Senator Paul is being detained at the Nashville Airport by the TSA

[Case_Closed]

"the experts"

Link?

[johnhp]

....Paul asked to go back through the scanner, but TSA refused and told him he needed a full body pat down..........

Apparently, that is not the procedure they use.

.....Rand Paul doesn't think he is any more special than the next person subjected to this over reaching law that was not approved by congress.......

It is a procedure that does not have to be passed by Congress.  However, if he objects to it, perhaps he can write some legislation and get it passed specifically addressing this.  Until then, he should abide by the rules.

[johnhp]

Dustup,

Could you please fix your damned video?  The thing startes every time i open the damned thread.

The Transportation Security Administration claimed Rand Paul triggered an alarm during routine airport screening and refused to complete the screening process in order to resolve the issue, TSA spokesman Jon Allen said.
Passengers who refuse to comply with security procedures are denied access to the secure gate area, Allen said. Paul was escorted out of the screening area, Allen said.
“When an irregularity is found during the TSA screening process, it must be resolved prior to allowing a passenger to proceed to the secure area of the airport,’’ Allen said. “Passengers who refuse to complete the screening process cannot be granted access to the secure area in order to ensure the safety of others traveling.’’

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120123/NEWS01/120123015/Sen-Rand-Paul-allegedly-detained-by-TSA-Nashville

[dustup]

Well, if you are correct, then the proper approach is to work to change the law.  That is what it means to be a citizen in a republic.

...is it a law that was voted through congress? .....if not it was made up by the TSA and UN-Constitutional!.........

.....Under the PUBLIC LAW 107–71—NOV. 19, 2001 there is no mention of pat downs or full body scans.........

..........The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; etc., shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; etc.” ............This means that any law passed by Congress and signed by the President must be CONSTITUTIONALLY lawful to be Supreme. Every Federal Law must still be viewed under the limitations of the Constitution to be considered Supreme..........

[Observer]

Some people are special and rules don't apply to them, don't you know?

Unless the constitution has changed in the last 24 hours, TSA violated the law by detaining Senator Paul.

[Case_Closed]

I'd like to know more about these "experts" within the TSA.  From the looks of things, Affirmative Action is the driving force behind the employment of these people.  For the most part, it looks like the Postal and Mail Handlers Convention out of Chicago, Illinois which is about 99.999% black.

Are these the "experts" we're talking about here?

[johnhp]

...is it a law that was voted through congress? .....if not it was made up by the TSA and UN-Constitutional!.........

You are wrong.  Screening procedures are not laws.  The procedures are mandated to be developed by the law:

‘‘(e) SCREENING OPERATIONS.—The Under Secretary shall—
‘‘(1) be responsible for day-to-day Federal security screening
operations for passenger air transportation and intrastate air
transportation under sections 44901 and 44935;

[johnhp]

Unless the constitution has changed in the last 24 hours, TSA violated the law by detaining Senator Paul.

He was not detained.  See the Tennessean article above.

[DougRich]

We all go to the airport, we abide by the rules.  If we do not like the rules we work to change them.  i am not sure what the problem is.  i understand that you want what you want and you want it now, but rules take time to change.

The rules in question would require a single phone call to change - nothing more complex or time-consuming than that. It probably wouldn't even have to come from the White House - the Secretary of Transportation might well have the authority. The problem lies in the fact that no one in government, at any level or either party, has the cojones to call it what it is: security theatre...and just put an end to the silliness. The TSA, in its years of existence, has caught exactly zero would-be terrorists, because they're always looking for what the bad guys were thinking about trying to use three or four years ago.

Its silly until the terrorist figure out that if they hide the bomb on the 3 year old, or disguise the explosives as breast milk, etc.   In other words, considering the sophistication shown on 911, if they make exceptions for "all people" or "all liquid" rules why would dedicated terrorists not try to sneak past the checks using the exceptions?

When you noted "the sophistication shown on 911"...I'm curious...were you being facetious? A bunch of guys synchronized their watches and smuggled boxcutters on board; this is "sophisticated"? That's one of the reasons that I'm always skeptical, to say the least, when "experts" talk about how operations of that nature require "massive funding"...sometimes said to be in the millions of dollars. In the case of 911, it was the cost of some plane tickets, box cutters, and a few cheap watches, and they were good to go; what "massive funding" came into play that day? Even if you factor in the flying lessons and the living expenses of the hijackers (which wouldn't apply to a would-be bomber who already lives here), you're not exactly talking about a need for "massive funding" or much in the way of "sophistication".

[johnhp]

The rules in question would require a single phone call to change - nothing more complex or time-consuming than that. It probably wouldn't even have to come from the White House - the Secretary of Transportation might well have the authority. The problem lies in the fact that no one in government, at any level or either party, has the cojones to call it what it is: security theatre...and just put an end to the silliness. The TSA, in its years of existence, has caught exactly zero would-be terrorists, because they're always looking for what the bad guys were thinking about trying to use three or four years ago.

i do not disagree.  What it does not require is a whining petulent senator playing victim because he is asked to do what everyone in the exact same situation is asked to do.

[Case_Closed]

Rand Paul should have punched that TSA agent out...just like Cynthia McKinney did.

[Pepsi]

When you noted "the sophistication shown on 911"...I'm curious...were you being facetious? A bunch of guys synchronized their watches and smuggled boxcutters on board; this is "sophisticated"? That's one of the reasons that I'm always skeptical, to say the least, when "experts" talk about how operations of that nature require "massive funding"...sometimes said to be in the millions of dollars. In the case of 911, it was the cost of some plane tickets, box cutters, and a few cheap watches, and they were good to go; what "massive funding" came into play that day? Even if you factor in the flying lessons and the living expenses of the hijackers (which wouldn't apply to a would-be bomber who already lives here), you're not exactly talking about a need for "massive funding" or much in the way of "sophistication".

I agree with what I think is your premise, that these terrorists and would be terrorists are largely incompetent and generally lacking in sophistication.     The sophistication of 911 was out of the ordinary from what we have seen before or since, I think of the coordination and long term planning involved as being fairly sophisticated, and yes learning how to fly a jumbo jet is somewhat sophisticated imo.

To me the TSA's job is similar to my job as an information security guy.. that is to identify and plug as many holes as possible where the bad guys may slither through.    

As for me I'm happy to take my shoes off, go through body scan, etc, understanding that one in maybe 10 million passengers screened are actually terrorists attempting to sabotage a plane.    I fly enough and have enough of a fear of flying already.

[Case_Closed]

Some highly publicized incidents around the screening procedures included:
Passenger John Tyner refused a pat-down in a videotaped encounter, famously telling security personnel "If you touch my junk I'm gonna have you arrested." This phrase was commonly paraphrased as "Don't touch my junk".[109][119]
A breast cancer survivor was forced to remove her prosthetic breast.[120][121]
A bladder cancer survivor had his urostomy bag seal broken during a pat-down, leaving him soaked in urine.[122]
A woman with a hip replacement was singled out for pat down.[123]
A rape survivor was distressed by a pat-down that she described as feeling like being sexually assaulted again.[124]
A 3-year-old child was distressed by surrendering her teddy bear and being subject to a pat-down.[125]
An eight-year-old boy was patted down on his genital area.[126][127]
A woman claims that she was selected for additional screening by a male TSA worker for the size of her breasts.[128]
A woman claims to have been harassed and detained inordinately by multiple TSA agents over a container of saved human breast milk, and was told by a police officer that the TSA agents targeted her due to her previous complaints.[129]
A woman claims that she was patted down because the body scanner revealed her sanitary towel.[130]
A woman was arrested, strip searched, and charged with assault when she argued with several TSA agents over trying to pass applesauce through security for her elderly mother, despite being told by another TSA agent that it was permitted to bring the applesauce on the flight.[131]
A four-year-old boy was on his way to Walt Disney World in Orlando, Fla., with his parents when TSA agents forced him to take off his leg braces.[132]
Actress and model Donna D'Errico claims that a TSA agent selected her to go through an extra search and justified his choice by saying "Because you caught my eye".[133]
Former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura, who had set off metal detectors at airport security checkpoints due to having a titanium implant from a hip replacement, filed a lawsuit against both the TSA and Department of Homeland Security after he was subject to pat-downs. Ventura's attorney stated he did not want monetary compensation but that the TSA end future pat-downs on him and an acknowledgement that his rights were violated.[134] However, in November 2011, Ventura's lawsuit was dismissed.[135]
On April 27, 2011, Former Miss USA Susie Castillo issued a statement attacking the TSA, alleging that she had been groped and touched inappropriately four times during the enhanced pat-down. She released a blog post and video describing the experience,[136] and created an online petition demanding an end to the "enhanced" pat-downs.[137]
On May 7, 2011 an 8-month-old baby was patted down at Kansas City International Airport after traces of explosive material were detected on his stroller.[138]
On June 26, 2011 during a pat-down, a 95-year-old leukemia patient in a wheelchair was forced to remove her diaper.[139]
On December 21, 2011, the TSA in Las Vegas confiscated a cupcake packed in a glass jar from a Massachusetts woman, Rebecca Hains, who had been permitted to bring the same cupcake on a flight from Boston to Las Vegas the previous week. Hains said, "The TSA at Logan Airport said the cupcakes looked delicious. ... But in Las Vegas, they were dangerous. They shouldn’t be delicious in one part of the country and a security threat in the other."[140] Two weeks later, the TSA responded on their blog, writing that the cupcake "had a thick layer of icing inside a jar. ... In general, cakes and pies are allowed in carry-on luggage".[141] Hains wrote to The Consumerist that "the TSA post was slightly misleading" about the amount of icing in the jar. Including a photo of the same kind of cupcake from the same bakery, she added, "If the TSA says cakes and cupcakes are safe to fly, there should be no caveat saying, 'oh, um, unless it's conforming to the shape of a container, like a glass jar!'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration

[johnhp]

Far be it from me to make a suggestion, but it almost seems as if some of our fellow posters would rather whine about this than contact their representatives to do something about it.

[Case_Closed]

To help the public take on a lighter side to all of this, they have come up with a "brochure."