Rand Paul detained by TSA in Nashville

Awesome - more politicians getting stuck in/annoyed by security theater can only help get it thrown out.

Early reports on Twitter are that Rand was on his way to an anti-abortion rally.

I hope that's true, because the irony of him being detained because of keep-your-hands-off-my-body would be pretty delicious.

The U.S. Constitution actually protects federal lawmakers from detention while they’re on the way to the Capital.

“The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same….” according to Article I, Section 6.

I'm fairly certain that Paul would have been completely free to jump on a train or drive his car. He's just not getting on the plane!

I don't consider air travel to be an inalienable right but I know I'm in the minority.

I've got $20 that says he said "Do you know who I am"?

Will this be the start of more backlash from politicians against the expanding "remit" of the TSA? One can only dream!

This kind of harassment of family members proves that Ron Paul is the real Republican front-runner and is seen as a real threat to the Obama administration.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

This kind of harassment of family members proves that Ron Paul is the real Republican front-runner and is seen as a real threat to the Obama administration.

I can't tell if that is snarky or not.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Early reports on Twitter are that Rand was on his way to an anti-abortion rally.

I hope that's true, because the irony of him being detained because of keep-your-hands-off-my-body would be pretty delicious.

An irony that would be completely lost on the Pro-Life crowd...

Paleocon wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

This kind of harassment of family members proves that Ron Paul is the real Republican front-runner and is seen as a real threat to the Obama administration.

I can't tell if that is snarky or not.

Neither could I.

Bear wrote:

I've got $20 that says he said "Do you know who I am"?

I'll take the bet; thanks for the $20. Rand has been railing against the TSA (and their search methods) both publically and in Congress and this was a case where he used his situation to draw attention to the issue. I'm not saying he never uses the "Do you know who I am" but I highly doubt he would in this scenario as he's taking a stand for evryone who deals with this nonsense and not just seeking an exception for his own gain.

I'm curious to see if Paul mentions it in the debate as he argues against the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc.

NathanialG wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

This kind of harassment of family members proves that Ron Paul is the real Republican front-runner and is seen as a real threat to the Obama administration.

I can't tell if that is snarky or not.

Neither could I.

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xJF0yF0wbNg/TxRI1qobcSI/AAAAAAAAK3g/-qFqw_XwU9Q/s1600/true_story_bro_super.jpg)

Looks like the scuttlebutt on Twitter was indeed correct.

Rand Paul's Twitter account[/url]]Today I'll speak to the March for Life in DC. A nation cannot long endure w/o respect for the right to Life. Our Liberty depends on it.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Looks like the scuttlebutt on Twitter was indeed correct.

Rand Paul's Twitter account[/url]]Today I'll speak to the March for Life in DC. A nation cannot long endure w/o respect for the right to Life. Our Liberty depends on it.

The irony! It burns!

Keep in mind that this is the self same politician who stated that it was important to cut just about every social program with the exception of medicare and medicaid reimbursements to physicians (he is a physician) because "doctors deserve to make a decent living".

So yeah. He's sort of elevated hypocrisy to a high art and lifestyle.

So I wonder if he thought it would be okay for someone to enslave him to be sure someone else survived?

Like, say, with high taxes to run a welfare state so that nobody starves?

Bear wrote:
The U.S. Constitution actually protects federal lawmakers from detention while they’re on the way to the Capital.

“The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same….” according to Article I, Section 6.

I'm fairly certain that Paul would have been completely free to jump on a train or drive his car. He's just not getting on the plane!

I don't consider air travel to be an inalienable right but I know I'm in the minority.

No one considers air travel to be an inalienable right, it's that travel has long been established an inalienable right: the government can't censor what you say in a book by telling you you're free to send a letter or publish a newspaper.

Bear wrote:
The U.S. Constitution actually protects federal lawmakers from detention while they’re on the way to the Capital.

“The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same….” according to Article I, Section 6.

I'm fairly certain that Paul would have been completely free to jump on a train or drive his car. He's just not getting on the plane!

I don't consider air travel to be an inalienable right but I know I'm in the minority.

I think it's important to remember that the TSA hasn't always existed. There was a time where airline security was handled by the airlines themselves and there's no proof to my knowledge that the TSA has done any good since 9/11. They've expanded the reach of the police state without necessarily making the US safer.

So yes, air travel isn't an inalienable right. And when security was run by the airlines they could refuse your right to travel like any company can refuse to provide service to a customer. When you're talking about the government prohibiting citizens from travel of any form then you certainly are heading in the direction of infringing on people's rights.

The White House and the TSA sure do have a funny definition of the word "detained".

Minarchist wrote:

The White House and the TSA sure do have a funny definition of the word "detained".

Looking at the word in dictionary.com:

1. to keep from proceeding; keep waiting; delay. (TSA did this)
2. to keep under restraint or in custody. (TSA did not do this)

So everyone is right.

DSGamer wrote:

I think it's important to remember that the TSA hasn't always existed. There was a time where airline security was handled by the airlines themselves and there's no proof to my knowledge that the TSA has done any good since 9/11. They've expanded the reach of the police state without necessarily making the US safer.

So yes, air travel isn't an inalienable right. And when security was run by the airlines they could refuse your right to travel like any company can refuse to provide service to a customer. When you're talking about the government prohibiting citizens from travel of any form then you certainly are heading in the direction of infringing on people's rights.

I think that's a fair point.

It made me think of something though. How would you feel about moving airport security back to the domain of the airlines? Would you feel comfortable letting a private company decide whether or not they will let you on their airline?

Damn double posts....

DSGamer wrote:

And when security was run by the airlines they could refuse your right to travel like any company can refuse to provide service to a customer.

In case this discussion goes down this road, keep in mind that companies cannot refuse to provide service for no good reason.

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

Considering that the only actual security improvement in all this foofoorah is strengthening cockpit doors, yes, I would be totally comfortable with airlines handling their own security. All the heat and noise by the TSA is worthless.

As Bruce Schneier has said, the central change in the equation happened ON 9/11 -- in that passengers figured out that they cannot allow themselves to be hijacked. The idea of hijacking planes and using them as weapons was over before the fourth plane hit the ground. This idea didn't last even one day.

Strengthening cockpit doors, and passengers that fight back. Everything else is useless bullsh*t, designed to fool you into thinking you're safer, while actually depriving you of your civil liberties.

Bear wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I think it's important to remember that the TSA hasn't always existed. There was a time where airline security was handled by the airlines themselves and there's no proof to my knowledge that the TSA has done any good since 9/11. They've expanded the reach of the police state without necessarily making the US safer.

So yes, air travel isn't an inalienable right. And when security was run by the airlines they could refuse your right to travel like any company can refuse to provide service to a customer. When you're talking about the government prohibiting citizens from travel of any form then you certainly are heading in the direction of infringing on people's rights.

I think that's a fair point.

It made me think of something though. How would you feel about moving airport security back to the domain of the airlines? Would you feel comfortable letting a private company decide whether or not they will let you on their airline?

I would be hugely in favor of this. They have just much incentive to ensure safety as TSA, but they also have incentive to treat you with respect. You can't choose a competitor to TSA. You can with airlines doing their own security.

Malor wrote:

Considering that the only actual security improvement in all this foofoorah is strengthening cockpit doors, yes, I would be totally comfortable with airlines handling their own security. All the heat and noise by the TSA is worthless.

As Bruce Schneier has said, the central change in the equation happened ON 9/11 -- in that passengers figured out that they cannot allow themselves to be hijacked. The idea of hijacking planes and using them as weapons was over before the fourth plane hit the ground. This idea didn't last even one day.

Strengthening cockpit doors, and passengers that fight back. Everything else is useless bullsh*t, designed to fool you into thinking you're safer, while actually depriving you of your civil liberties.

Honestly the passengers that fight back are the only real security measure. Everything else makes you less safe, including the cockpit doors. Right now if the Pilot killed the copilot and locked the door no one could stop him from kamikazing somewhere.

But I can never honestly see that happening. Hmm, you may be more likely to have one of the passengers freak out and decide for some reason that the pilot was going to do that (maybe he talks like a Muslim!!!). So at the very least the cockpit door protects you from false positives.

Yonder wrote:

But I can never honestly see that happening.

It likely already has, though minus the killing the co-pilot part.

Sorry, I meant that I couldn't imagine the passengers successfully interfering. if the pilot said there had been a problem and he was going to turn around and land, how much notice would even the most observant passengers have that the plane was going towards a building or other target instead of a runway?

Ah, you're right. I would imagine that the flight crew might know something was up, but there's a long history of them being conditioned to never question the pilot. That and they'd be locked out of the cockpit as well.

OG_slinger wrote:

Ah, you're right. I would imagine that the flight crew might know something was up, but there's a long history of them being conditioned to never question the pilot. That and they'd be locked out of the cockpit as well.

Semantic nit-pick - "flight-crew" refers to the people sitting in the cockpit driving the bus. I think you mean "cabin crew"