.

Not sure how much it deters terrorists on a suicide mission either. It might stop them, but they won't be afraid to take the risk.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

1Perry said:
We were going across the border.
Click to expand...
Okay, well they definitely do random vehicle checks at both borders, so that just means you weren't one of the random checks.

......but the U.S. Supreme Court has never handed down a nationwide ruling on just what privacy rights an airline passenger has. If and when new measures are challenged, a majority of the justices could decide a passenger gives up the "expectation of privacy" -- the key to invoking constitutional privacy rights -- simply by trying to board an airliner.

Read more: U.S. Supreme Court: Showing the naughty bits at the airport? - UPI.com

Or they could rule they don't give up their rights to privacy. The 9th have ruled they do but...........
Click to expand...
Yeah, the 9th said, "airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings". I agree with that ruling and I have a feeling the Supreme Court will too. The 9th's ruling is all I need for 'verification' although I think the only actual 'verification' I need for my interpretation of the 4th Amendment is the Constitution itself.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

misterman said:
Huh?

You're saying terrorists wanted, or want, to get out alive?
Click to expand...

No. What I am saying is that in the past hijacking was for the most part some way of making demands to governments for either passage to some place or release of prisoners; their intent wasn't off the bat to kill everyone though they may kill individuals depending on authority response. If you are on that plane, then there would be a good chance you could get away alive if you just play the good victim. Don't resist, don't fight back, follow orders and chances are you'd make it out alive. Since 9/11 that dynamic has changed. Their goal wasn't to barter for something, but rather to cause destruction. In that case, you're dead either way and thus your best chance of survival is to actually fight back..

misterman said:
Nope, sorry, not good enough.
Click to expand...

Says you, but how much "safer" has TSA made us? And what did we have to give up for that safety? We are maybe marginally safer with extreme actions taken against our rights and dignity. I don't think that was a fair trade. The system we had before was fairly decent at making us safe; a few tweaks would have been all that is necessary. That being said, terrorism is a probability and given enough time all probabilities will work out. Even with TSA in place, in enough time there will be another terrorist attack. Yet the probabilities associated with terrorism are minuscule compared to other probabilities of death or harm in our daily lives. The marginal increase in safety from TSA was not worth what we had to give up.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Ikari said:
No. What I am saying is that in the past hijacking was for the most part some way of making demands to governments for either passage to some place or release of prisoners; there intent wasn't off the bat to kill everyone though they may kill individuals depending on authority response. If you are on that plane, then there would be a good chance you could get away alive if you just play the good victim. Don't resist, don't fight back, follow orders and chances are you'd make it out alive. Since 9/11 that dynamic has changed. Their goal wasn't to barter for something, but rather to cause destruction. In that case, you're dead either way and thus your best chance of survival is to actually fight back..
Click to expand...

Ah. Your best chance is to make sure terrorists can't get on the plane, but okay.

Says you, but how much "safer" has TSA made us? And what did we have to give up for that safety? We are maybe marginally safer with extreme actions taken against our rights and dignity. I don't think that was a fair trade. The system we had before was fairly decent at making us safe; a few tweaks would have been all that is necessary. That being said, terrorism is a probability and given enough time all probabilities will work out. Even with TSA in place, in enough time there will be another terrorist attack. Yet the probabilities associated with terrorism are minuscule compared to other probabilities of death or harm in our daily lives. The marginal increase in safety from TSA was not worth what we had to give up.
Click to expand...

Says you.

In the end, it's a matter of personal preference (discounting the legal problems). But I haven't been searched yet, so maybe I'll change my mind if I am.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

misterman said:
Ah. Your best chance is to make sure terrorists can't get on the plane, but okay.
Click to expand...

It will happen eventually though. All probabilities given enough time work out. In fact, terrorists seem to be rather stupid because there is an easy way to cause massive damage and disruption without going through TSA. You just wait for one of the busiest travel days, coordinate at a couple of the very large international airports, and bomb the TSA line itself. You're not searched before you get in line, and you don't even need a boarding pass if the goal is to blow up the line proper. But they apparently haven't thought of something so evident yet. I'm not really concerned with terrorism; there are well greater probabilities of harm and death in my daily life than terrorism itself. I'd rather keep my dignity and my rights then to excuse draconian and abusive measures against us as a whole for some perceived increase in safety.

misterman said:
Says you.

In the end, it's a matter of personal preference (discounting the legal problems). But I haven't been searched yet, so maybe I'll change my mind if I am.
Click to expand...

Says me indeed. The only impact TSA has had on my personally has been overall negative.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

ThePlayDrive said:
Okay, well they definitely do random vehicle checks at both borders, so that just means you weren't one of the random checks.


Yeah, the 9th said, "airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings". I agree with that ruling and I have a feeling the Supreme Court will too. The 9th's ruling is all I need for 'verification' although I think the only actual 'verification' I need for my interpretation of the 4th Amendment is the Constitution itself.

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

The 9th isn't the Supreme Court.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

1Perry said:
The 9th isn't the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Obviously - which is why I said, "I agree with that ruling and I have a feeling the Supreme Court will too." Future tense there.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

misterman said:
Yes, especially on a plane with a pressurized hull made of thin metal that a bullet can go through.

Not sure how much it deters terrorists on a suicide mission either. It might stop them, but they won't be afraid to take the risk.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's just an all around ridiculous situation. Who knows what would happen if some antsy passenger thought someone was a terrorist and started shooting. Armed citizens on plans is a ridiculous idea.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

1Perry said:


..................
Click to expand...
And again, in my second post, I said, "I agree with that ruling and I have a feeling the Supreme Court will too," after you mentioned that the 9th, not the SC, had ruled on it. Future tense.

In any case, I'm not sure how any of this has an affect on what we were talking about.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

ThePlayDrive said:
And again, in my second post, I said, "I agree with that ruling and I have a feeling the Supreme Court will too," after you mentioned that the 9th, not the SC, had ruled on it. Future tense.

In any case, I'm not sure how any of this has an affect on what we were talking about.
Click to expand...

I often wonder that. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

Ikari said:
Says me indeed. The only impact TSA has had on my personally has been overall negative.
Click to expand...

And you're not dead from a terrorist attack.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

ThePlayDrive said:
Yeah, it's just an all around ridiculous situation. Who knows what would happen if some antsy passenger thought someone was a terrorist and started shooting. Armed citizens on plans is a ridiculous idea.
Click to expand...

1. Frangible ammo that won't penetrate the fuselage.

2. Assumption that armed citizens are utter idiots who'd spray bullets around a crowded plane at random? :roll: No evidence that this assertion is correct. Existing stats indicate that lawfully armed citizens have an extremely low rate of arrest, or revokation of permit, or shooting the wrong person.
 
Re: Sen. Rand Paul ‘detained’ by TSA in Nashville, TSA denies

MaggieD said:
First, the story states nothing of the kind. Second, he was not arrested. I'm quite sure he was free to leave the airport. Or do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?
Click to expand...

Apparently the TSA knows something the rest of the world doesn't, namely that Rand Paul is a terrorist suspect.
 
Re: Sen. Rand Paul ‘detained’ by TSA in Nashville, TSA denies

Grant said:
Apparently the TSA knows something the rest of the world doesn't, namely that Rand Paul is a terrorist suspect.
Click to expand...

I really wonder sometimes what planet you live on.
 
Re: Sen. Rand Paul ‘detained’ by TSA in Nashville, TSA denies

Jetboogieman said:
I really wonder sometimes what planet you live on.
Click to expand...

So what's your take? That he was a terrorist suspect or that he wasn't?

If he wasn't, why the pat down?

Or do they just fool with your body because they can?

It has seemingly not occurred to you that there might be a better way.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

I'm probably never going to say these words again, but good for Rand Paul.
 
Re: Sen. Rand Paul ‘detained’ by TSA in Nashville, TSA denies

Grant said:
Apparently the TSA knows something the rest of the world doesn't, namely that Rand Paul is a terrorist suspect.
Click to expand...

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:

They should have let me go back through the scanner. Wouldn't it be nice if someone like Wolf Blitzer came through; and someone actually recognizedhim and said, "Hey, I know he's not a terrorist. Let him through"
Click to expand...

How absolutely ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom