Rand Paul detained by TSA

[LibertyForAll]

Is that the Amendment that outlines our Right to Travel By Air?

No, it's the one that protects us from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause whether we are flying or swimming or just walking down the street.

What makes airline screenings unreasonable?

Airline screenings aren't unreasonable but a government agency performing searches on american citizens without probable cause or warrants is.

If the airlines can't ensure the safety of the passengers then they shouldn't be in business.

 

[jillian]

Rand Paul detained by TSA - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

Things about to get interesting.

Why? Is his daddy going to try to shut down DHS?

 

[jillian]

I don't think that's the point.

This is a perfect example of political correctness run amuck.

You mean the political correctness that means Rand Paul should get a pass and I shouldn't?

If the scan went off and he refused a patdown he should be disallowed from boarding the plane.

STFU Rachel Maddcow wannabe. You're such a snippy dipshit.

If you don't like it feel free to find another sandbox, nutbar

 

[paulitician]

Rand Paul detained by TSA - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

Things about to get interesting.

Why? Is his daddy going to try to shut down DHS?

Hopefully. And then get rid of the Patriot Act & NDAA as well.

 

[jillian]

I guess Rand Paul thinks the rules don't apply to him

I guess you think the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to Rand Paul?

The 4th amendment doesn't prohibit all searches...and airline security searches are permissible

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No, it's the one that protects us from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause whether we are flying or swimming or just walking down the street.

What makes airline screenings unreasonable?

Airline screenings aren't unreasonable but a government agency performing searches on american citizens without probable cause or warrants is.

If the airlines can't ensure the safety of the passengers then they shouldn't be in business.

Which is it?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Serious question:

Paul set off the alarms and then refused a pat down and so was not allowed on the plane.

Which passengers should get a pass under this circumstance?

Only whiny Republicans?

What about whiny Republicans with dark skin and dark hair?

 

[rightwinger]

So under what circumstances does it become reasonable to search everyone, anywhere, anytime?

It's the true slippery slope. Once you start down it, where does it end?

Under the circumstances that when you buy a ticket you are providing a consent to search.

We'll see. Let me point out that they are the TRANSPORTATION Security Administration...not the Airline Security Administration.

Makes no difference. The conditions of flying are spelled out BEFORE you buy the ticket. If those conditions are unacceptable, don't buy it

 

[rightwinger]

The conditions spelled out BEFORE you buy an airline ticket

- You may be subjected to a search
- You are restricted in what you can pack in your luggage
- You may be denied boarding if you are intoxicated
- The items you carry on board are restricted
- You must comply with the directions of the flight crew

If you buy the ticket, you are agreeing with these conditions. If they are unacceptable to you, then don't purchase a ticket

 

[jillian]

Rand Paul detained by TSA - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

Things about to get interesting.

Why? Is his daddy going to try to shut down DHS?

Hopefully. And then get rid of the Patriot Act & NDAA as well.

well, it would certainly be in keeping with paulian naivete. but he won't get the chance.

i do admire your fortitude, though. however unstable it may be.

 

[Rocko]

Perhaps....but regardless, the rules apply to everyone...and until the rules are changed they should continue to apply to everyone.

I wonder how Mr. Paul would have felt if a man in muslim garb rang off the detector bell and the man refused a patdown and the TSA let him through anyway.....

Civil disobedience is a way to change bad rules. Hopefully everyone refuses to submit to TSA nonsense.

Rand Paul wants to abolish the TSA, so what do you think?

The TSA has kept our airways safe for ten years

Rand Paul is just soft on terrorism

So you want to let every jihadist we captured free, but love the TSA. You seriously lack cred on the whole terrorism issue. Let me guess you hate George Bush for the patriot act too, right?

 

[rightwinger]

Civil disobedience is a way to change bad rules. Hopefully everyone refuses to submit to TSA nonsense.

Rand Paul wants to abolish the TSA, so what do you think?

The TSA has kept our airways safe for ten years

Rand Paul is just soft on terrorism

So you want to let every jihadist we captured free, but love the TSA. You seriously lack cred on the whole terrorism issue. Let me guess you hate George Bush for the patriot act too, right?

I never said that. I said after ten years they deserve a trial

And yes, I despise the Patriot act

 

[Rocko]

You said ten years is up, time to release everyone at GITMO. I just read the thread. You did say either put them on trial or free them.

 

[rightwinger]

You said ten years is up, time to release everyone at GITMO. I just read the thread. You did say either put them on trial or free them.

The idea is that the accused are entitled to a fair trial. Holding innocent men indefinitely without a trial is un-American. Either try them or let them go

It's the basis of habeus corpus

 

[Rocko]

I'm sorry, but someone supports the TSA and is willing to let every suspect at GITMO go free, has some a major contradiction in principal.

 

[Rocko]

You said ten years is up, time to release everyone at GITMO. I just read the thread. You did say either put them on trial or free them.

The idea is that the accused are entitled to a fair trial. Holding innocent men indefinitely without a trial is un-American. Either try them or let them go

It's the basis of habeus corpus

Remember when I brought up the fact that if we let these suspects go we're putting Ameran civilians lives at risk? You said something to they effect of that's the price we pay for freedom. How then can you expain the TSA?

 

[mskafka]

Your wife gave me carte blanche to enter your home anytime I want to.
FYI....you are running out of mouithwash.

Real funny and a broken major rule here at USMB. Truth is being alert is one of the things I get paid for so if you made it over the fence you would have to get passed a 70lb and a 120lb pitbull(Lightning and Thunder) not their real names..witheld for security reasons.. and by the time and if you had any limbs left and managed to make it to the third floor entrance I have full authority to **** that person up beyond reconizability. Oh ya...I am not married. Have a nice day clown.

Didnt know I broke a rule.
Sorry to the Mods.

In the meantime....you are really full of yourself there huggy.....

Likely some 40 year old loser down in moms basement sitting in your underwear typing away on the internet....

Okay. Be nice, Marine.

 

[Big Fitz]

The rules shouldn't apply to anyone.

Remember that the next time you're mugged, robbed or otherwise legally wronged.

Right, because that's clearly what I was referring to.

Then don't make universal statements like that. People take you seriously. The TSA sucks and shouldn't exist. We get that. But to say the rules should apply? Abolish bad rules, don't just ignore them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 4th Amendment doesn't really apply, give me a ******* break. You have to look at the 4th in context --> there was NO MASS TRANSIT at the time. Public transport, etc.

Nor was there radio or television during the Foundation Era, yet the First Amendment applies to these media as well. And just today the Court ruled on the use of GPS to track criminal suspects, a technology clearly not in existence during the 18th Century.

The 4th Amendment does indeed apply to the TSA and screenings:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is the State’s desire to search passengers boarding airliners reasonable, does the State have a compelling interest to do so? The answer is yes, to address possible terrorist attacks.

Is there sufficient evidence TSA’s methods are effective to realize that interest? Here the answer is no.

This of course doesn’t mean the TSA’s method is illegal or un-Constitutional, but certainty poorly implemented.

The State has a legitimate concern with regard to terrorism, its ‘remedy’ is seriously lacking, however. Does flying on a commercial airliner in of itself constitute probable cause? How does the herding of cattle method used by the TSA meet the 4th Amendment requirement of ‘particularly describing the place to be searched’? Not to mention the requirement of a warrant to search in the first place.

That the majority wishes to surrender its freedom for security doesn’t justify an un-Constitutional act; and the right of citizens to access public airways isn’t mitigated by their use of private airlines and airports.

The TSA and its methods are clearly an unwarranted overreaction to 9/11, as already correctly noted there are as effective – if not more so – methods of search which are less likely to constitute a privacy violation. But it’s ultimately up to the American people to demand such change, it won’t come from a government whose politicians are obviously afraid of being perceived as ‘soft on terror’ by the voters.

 

[rightwinger]

You said ten years is up, time to release everyone at GITMO. I just read the thread. You did say either put them on trial or free them.

The idea is that the accused are entitled to a fair trial. Holding innocent men indefinitely without a trial is un-American. Either try them or let them go

It's the basis of habeus corpus

Remember when I brought up the fact that if we let these suspects go we're putting Ameran civilians lives at risk? You said something to they effect of that's the price we pay for freedom. How then can you expain the TSA?

I find an order of magnitude of inconvenience between a patdown and being held on indefinite detention with no trial