• 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.

This sounds like a slippery slope argument. It reminds of when people say, "If we let the gays get married, then soon, we'll be letting people get married to animals". In my experience, most people in the United States value their freedom. They get pissed when the government restricts where they can protest, they get pissed when the government restricts their gun use and so on. People are very much aware of what government control at the level of places like Cuba entails. Not having a problem with TSA security in a specific venue does not suggest, in any sense, that people need to go to Cuba to understand what 'the other side' is like and to stand up for their rights when they feel that they are being usurped.

Not so much slippery slope as measured history. We've seen the course of government time and time again; particularly government which grows outside the bounds of the People. There is no history of same sex marriage the likes there is the natural course of government.

What we have here is a disagreement on what 'reasonable' in the 4th amendment means. I think most people in the United States would agree that many actions by the Cuban government go far past 'reasonable'. However, it is entirely understandable that people would have different interpretations of reasonable when it comes to airport security.

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. There was no need for another government agency after 9/11. We had a system already in place and it could have sufficed; TSA was unnecessary.
 
How is it more reasonable than searching every 10th person in the inner city? It's a very reasonable assumption that a good portion of them would get caught with either, drugs or an illegal weapon. (this is, if Paul is right)
Searching every '10th person' in the inner city would require the government to establish checkpoints in every single 'inner city' in the country. It would require people to get to the city 5 hours in advance and it would effect considerably more people on a daily basis than any security check in an airport world. It would likely result in a severe decrease in business, destruction of the housing market and many other problematic consequences. The comparison is false.
 
I disagree. I think it's pretty reasonable.

Given the low probability of terrorist attack and the aggressiveness of TSA searches; it is not reasonable. Perhaps if terrorist attacks happened once every 9-12 months. But on average its a decade or so.
 
They beauty of America is that our politicians are no one special. All can be replaced. There are reasonable actions to take that are within the confines of the Constitution, the flood gates need not be opened. Yet we must temper action with freedom, and this is where we are failing. Mostly due to the fear mongering of terrorism, it's not just related to TSA alone; though TSA is part of the system. It's power grabs by government which erode that which our forefathers fought for. TSA and HLS were not necessary; we already had structures in place. The Patriot Act was not necessary and has only led to abuse. Yet with things such as the TSA, I fear that Americans have become too much like cattle and now it is the government which terrorizes us. Obey the TSA or face its wrath. You may not just be escorted off the property, there's all sorts of nasty little things that can happen to you should you dare raise your voice.

I agree with you in principle, just not every detail.

So who are the real terrorists? Or rather, can government itself engage in terrorism against its people? Clearly yes, and clearly it is.

:lol: Not going to get you far.
 
Searching every '10th person' in the inner city would require the government to establish checkpoints in every single 'inner city' in the country. It would require people to get to the city 5 hours in advance and it would effect considerably more people on a daily basis than any security check in an airport world. It would likely result in a severe decrease in business, destruction of the housing market and many other problematic consequences. The comparison is false.

Is it? At base how is it different? Certainly crime happens a lot, yes? And we'd like to cut down on that crime, yes? So why not allow more invasive forms of search? Why can one not be randomly searched when using a sidewalk? How would that at its fundamental be any different than TSA. You have a lot of deflection here to try to not address the issue. But at issue is the individual and their rights and the interaction with government force, not the aggregated affect on getting somewhere.
 
Searching every '10th person' in the inner city would require the government to establish checkpoints in every single 'inner city' in the country. It would require people to get to the city 5 hours in advance and it would effect considerably more people on a daily basis than any security check in an airport world. It would likely result in a severe decrease in business, destruction of the housing market and many other problematic consequences. The comparison is false.

It would require nothing. People would just go on their way just like any other day. Officials would simply grab the 10th person they count and search them.

Here is my prediction. If it's determined that the TSA is searching people just because they were number 23 through the line, the courts are going to rule that un constitutional. If not, they will allow it.

Also, if it's found out that people are checked not because the detector found something but just because it was programmed to go off every 23rd person there is going to be a TSA official in big trouble for perjury.

I believe Paul is the person to pursue this.
 
Not so much slippery slope as measured history. We've seen the course of government time and time again; particularly government which grows outside the bounds of the People. There is no history of same sex marriage the likes there is the natural course of government.
Your argument is that TSA restrictions could lead to a government like Cuba. That could be said for any restriction - including having to pause at a stop sign. The problem is that people can disagree with you about how far restrictions should go without enabling the United States to turn into Cuba. You don't seem to be acknowledging that.

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.
This is definitely a slippery slope argument. Moreover, it's an argument that is not based in a complete observation of how Americans have reaction to perceived infringements on freedom. Like I said, people speak out and act out against perceived infringements on the Bill of Rights all the time. You seem to be ignoring the constant debates around freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, gun rights, privacy and so on that are happening in this country. It just happens that a lot of people think the TSA's reasoning and actions are reasonable, but having different limits than you do on freedom does not mean that people are willing to let government do whatever it wants.

There was no need for another government agency after 9/11. We had a system already in place and it could have sufficed; TSA was unnecessary.
TSA might have prevented more attacks from happening. Until someone proves that that '0' record since 9/11 had nothing to do with TSA, I'll remain unconvinced by your absolutes.
 
Given the low probability of terrorist attack and the aggressiveness of TSA searches; it is not reasonable. Perhaps if terrorist attacks happened once every 9-12 months. But on average its a decade or so.
Given how preventable a terrorist attack is with adequate searches, I think it's reasonable.

Is there a reason why in every topic, be it this, religion or something else, you express your opinions as absolutes?
 
Given how preventable a terrorist attack is with adequate searches, I think it's reasonable.

Is there a reason why in every topic, be it this, religion or something else, you express your opinions as absolutes?

We had adequate searches before the TSA.
 
It would require nothing. People would just go on their way just like any other day. Officials would simply grab the 10th person they count and search them.
Everything I said still applies. People would not go on their way because they would be annoyed and would rather work in other places. Not only that, it would cause racial divides and crap ton of other problems. It would be ridiculous to have checkpoints in every major city and it would have adverse affects on the economy and everything else. It's impractical.

Here is my prediction. If it's determined that the TSA is searching people just because they were number 23 through the line, the courts are going to rule that un constitutional. If not, they will allow it.
I don't think it would be ruled unconstitutional in the former case if they were also searching people and bags that seemed 'suspicious' in addition to the 23rd person.

Also, if it's found out that people are checked not because the detector found something but just because it was programmed to go off every 23rd person there is going to be a TSA official in big trouble for perjury.
Yep.

I believe Paul is the person to pursue this.
Perhaps, but I doubt he'll get far. He would need to sway public opinion.
 
Your argument is that TSA restrictions could lead to a government like Cuba.

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.

That could be said for any restriction - including having to pause at a stop sign. The problem is that people can disagree with you about how far restrictions should go without enabling the United States to turn into Cuba. You don't seem to be acknowledging that.

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.

This is definitely a slippery slope argument. Moreover, it's an argument that is not based in a complete observation of how Americans have reaction to perceived infringements on freedom. Like I said, people speak out and act out against perceived infringements on the Bill of Rights all the time. You seem to be ignoring the constant debates around freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, gun rights, privacy and so on that are happening in this country. It just happens that a lot of people think the TSA's reasoning and actions are reasonable, but having different limits than you do on freedom does not mean that people are willing to let government do whatever it wants.

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.

TSA might have prevented more attacks from happening. Until someone proves that that '0' record since 9/11 had nothing to do with TSA, I'll remain unconvinced by your absolutes.

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.
 
Given how preventable a terrorist attack is with adequate searches, I think it's reasonable.

Indeed, and before we had adequate searches and extremely low instances of terrorist attack.

Is there a reason why in every topic, be it this, religion or something else, you express your opinions as absolutes?

Is there some reason why I cannot state my opinions without you claiming it to be religious, yet you do the same thing and it's ok? You express "reasonable" and an absolute as well. The only difference is that you're arguing the reverse side.
 
Everything I said still applies. People would not go on their way because they would be annoyed and would rather work in other places. Not only that, it would cause racial divides and crap ton of other problems. It would be ridiculous to have checkpoints in every major city and it would have adverse affects on the economy and everything else. It's impractical.

LOL, and the TSA isn't causing any problems. :roll:

P.S. I never called for checkpoints. Since you seem to not want to discuss what I actually proposed there really is nowhere to go.

I don't think it would be ruled unconstitutional in the former case if they were also searching people and bags that seemed 'suspicious' in addition to the 23rd person.

Hopefully we get to find out

.Perhaps, but I doubt he'll get far. He would need to sway public opinion.

No he doesn't. He needs the courts to rule it is unconstitutional. It matters none what public opinion is. Public opinion was fully behind McCain/Feingold.
 
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?
 
I do not see the TSA's actions as a violation of the 4th amendment because I think that their justification for searches is reasonable.

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.
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

I applaud Paul for standing up for what he believes in and raising awareness of the TSA's onerous screening process.

Brian
 
Re: Rand Paul detained by TSA

I applaud Paul for standing up for what he believes in and raising awareness of the TSA's onerous screening process.

How did he do any of that? He just got searched. Big deal.
 
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.

Then sue them.
 
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?

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.
 
LOL, and the TSA isn't causing any problems.
When did I say it wasn't causing any problems? Strike one for putting words in my mouth.

P.S. I never called for checkpoints. Since you seem to not want to discuss what I actually proposed there really is nowhere to go.
You asked me how TSA actions would be different from having random searches in the inner city. I told you what I think such searches would entail and that all that such searches would entail (including checkpoints) would be ridiculous. How else would you expect me to answer the question if not by addressing what I think random searches in the inner city would entail? :roll:

Hopefully we get to find out
Fine by me. I'm already pretty certain how it will turn out.

No he doesn't. He needs the courts to rule it is unconstitutional. It matters none what public opinion is. Public opinion was fully behind McCain/Feingold.
Cool.
 
Back
Top Bottom