They just wanted to see what exactly that Tribble was that lives on top of his head.

"clearly a glitch."

Clearly.

Or a well engineered stunt to fuel the fire he has against the TSA.

after refusing a pat-down when the full-body scanner set off an alarm

Laws apply to us all and how many of us would not be detained if we refused a pat down after a scanner went off?

Gee the only GOP candidate with half a brain...

Oh well Obama 4 more years...

Clearly.

Or a well engineered stunt to fuel the fire he has against the TSA.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2012-01-23 11:46 AM

They must have found that copy of the Constitution in his pocket during the X-ray...

It was that damn metal plate in his head again.

Gee the only GOP candidate with half a brain...

#4 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2012-01-23 11:48 AM

Article 1 Section 6: (Congress) 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; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Boaz is dead on.

"Laws apply to us all and how many of us would not be detained if we refused a pat down after a scanner went off?"

Damned straight. He's flying, he sets off an alarm, and then he refuses the pat-down?

Hey, I write the laws, I don't follow 'em. Wanna see my eye-doctor certification certificate?

"shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace..."

Okay, I'm comfortable with stopping there.

Boaz is dead on.

#10 | Posted by adammm

Boaz is just a crazy, self loating black man....right?

Article 1 Section 6: (Congress) 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; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Posted by adammm

Well there's a throw-away paragraph if ever I heard one.

what basis does this jackass feel he has to make this protest?
He set off a scanner alarm. he is not above the law
I like airport scanners... they help ensure air travel safety.

#9 - good point. This should apply, no?

Okay, I'm comfortable with stopping there.

I'm not...

they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

dont like that one eh?

#15 but he is above the law according to #9

I think everyone can at least agree on the fact that this was a remarkably stupid move by the TSA.

he is not above the law

Our law says he is in this circumstance. But you give diplomatic immunity to other nations idiots at the U.N., one of ours cant have it too?

"You've gone overboard and you're missing the boat on terrorism because you're doing these invasive searches on six-year-old girls," he said. "I think you oughta get rid of the random pat-downs. The American public is unhappy with them. They're unhappy with the invasiveness of them." - Rand Paul

Thinks he's a 6 year old girl.

But it begins to sound like a stunt.

"This should apply, no?"

It depends. If Abdul-al-Islam set off a scanner and refused a pat-down, would that be a breach of the peace, or not?

Well there's a throw-away paragraph if ever I heard one.

Liberals think the whole damn thing is throwaway, except when it benefits them..

I like airport scanners... they help ensure air travel safety.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Okay, I'm comfortable with stopping there

Yep, you certainly have breach of the peace and a possible felony. Moreover, that language says they can't be arrested, says nothing about being detained and questioned.

"I think everyone can at least agree on the fact that this was a remarkably stupid move by the TSA."

To detain someone who refuses a pat down after setting off the alarm? Or the mistake of not giving deferential treatment to one of the ruling class?

I'm hoping this will come up as a topic in tonight's debate.

The mistake of giving their biggest critic more ammunition, and showing them detaining grandmothers and senators- people who you know are not planning on blowing up planes.

@ Banner

I think i could fit his actions under breach of peace maybe ..... is it even maybe a felony to not comply with airport security?

.....except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace,

I'm glad this happened, because it will call more attention to the invasive idiocy of the TSA.

Wow! Bonus points for rcade!

#26

holy shit I am in lock step with some of the libs

(actually everyone seems all over the map on this one ....)

Members of the government are neither above nor below the law. If you set off the alarm you get a pat down. This is common sense and a good law. I really really REALLY don't have a problem with people not being allowed to bring weapons on board a pressurized bubble hurtling at hundreds of mile an hour thousands of feet in the air; and there's no other way to prevent people from doing it.

To detain someone who refuses a pat down after setting off the alarm?

He isnt "someone". He is a sitting U.S. senator. I highly doubt he is going to bring a bomb through to blow up a plane. It's crazy, you dont want to check out muslims, who we know try to hurt us, but you harrass American citizens...idiots...

#30 | Posted by rcade

Double edged sword, Rodgers. I say we should profile, like Israel does. I wonder when the last time a muslim bombed an Air Israel flight?

And as I recall, the immunity from arrest includes a "breach of peace" clause, and some asshole refusing a security check is definitely a breach of peace.

Liberals think the whole damn thing is throwaway, except when it benefits them..
#23 | Posted by boaz

Well, by throw-away I meant subject to the scrutiny of a Constitutional Convention, but I see how you might need to interpret that otherwise.

He isnt "someone". He is a sitting U.S. senator.

#34 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2012-01-23 12:04 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

How naive you are to believe Senators can't crack and hurt people intentionally. Can you imagine the lawsuits if they let a senator through with a bomb, not to even mention all the innocent persons who get killed?

i hope he is in some small concrete airport dungeon with electrodes attached to his testicles. This dick set off an airport scanner ......what is he BETTER than everyone else? Article 1 sec 6 needs to be amended.

It's crazy, you dont want to check out muslims, who we know try to hurt us

Funny, I put Muslims and Libertarians in the same class when it comes to those who want to hurt this country.

Article 1 sec 6 needs to be amended.

Just like the 2nd Amend. Right?

Fucking liberals...

what basis does this jackass feel he has to make this protest?
He set off a scanner alarm. he is not above the law
I like airport scanners... they help ensure air travel safety.

#15 | Posted by 8roper

Dunno, if the article is accurate it was a glitch in the scan and he apparently had no objection to being re-scanned.

The objection was to a physical pat down which the scanners are, according to the TSA better than pat downs, in addition to the aversion of most men to having their junk touched (even through clothing) by a stranger.

I like airport scanners... they help ensure air travel safety.

#15 | Posted by 8roper at 2012-01-23 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well, how many plots have been foiled thus far?

0.00.

We're talking about the US government looking at you naked, groping you up, and searching your bags in the name of security, while you're exercising your right to travel. On top of it, they don't even use discretion in who it is they're searching.

The Constitution doesn't permit it- it actually prohibits it. Anyone defending this should head down to the police station and volunteer to have cameras installed in their home.

He isnt "someone". He is a sitting U.S. senator. I highly doubt he is going to bring a bomb through to blow up a plane. It's crazy, you dont want to check out muslims, who we know try to hurt us, but you harrass American citizens...idiots...

#30 | Posted by rcade

This silly crap is the same mindset that got Obama elected. Obama is a US senator running for President, so let's ignore his obvious terrorist ties and intent.

Foolish.

And it's not like Rand agrees to have everyone else searched, but not himself. He is by far the most vocal critic of the TSA and objects to EVERYONE being searched. This is not an issue of "above the law."

Well - it is a republican at an airport - it may be that he was just hoping for a full anal probing without having to do the elaborate dance in the men's room....

I put Muslims and Libertarians in the same class when it comes to those who want to hurt this country.

#40 | Posted by taxman at 2012-01-23 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yup. Neither one really gives a shit about you if you leave them alone.

#47 | Posted by Jacque_Strap at 2012-01-23 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Project much?

Gee the only GOP candidate with half a brain...

Oh well Obama 4 more years...

#4 | Posted by truthteller101

1/2 more than you, obviously.

I like airport scanners... they help ensure air travel safety.

#15 | Posted by 8roper at 2012-01-23 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well, how many plots have been foiled thus far?

0.00.

#43 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

BEYOND reatrded. Just WOW. If you know that an airport scanner exists, you dont atempt to bring the weapon or bomb on the plane.
Google define DETERRENT you sill prick

In a statement to NBC News, TSA spokesman Greg Soule 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. 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.”

Paul was eventually permitted through airport security, according to Soule. “The passenger has since rebooked on another flight and was rescreened without incident,” he said in a statement sent at about noon on Monday.

Fucking liberals...
#41 | Posted by boaz

You need to calm TF down. A Constitutional Convention is part of our process. Suggesting that one should be convened to re-examine certain laws is not unAmerican, in fact, it's one of the most American notions conceivable.

#41 boaz

Didn't you see the news? Over 3 million guns were sold in the USA just over the christmas holidays...

There are already enough guns owned in the USA for every Man woman and child to have or own 4 each...

so its no big deal... my liberal friends own several...

I put Muslims and Libertarians in the same class when it comes to those who want to hurt this country.
#40 | Posted by taxman

Do BOTH of them want to put H&R Block out of business? That's the only parallel I could come up with....are they both snappy dressers?

BEYOND reatrded. Just WOW. If you know that an airport scanner exists, you dont atempt to bring the weapon or bomb on the plane.
Google define DETERRENT you sill prick
#51 | Posted by 8roper

The only people bothering with the security check point are the people with nothing to hide. Anybody that spends a few hours at an airport can find the ways to get a weapon onto a plane, which makes the security checkpoints all the more insulting.

Just as I agree with his dad on some issues I agree with Rand Paul on the use of those scanners, the pat downs, etc. If there is ever another major terrorist attack I doubt they will try to use the same tactics that they did on 9-11. If on 9-11 the planes had the hardened steel doors the terrorists would not have been able to attack the pilots. We already knew that because Israel had been using the doors for a long time by then. I can't imagine why we didn't do the same thing they did unless it was just a stupid decision based on the cost?

You need to calm TF down. A Constitutional Convention is part of our process. Suggesting that one should be convened to re-examine certain laws is not unAmerican, in fact, it's one of the most American notions conceivable.

#53 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Yep we have a lot of people in this world who don't understand the difference between RIGHTS and PRIVILIDGES.
You DONT, in this country, have a RIGHT to bring whatever you want on an airplane (Show me where in the Constitution where it says that ?? ) Therefore you shall be scannd and LIKE IT. I will be scanned. gladly. I want all of you people scanned, too. We are talking public transportation here. Hey- Should we all be allowed to drive drunk? Rights vs privilidges, people.

obviously bitches seem to start catfighting about democrat vs republican.

lame.

this is good.. at least a person with some power now knows how it feels and maybe some change will come from it.

#57 | Posted by danni

Oh OK Danni doesn't think they will use the same tactics. Never mind, I am wrong. Danni says she thinks everything will be fine. Danni knows a lot about this stuff. Everything is fine.

The 9/11 terrorists took over the plane with box cutters. A metal pen could have done the same thing, so long as flight deck doors are unsecured and pilots unarmed.

These body scan and pat down searches are grossly intrusive and unnecessary.

I'm sure these government employee TSA people are the cream of the elite when it comes to intelligence and would not exceed the use of their power over American citizens. If you think for one minute that these bright and responsible people are treating Rand Paul in this manner because he spoke degradingly about the TSA in the past, you're wrong. They knew he could possibly be a threat and there was a large possiblity he was carrying a bomb. They were merely ensuring the safety of the passengers and the national security of the United States of America and they probably should strip search EVERY U.S. Senator and all children under school age since statistics prove they are the most serious threats to blow up aircraft.

I kinda wish Rand Paul was running for president instead of his dad. You know, when I was in the navy I used to tell petty officers, "Be careful with the seaman you step on today because he may be your commanding officer in your next command." I wonder if those bright, intelligent TSA agents considered that when they fucked with Rand Paul?

Oh, Randal, you opportunistic boob. When you set off the TSA alarm, you get the pat-down TSA treatment. Period. BFD.

i have the true hard conservative viewpoint on this. As it says in the USC - provide for the general welfare. ( what ??? !!!)

This is the ONLY role of the Exceutive branch. Protection of the population- i mean physical protection. by enforcing agreed upon laws. I WANT the government involved in the rules that are applied to people's behavior in PUBLIC settings.

The sad thing is that if a terrorist tried using a cell phone or an ipad to conceal a bomb, and the TSA decided they're not allowed on planes anymore, every single person here defending the TSA would suddenly be freaking out and outraged, and calling for an immediate end to searches.

#58 | Posted by 8roper at 2012-01-23 12:21 PM

How is that in any way responsive to what I was saying, roper?

Good to read you, btw.

#63

good Lord, again, who the fuck am I agreeing with ????

#64, so you're willing to be strip searched every time you walk out your front door? Cause that's the bottom of the slippery slope.

"The 9/11 terrorists took over the plane with box cutters. A metal pen could have done the same thing, so long as flight deck doors are unsecured and pilots unarmed."

Never again will a few terrorists be able to control an aircraft with anything like a box cutters, pens, fingernail clippers or such. Even a gun...a couple of hundred passengers won't allow it. Sure, a few may get killed, but no terrorist will be left alive.

The only people bothering with the security check point are the people with nothing to hide. Anybody that spends a few hours at an airport can find the ways to get a weapon onto a plane, which makes the security checkpoints all the more insulting.

#56 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2012-01-23 12:17 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

That's no reason to make it EASY.

Article 1 Section 6: (Congress) 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; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Posted by adammm

Well there's a throw-away paragraph if ever I heard one.

#14 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at

umm I dont think he is being arrested, just detained

hi HC I was saying that the law is certainly not unAmerican in any way shape or form. therefore no point to reexamine (in your #53). it is completely the ONLY thing govt SHOULD be involved in - public safety

umm I dont think he is being arrested, just detained
#71 | Posted by truthhurts

Yeah, my comments on that paragraph were unrelated to the context of this thread.

That's no reason to make it EASY.
#70 | Posted by soheifox

Once you see the holes in the security you'll realize that the checkpoint poses no obstacle at all.

Once you see the holes in the security you'll realize that the checkpoint poses no obstacle at all.

#73 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2012-01-23 12:37 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

That statement is bordering on idiotic. Allowing people to line up and carry on board is "no obstacle at all" Requiring someone to circumvent to process in some way is, in fact, an obstacle. Just because it's not impossible to do is no reason whatsoever to make it trivially easy to do.

When you park your car you still lock the doors. Why? Can someone just smash the window or pick the lock if they want something? They sure can. Is it easier to just try your door handle and steal something if it's open? It sure is. Are you more likely to be stolen from if you don't lock your doors? Yes!

#64, so you're willing to be strip searched every time you walk out your front door? Cause that's the bottom of the slippery slope.

the slope is not slippery because Constitution has set up a representational system for making laws. Most people I know do not want to be strip searched when they leave their front door. So I doubt you will see any legislation on the table. Unfortunately we are still dealing with Obama and Pelosi so my comments must be taken with that caveat in mind.( see: OBAMACARE,secretive legislation, etc. )

I, myself, want to be strip searched as often as possible. penis, anus, the whole works. Thanks for your concern

When you park your car you still lock the doors. Why? Can someone just smash the window or pick the lock if they want something? They sure can. Is it easier to just try your door handle and steal something if it's open? It sure is. Are you more likely to be stolen from if you don't lock your doors? Yes!
#74 | Posted by soheifox

Ignoring your inability to not be insulting lately, locking the doors to your car is a bigger obstacle to entry than the check point is to entry to an airport. Again, once you see the holes...

#65

not me. i dont come here and talk shit.
maybe others do.
I found that my dispensing with talking out of my ass often makes me the subject of ridicule at this site so i dont really post here any more. I meant it about the strip searches, as long as the searcher was female - i think it would be hot. I would definitely have a boner. Maybe Rand Paul has some embarassment issue.

I think everyone can at least agree on the fact that this was a remarkably stupid move by Rand Paul.

Sorry Adman but his Party supports the law and wrote most of it. If he has a serious problem with it, he should become an Independent.

Like someone told me, they ought to have 2 lines boarding 2 planes. One with no screening and one with screening. Which one would you get on?

Rebellion is always stupid - unless it is needed. It is needed....now.

"One with no screening and one with screening."

thats not the issue..

its the method and treatment.

He was just acting like a 6 year old girl..... an insult to 6 year old girls everywhere.

#52 | Posted by Corky

No, HE was standing up for what he believes in. At least he is passionate enough to do so. (Besides having the protection to do it and get away with it...) What he asked for was NOT unreasonable since they acknowledged at the time it was a glitch in the system. They pushed it. He is actually is defending your rights against a police state. The TSA in essence amounts to that. Stops and inspections for just driving on the roads are here. TODAY they apply only to trucks; but what is next?

Besides that - the agents broke the law by detaining him. What is the prescribed punishment for that?

NBC News' Tom Costello reports that, according to sources at the TSA, Paul was not detained, but was escorted by police out of the checkpoint.

If that isn't Detaining someone and/or stopping them in their travels I don't know what is. Like it or not our congressmen are above the law.

No matter what you do, you are NOT safe from "terrorists" all you do is get more and more control over the sheeple.

#23 | Posted by boaz at 2012-01-23 11:57 AM |

Would you like to tell me how a Senator from Kentucky being in Tennessee falls under "Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House?"

locking the doors to your car is a bigger obstacle to entry than the check point is to entry to an airport. Again, once you see the holes...

#76 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2012-01-23 12:44 PM | REPLY | FLAG

If there's so many holes, then go sneak a weapon onto a plane. This site will probably be here when you get out of jail.

Until they start deterring crime in the baggage handling section of the airports, the rest of the TSA is simply a show for simpletons.

If they can't keep the handlers from stealing shit from my luggage, they can't stop someone with enough determination from blowing up a plane.

Like someone told me, they ought to have 2 lines boarding 2 planes. One with no screening and one with screening. Which one would you get on?

#79 | POSTED BY ROSEMOUNTBOMBER AT 2012-01-23 12:56 PM | REPLY | FLAG

If they both got on the same plane, no screening. If they didn't, I'm going on the one with screening. It's called playing the odds.

It's all bullshit and it's bullshit because of all the political correctness that's ruining us.
I saw the chief of security of El Al Airlines interviewed in Israel by "60 Minutes" some time back and he was asked, "How have you avoided having ANY terrorist incidents?" His reply consisted of one word, "Profiling."
It's the only thing that makes any sense and it obviously works. Lets leave senators, governors and little children alone and get to profiling...DAMN the PC!

the rest of the TSA is simply a show for simpletons.

You mean like the National Guards people stationed in airports post 9-11 who were not issued bullets?

If there's so many holes, then go sneak a weapon onto a plane. This site will probably be here when you get out of jail.
#84 | Posted by soheifox

Now who's being moronic?

#87 | Posted by jestgettinalong

I totally agree there are times and places it makes total sense. There is a reason for a profile. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your stance we have a system of laws that does not allow profiling.

I am pretty sure he requested to go back through the scanner rather than go through the pat down.

I wonder if they don't let the people go through the scanner twice in that short a period of time for safety reasons?

Okay, I'm comfortable with stopping there.
I'm not...
they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
dont like that one eh?
#17 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Article 1, Section 6 applies only to Civil Cases. They aren't "Questioned" in criminal matters. They are arrested. All criminals matters are exempted by the "except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" regardless. In fact, the entire Section has no legal significance anymore for civil cases either. Back then, people were arrested for civil cases. The "they shall not be questioned in any other Place" refers to civil depositions and questioning post arrest. This Section was meant to prevent that. But we don' t do that anymore anyway.

The only value left in the section applies to the Speech and Debate immunity for things said in chambers.

Everyone thinks its invasive until a few planes fall out of the sky.

Now who's being moronic?

#89 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2012-01-23 01:18 PM | REPLY | FLAG

You. You're claiming that it's so easy we shouldn't even bother, yet won;t put your money where your mouth is.

Everyone thinks its invasive until a few planes fall out of the sky.

Posted by Sycophant at 2012-01-23 01:21 PM

If you think the TSA is anything other than illusion, you are mistaken. TSA would be something if they checked everyone who had access to a plane, but they don't. Crew and ground staff are not searched. Baggage handlers are not searched. Mechanics are not searched. There are so many different ways to bring down a plane, that searching the passengers does nothing but create the impression of security.

The only value left in the section applies to the Speech and Debate immunity for things said in chambers.
#92 | Posted by Sycophant

I knew Boaz needed to calm TF down.

I'll be happy to drive somewhere, board the plane with you so you can show me the weapon, and we'll blog about it afterwards. Since it's so easy to sneak a weapon on board, let's get to it. Show us where all these holes are.

#95 send a postcard from guantanamo!

I'll be happy to drive somewhere, board the plane with you so you can show me the weapon, and we'll blog about it afterwards.

Do you realize that would make you a co-conspirator and, should he be caught, you would be in Gitmo right next to him?

Crew and ground staff are not searched. Baggage handlers are not searched. Mechanics are not searched. There are so many different ways to bring down a plane, that searching the passengers does nothing but create the impression of security.

#95 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2012-01-23 01:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You've clearly never worked at an airport. All of these people are searched prior to beginning their shifts, and they have no access to their lockers during the shifts without a security person accompanying them. You can;t even leave your work area on break unless you submit to search on return. Well, to be fair, that's how it worked at Midway in the 90's when I applied, not sure how it works now but I doubt it's less secure now than it was then.

You. You're claiming that it's so easy we shouldn't even bother, yet won;t put your money where your mouth is.
#94 | Posted by soheifox

I didn't say that. I said that checkpoints are no deterrent. I say now that they really don't do much more than provide a false sense of security because anybody smart enough to pull off an attack once inside and airport is smart enough to get what he/she needs to perform the attack past the checkpoint. Go put words in somebody else's mouth.

I, myself, want to be strip searched as often as possible. penis, anus, the whole works. Thanks for your concern

#75 | Posted by 8roper

Miss that human touch do you? There are better ways. Go get a massage.

The TSA is a classic form of Republicans small unobtrusive government at work. Welfare for the airlines (and failed Mall Cops) is all it is.

The biggest expansion of Government in 50 years.

Republicans just Love to inspect your cavities. Now they want to do it everywhere!

#95 send a postcard from guantanamo!

#98 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2012-01-23 01:25 PM

LOL...based on my writing, they have had that room ready for a few years now.

It is the truth though: until all ground crew are checked daily, and anyone else with access to the plane prior to take off, then the searching of passengers is simply illusion of security.

Do you realize that would make you a co-conspirator and, should he be caught, you would be in Gitmo right next to him?

#99 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2012-01-23 01:27 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Good point. How about I just wait at the arrival gate and we step outside and he pulls the weapon out of his clothes before he goes to get his luggage?

K,

People from bowling green typically fly out of nashville. It's only 45 minutes away.

Well, to be fair, that's how it worked at Midway in the 90's when I applied, not sure how it works now but I doubt it's less secure now than it was then.

#100 | Posted by soheifox at 2012-01-23 01:28 PM

That ain't MIA. It is how it is SUPPOSED to be done, but you would be amazed how fast budget cuts limits the number of security people to do those escorts and how quickly the process defaults to "I trust you, go ahead."

#101 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2012-01-23 01:28 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

So you're saying the checkpoints are deterring YOU from doing it, but are no deterrent to anyone else, then.

How about I just wait at the arrival gate and we step outside and he pulls the weapon out of his clothes before he goes to get his luggage?

#104 | Posted by soheifox at 2012-01-23 01:29 PM |

Still. Actually, we all would be as we all know this plan.

People from bowling green typically fly out of nashville. It's only 45 minutes away.

#105 | Posted by eberly at 2012-01-23 01:29 PM |

Did not know that. Thanks for the info.

#106 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2012-01-23 01:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Yes it's not "perfect" but are you going to risk it? Are you going to hope you don't get searched on the way back? The chance that the boos might be standing there and everyone pretends to care about their job isn't enough to deter you from trying it?

The fact that someone "might not do their job" and "you'd be surprised" is a reason to discard the system entirely?

So you're saying the checkpoints are deterring YOU from doing it, but are no deterrent to anyone else, then.

Posted by soheifox at 2012-01-23 01:30 PM

No, he is saying the chances of getting caught (even if 1 in a million) are not worth it to him to prove you wrong, but someone willing to commit the act in the first place would see the odds being pretty good at getting something through.

Sadly, there is no deterrent to determination.

So you're saying the checkpoints are deterring YOU from doing it, but are no deterrent to anyone else, then.
#107 | Posted by soheifox

Are you for real? I need no deterrent because I have no interest in the first place.

Besides, we already have pros proving how easy it is to sneak weapons on planes already.

The mindset that "it isn't perfect so just stop doing it" is illogical, damnit. there's evidence it, at least sometimes, works. Shit, we've had in this very thread someone claim it's easy to do, and when asked to do it was immediately deterred by the risks. Would we be better off with profiling? You bet! Is that legal in America? No. What can we do? Change the process. Doing away with it entirely isn't the answer. How well did that work in Nigeria? It didn't. Persons are advised not to travel to Lagos because the airport's security is lax, and it's wise advise. How would bringing our security standards down to theirs help?

Gee the only GOP candidate with half a brain...

#4 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2012-01-23 11:48 AM

He's a candidate for what, "truth"teller?

9-11 changed everything for the worse for most Americans while it was the PNAC neocon's wet dream to involve us in the Middle East and turn us into a police state where the Chertoffs make money.

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good .Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)" http://www.haaretz.com/news/ report-netanyahu-says-9-11- terror-attacks-good-for- israel-1.244044

there's evidence it, at least sometimes, works.

NO, there isn't.

A retired FAA Security Inspector reported he was able to sneak weapons past security roughly 95% of the time in 2003.

Two years ago, a college student successfully snuck weapons past security screeners on multiple occasions at multiple airports, successfully hiding them in the lavatories of four or five Southwest Airlines jets to test the system. He was successful every time he tried.

Richard Reid, the infamous “American Airlines shoe bomber,” snuck his explosive shoes past screening on his original attempt to board the flight, was denied boarding and interrogated by authorities for hours (they didn’t discover the shoes), then returned the next day and snuck his shoes past screening a second time, this time getting onboard. The only reason the passengers and crew on the fateful flight had time to stop Reid as he tried to light the explosives was because Reid’s shoes got wet walking in the rain and the fuse wouldn’t light.
In Los Angeles, a mental patient passed by screening without a boarding pass, actually getting aboard an airliner without anyone questioning him.

Two Russian airlines were blown up last year by Chechan terrorists wearing explosive belts. They are suspected of bribing airport screeners to board the targeted flights.

Hundreds of airports have been evacuated since 9/11 after authorities failed to stop passengers who were either not inspected, or carrying possible contraband. Each evacuation is a tacit admission that screening has failed.

My link above is source.

Also Google "Reporter sneaks weapon on plane" and you will see it has been done many times sadly.
Illusion of security.

#112 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2012-01-23 01:37 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Kanrei, let me make this simple to you, in all caps so you might key in:

STOP LINKING TO STORIES ABOUT PLANES LEAVING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES WITH WEAPONS ON THEM. THE TSA EXISTS IN THE USA AND THE USA ONLY.

If you want to talk about the TSA's methods, it doesn't matter what they do in Dumbfuckistan or Buttfuck, Egypt.

I just googled it. The only result I can find is a plane coming out of the UK.

Then you didn't Google it as this is what you would find if you did.

Kanrei, let me make this simple to you, in all caps so you might key in:

Did not read past that.

until all ground crew are checked daily

Link that they arent checked daily? Otherwise, you are talking out the sides of your mouth...

OK, I read the stupid and it was stupid and I shouldn't have read Shoein.

Before 9/11, in FAA tests, airport screeners failed to detect deliberately hidden weapons from 66%- 95% of the time. After 9/11, screening failure rates were classified by the government (why would they be classified if they inspired confidence?), but lawmakers given access to the data, and new independent government reports, confirm screening failures are just as high now, as they were before the attacks, for both weapons and explosives.

Does that look like UK to you? It clearly says FAA from what I see.

The Bounty Hunter really loves authority. Any time a cop beats up somebody he blames the victim. It's a consistent pattern.

There is no law that obliges airport workers, even those who have physical contact with planes, to undergo the same degree of screening passengers do upon entering work each day, a Frontpage Milwaukee investigation has found. The minimal requirements that airports are required to exercise on their employees, especially those who work in secured areas, is to issue at least a 10-year background check, fingerprinting and a drug screening upon being hired, according to both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

“As far as screening each employee one-hundred percent like a passenger, it has not yet become a national regulation that the airport is required to adhere to,” says Cheryl Sherbrock, the Manager of Operational Security at Midwest Airlines.

But nice try.

They must have found that copy of the Constitution in his pocket during the X-ray...

#6 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2012-01-23 11:49 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Yeah! The constitution clearly states you should be able to endanger the lives of hundreds of others after purchasing the privilege to have transport on a private vehicle.

No one would search him if he flew in his own aircraft or drove his own car.

Idiot.

This isn't much of a story. Paul was right to refuse the pat-down because he believes it to be unconstitutional. The TSA was right (inasmuch as their rules have not been found to be unconstitutional) to follow their rules, assuming they were all followed. The only real story here is how big a coincidence it is that an outspoken critic of TSA would happen to set off the alarm.

#125 | Posted by kanrei

The only thing you have shown is that there is no national standard. Show me where an airport says they dont screen their workers everyday. I dont think you will be able to find it...

Clearly he should show up next time in nothing but his boxers and Aqua Buddha aftershave next time. It would make the ole grab and giggle go a little smoother.

I would advise Mr. Paul not to keep a cucumber wrapped in aluminium foil in his pocket.

Show me where an airport says they dont screen their workers everyday.

An airport admits? Don't have to. I have posted where it has been found. Read the story.

Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY), who serves New York’s 18th District, has been very instrumental in attempting to tighten the security belt when it comes to airport employees. During her time as a member of the Congressional Committee, she initiated a program entitled the “Pilot 100 Program”â€"which started and ended in 2008.

Based on the framework of the program, a handful of airports across the country were cherry-picked to test out how it would work if all workers were 100 percent screened, as passengers are, every time they enter work. The results of this pilot test are not yet determined, and when they are, will not be released to the public.

Sherbrock affirms the certainty in their being a Pilot 100 Program, but is hesitant to believe that it would work.

“Yes, that did happen to select airports across the countryâ€"but I’m not at liberty to say which airports the pilots were disclosed in,” she says “But it may not even be feasible for all airports in the country to do this because of how each airport is configured geographically.”

If they were thinking of trying a system that did check employees 100%, then you know for a fact that the system was/is not in place.

Not that hard.

Two Russian airlines were blown up last year by Chechan terrorists wearing explosive belts. They are suspected of bribing airport screeners to board the targeted flights.

Here in Buffalo a TSA supervisor was bribed to allow a drug dealer to get his product through the system.

The UK and Russia stories actually show another major flaw with the TSA system: if people flying INTO America are not being screened, then the danger and risks of "planes falling out of the sky" does not diminish at all.

So here is what we know:

1. People from other countries do not go through TSA screenings before flying into America.

2. Airport Employees are not required to undergo any TSA searches before coming into work.

3. Only passengers are searched by TSA.

ILLUSION OF SECURITY.

Rand Paul was just hoping for a cavity search performed by some nubian beauty, an act that is frowned upon in KY as un-Biblical and damn near race mixing.

Clearly.

Or a well engineered stunt to fuel the fire he has against the TSA.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2012-01

maybe

OR its one mans' way to GET AT THE MAN !!!!

didnt even scan this thread but im sure more libfux reaction is close to this....instead of saying something about him standing up to this affront to personal freedom and liberty...

okay...THAT may be stretching it a 'LITTLE" but the point is the same.

ILLUSION OF SECURITY.

#132 | POSTED BY KANREI

All security is really an illusion BUT it works as a marvelous deterrent to 99% of would be criminals.

"ILLUSION OF SECURITY."

El correcto. I bet the folks behind me felt much, much more secure when the TSA broad made me remove the fingernail clippers from the key ring in my carry-on. I wonder how many breathed a sigh of relief that I would now not be able to hijack the plane. Stupid, stupid, stupid. A whole airport full of people standing in line in socks and without fingernail clippers....great security.

it works as a marvelous deterrent to 99% of would be criminals.

#135 | Posted by Sycophant at 2012-01-23 02:14 PM

No it doesn't. If it did, they would not be criminals. Deterrent works on 99% of those who would not do anything to begin with. Those determined to do something will do it.

Those who think they will get away with it won't be affected by deterrence.

Those who don't care if they survive will not be affected by deterrence.

Those who think it is worth the risk will not be affected by deterrence.

Anyone who will try terrorism (or murder in general) either thinks they will get away with, doesn't care if they do, or think it is worth it to try.

In the end, deterrence doesn't work.

"didnt even scan this thread but im sure more libfux reaction is close to this....instead of saying something about him standing up to this affront to personal freedom and liberty..."

Our little "progressive" friends only believe in personal freedom, liberty, free speech and such for THEMSELVES! They want YOUR personal freedom, liberty, and free speech to be curtailed. I really wonder how they'd react if this was Barney Frank...

Our little "progressive" friends only believe in personal freedom, liberty, free speech and such for THEMSELVES!

In my case, I want the law changed, but until it is changed, then it must be followed.

Not that hard.

"In the end, deterrence doesn't work."

It is extremely difficult to defend against someone who doesn't care or who actually WANTS to die.

"In my case, I want the law changed, but until it is changed, then it must be followed."

I'll go along with that, but when you see the people in charge ignoring and not enforcing laws with no consequence it becomes very discouraging. Immigration law comes to mind right away, for one. Either enforce them or repeal them.

when you see the people in charge ignoring and not enforcing laws with no consequence it becomes very discouraging

Agreed 100% and my theme this thread: he broke the law period. Bad law? Yes. He still broke it.

I got busted smoking pot at a Dead show in 95. Did it suck? Hell yes! Did I bitch about it? Hell no. I broke the law and took my chances and lost.

Here in Buffalo...

#131 | Posted by 726

It's about time you dropped the charade of you not being JimmyWallback. Was it your pride that prevented you from admitting I was right when I called you out forever ago?
Your denials were almost as funny as your claims of not being a liberal bed wetter.

It must drive you limpwrists crazy that I can spot you from a mile away.

Double edged sword, Rodgers. I say we should profile, like Israel does. I wonder when the last time a muslim bombed an Air Israel flight?
#34 | Posted by boaz

Goddamn right we should profile. The lib driven ACLU won't allow it so they have to pull little girls and Senators randomly out of line to waste time and tax payer dollars.
The libs won't allow profiling then whine like constipated owls when they "pick on" little kids. Baaaaa

726 is JimmyWallback.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-08-27 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Wow, never heard that one before.

Nice try.

Posted by 726 at 2008-08-27 01:17 PM

Just like Americancunty wasn't AllAmerican, the retired Colonel, 726 isn't Wallback...Too fucking funny.

instead of saying something about him standing up to this affront to personal freedom and liberty...

#134 | POSTED BY AFKABL2 AT 2012-01-23 02:12 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Too funny. Pick and choose the laws you believe you should follow eh babbles?

He could a) not fly b) fly in a private jet c)get the law changed or d)challenge the constitutionality of it.

"clearly a glitch."
Clearly.
Or a well engineered stunt to fuel the fire he has against the TSA.
#2 | Posted by 726 at 2012-01-23 11:46 AM

I would initially make this assumption, but isn't TSA relatively difficult to work with? And risking not only your jobs but a pending Federal investigation, taking a bribe and/or breaking TSA rule of detainment involves a whole lot of expensive ugliness. Security persons are union? Are they desiring to, and this is their rallying shield?

In this instance, precisely how many times are people detained for "glitch"? Factually? The pat-down refused before and after said glitch.

Okay, I'm comfortable with stopping there.
I'm not...
they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
dont like that one eh?
#17 | POSTED BY BOAZ
Article 1, Section 6 applies only to Civil Cases. They aren't "Questioned" in criminal matters. They are arrested. All criminals matters are exempted by the "except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" regardless. In fact, the entire Section has no legal significance anymore for civil cases either. Back then, people were arrested for civil cases. The "they shall not be questioned in any other Place" refers to civil depositions and questioning post arrest. This Section was meant to prevent that. But we don' t do that anymore anyway.
The only value left in the section applies to the Speech and Debate immunity for things said in chambers.
#92 | Posted by Sycophant at 2012-01-23 01:20 PM

The entire phrase appears to be obvious, purposeful grammar ambiguation.

Remember how TSA employed "non-invasive" (actually, highly dangerous) information collecting and disseminating scanners in the first place? To hunt for bin Ladens! To sniff out "radicals on their suicide missions". But according to the 9/11 objects planted in Muhammad Atta's vehicle they are not even practicing Muslim! Bin Laden must have been a secularist after all! TSA are not after Muslim terrorists, they're after technologists who kill anyone for apparently any reason whatsoever - and such complex plots evading the entire TSA system completely and perfectly make us appear entirely helpless. Maybe outsourcing these technologies and training our replacements wasn't the smartest move? So, it's impossible to distinguish these people other than for the public to imagine race fear. Apparently even a wheelchair-bound 80 year old with a Wisconsin accent might be concealing plastique in their colostomy bags.

The TSA and HLS live in a pretend environment - all of their scenarios are constructed upon targeting and harassing the public at large, to make air flight uncomfortable and to squeeze it out from existence. Either that or they are looking for something that appears to be public, but not carrying explosives. Something that is indistinguishable from an 80 year old in poor health or a six year old child. The destruction of our belongings, withholding shampoo and such is the ruse. Are the scanners looking for biological markers? A virus? Aliens? Marketable body parts?

Why do invisible bombers go after terrorizing the public and not the supreme court, Wall Street, teh Federal Reserve building, Quantico, The Pentagon, etc. It's frustrating the majority having to capitulate to the 1%'s falsified information. Stuff we know they make up have ulterior motivation - expensive, disastrous motives.

Paul reportedly raised his right pant leg, which may have set off the scanner.

Looks to be down to just the Two...

Obama vs. Newt

So what will it be ...Obama care..
Or the Newt plan.. ...Either buy health care insurance or a bond to cover your expenses!

You will buy health insurance ...now won't you punk.. the free ride is over...

Looks to be down to just the Two...

Obama vs. Newt

So I suppose we can start the Tombstone making now:

United States of America
Noble Experiment
Beacon of Freedom
July 4, 1776 - November 6, 2012

I don't really have the steam to keep this going. The point is most of you aren't thinking your positions through.

So what will it be ...Obama care..
Or the Newt plan.. ...Either buy health care insurance or a bond to cover your expenses!

You will buy health insurance ...now won't you punk.. the free ride is over...

#148 | Posted by truthteller101

or to sum up...

Obamacare or ToughShitCare

you decide

You gotta admit: he is a security threat to big government liberals.

No it doesn't. If it did, they would not be criminals. Deterrent works on 99% of those who would not do anything to begin with. Those determined to do something will do it.
Those who think they will get away with it won't be affected by deterrence.
Those who don't care if they survive will not be affected by deterrence.
Those who think it is worth the risk will not be affected by deterrence.

#137 | POSTED BY KANREI

The vast majority fit into category one: afraid of getting caught. Deters vast majority of those. Hence 99%.
Few fit category two: don't care if they survive. If there were large numbers, we'd have far more suicide bombings in other places.
Very very very few fit category three: worth the risk. The reality is the human brain doesn't work this way. It's not worth the risk of getting caught because then the mission fails and they can't carry out other missions.
Why do homes with electric home protection signs out front RARELY get burglarized? Because it's not worth the risk when there are other easier targets. It's true even if those targets provide less.

The vast majority fit into category one: afraid of getting caught. Deters vast majority of those. Hence 99%.

You don't read so good.

Those who think they will get away with it won't be affected by deterrence.

I didn't say they were afraid of being caught, I said they believed they would get away with it. Very few do anything illegal unless they believe they can beat the system and get away with it.

And, when dealing with Terrorism and planes, the vast majority fall under number 2 of not expecting to live through it so deterrence doesn't work.

So Rand went through the scanner and set off the alarm.

The TSA wanted to do a pat down--Rand refused. The TSA detained him.

The TSA has the wand thing to use.

I have also seen people go through the scanner and the alarm goes off--they get the wand and then go through the scanner again with no problem.

Rand is making a point--he doesn't agree with pat downs--you know the thing most folks here agree the TSA shouldn't be able to do to airline passengers.

So is there an update? Did he get to get on a plane to DC yeat?

It has nothing to do with him being "part of the elite". The section of the constitution that was quoted says that he can't be questioned or detained to or from his workings in Congress. Everyone bitching about, "He was breaching the peace!" Fuck you... if acting on your RIGHTS and protesting is breaching the peace in this country then you all won't mind if all the OWS asshats are scooped up and imprisoned. You won't be bitching about them being BOOTED out of Zuchatti park... OH WAIT... THEY have the right, right?

Protesting the situation and calling them out can't be Breach of Peace because he's not to be stopped to begin with, jackasses. This isn't some asshole already on the plane that refuses to turn off his cell phone or gets drunk and feels up the flight attendant.

It's like probable cause, kids... if there is no PC when the cops come into your house, then whatever they find is useless to them. He wasn't supposed to be stopped, so your argument is bullshit.

And for all the idiots crying out that the "elite" aren't above the law... news flash jerkwads... the Paul's are 100% for the PEOPLE. What they do, they do for our liberties and our freedoms. He's not an elitest, you twats, he's an activist. Get over yourselves.

the Paul's are 100% for the PEOPLE. What they do, they do for our liberties and our freedoms. He's not an elitest, you twats, he's an activist. Get over yourselves.

#157 | POSTED BY CAPTJIMMYJAMES AT 2012-01-23 05:52 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Wow. You really honestly believe that, don't you? I suggest you do some research.

#58 | Posted by 8roper at 2012-01-23 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag: A terrorists dream. Doesn't walk any further than car door to porch door.

Everyone thinks its invasive until a few planes fall out of the sky.

#93 | Posted by Sycophant at 2012-01-23 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

You chicken little pessimist. A few planes fall a few planes get built. And a few job positions come open for those still sucking air. You've gotta learn to look for the silver lining.

Fuck him if he feels he is not subject the same humiliation the rest of us face every time we fly!!!

Work puts me on planes a great deal all year long. Been a few times for some fucking reason I get subject to the the TSA feel up.

Disgusting crap.

Funny, I put Muslims and Libertarians in the same class when it comes to those who want to hurt this country.

#40 | Posted by taxman

And that Constition thingy? Just a piece of paper.

Suggest you go on a mission of discovery and find out just what Libertarianism is truly about. Because your statement indicates clearly you have not Clue Fucking One.

Or wallow in your steaming pit of ignorance, taxboy.

I get subject to the the TSA feel up.

#161 | Posted by boojiboy

And do you respond with: "Can I have another, please, Sir?"

You really honestly believe that, don't you? I suggest you do some research.

#158 | Posted by soheifox

Go stand in the corner with taxboy. You are obviously just as clueless.

I see that many of you think that he feels he is above the "law"?
"Refuse the pat down you are going to get detained...blah blah blah"?

The TSA operates outside the law. The rules the TSA follows (and I use that term VERY loosely) are not LAW. None of this was legislated by either house of Congress. It was outlined by bureaucrats that were appointed by whatever administration is currently in office.

None of these rules is rooted in law...or order by an elected official of any sort.

The TSA is carrying out unconstitutional searches every minute of every day...they should be shut down.

I see that many of you think that he feels he is above the "law"?
"Refuse the pat down you are going to get detained...blah blah blah"?
The TSA operates outside the law. The rules the TSA follows (and I use that term VERY loosely) are not LAW. None of this was legislated by either house of Congress. It was outlined by bureaucrats that were appointed by whatever administration is currently in office.
None of these rules is rooted in law...or order by an elected official of any sort.
The TSA is carrying out unconstitutional searches every minute of every day...they should be shut down.
#165 | Posted by Alias47 at 2012-01-24 10:45 AM

Precisely. The TSA abrogate Constitutional rights and should be sued. How many bombs/bombers/whatnot have they caught? NONE?! And how expensive is this Republican boondoggle? Even news crews have regularly tested their alleged security - TSA is arbitrarily searching and using completely made-up rationale.

TSA's screening process is obviously lacking. The TSA employee's have minimal experience or background in law enforcement. As it has been stated, it is a false sense of security. Profiling is the way to go, although not PC in America. Here is the latest SNAFU by TSA

Flag:

Fuck him if he feels he is not subject the same humiliation the rest of us face every time we fly!!!

Work puts me on planes a great deal all year long. Been a few times for some fucking reason I get subject to the the TSA feel up.

Disgusting crap.

#161 | Posted by boojiboy at 2012-01-24 12:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

This whole thing has flown so far over your head, its like, woah. He has right to complain, many people do, its asinine what they do much of the time. He pointed out that the machines are flawed as one will show anomalies that another does not. If this is the case, why can't you go back through the machine a 2nd time just to be sure rather than going straight to full body feel-up? They do it with metal detectors.

He's not someone that just out of the blue is now thinking TSA is invasive. He's been one of the few outspoken voices against it in the senate. Quite frankly it seems a lot would be more happy if he used his power as senator to just not have to deal with them at all. Apparently that's what would make people happiest.

Quick question, does anyone get checked by TSA when they fly international going into the country? I've done that twice recently and never been scanned by TSA. Worst was the guy asked me 1 stupid question last time and I answered him.

#169: Yes

#169: Yes

#170 | Posted by goatman at 2012-01-24 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag: and eagerly looking forward to his next cavity search

#170 | Posted by goatman at 2012-01-24 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag: and eagerly looking forward to his next cavity search

#171 | Posted by donnerboy at 2012-01-24 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Odd fantasies, needless to say. Needs to find another wife with strap on who won't leave him