Sen. Rand Paul acts like an idiot

[ravdin]

Were you ever attacked by gorillas before you had your keychain?

Clearly we had terror attacks on aircraft before the new security measures but not since.

I thought you were kidding before, but since it seems you're not then I'll point out that your argument is based on confirmation bias^WP.

 

[BenBurch]

I can't say I have any fault with him doing this, or publicizing it.

He is totally correct that random screenings are bogus, and the only sure way to combat hijackings is to have trained observers who pull people for more scrutiny based on behavior and security profiles.

What we have is "security theater" designed to make us feel like the government is doing something to keep us safe.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The point at which someone with a badge placed him in a cubicle is the part where I don't see how Art 1 sec 6 of the Constitution wasn't breached.

Exactly what I was thinking. In the article he stated that he didn't want to be treated differently just because he was a US Senator and I applaud him (one of the few times in my life that I'll probably ever say that about him) for taking that position but the TSA officer should have known that he was at a minimum performing a technically unconstitutional act by making him miss his flight. I know that it doesn't really violate the spirit of the law (unless he was going to DC, the article didn't say) but if Paul had decided to push it then the TSA officer would have been in a world of trouble.

 

[Puppycow]

Exactly what I was thinking. In the article he stated that he didn't want to be treated differently just because he was a US Senator and I applaud him (one of the few times in my life that I'll probably ever say that about him) for taking that position but the TSA officer should have known that he was at a minimum performing a technically unconstitutional act by making him miss his flight. I know that it doesn't really violate the spirit of the law (unless he was going to DC, the article didn't say) but if Paul had decided to push it then the TSA officer would have been in a world of trouble.

Could you explain what the heck you are talking about to a layperson?

 

[Puppycow]

I thought you were kidding before, but since it seems you're not then I'll point out that your argument is based on confirmation bias^WP.

I know what confirmation bias is, but could you explain what sort of evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

 

[fuelair]

Interesting observation.
What do you believe the correct level of security checking is?

About the same as 14 years ago - with face recognition and a terrorist/criminal data base supporting it. I haven't flown since 2000 - I do not like poor security passing for something else- 90% of what TSA does is pointless and making enemies of passengers and potential passengers to no real purpose. Remind me how many terrorists have been stopped by TSA initiated activity vs. how many by passenger observation/action or out of US intelligence..cause I do not remember ANY that TSA is responsible for.

 

[crimresearch]

Could you explain what the heck you are talking about to a layperson?

"They 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."

Going only on media reports, it sure looks like this situation crossed the line.

 

[fuelair]

The evidence is the fact that there hasn't been a successful terror attack on an aircraft.

That is not evidence, it is a statistic. Evidence is person/s arrested by TSA in attempting to board and proven guilty. Unless you feel showing abject stupidity in dealing with the public to be making terrorists decide they don't need to blow up aircraft to affect the US - TSA is causing much more US expense and problems than the occasional successful bombing (of course, if we got over PC or actually had better connection/cooperation from/between agencies who cover these things.........)

 

[fuelair]

I would too if they took it more seriously. The TSA screener takes your half-full Evian and tosses it in the barrel next to her.

Theatre, indeed.

On the liquids, there are days when I wish some random unplanned and unintentional collection bin combination (carried by normal people for normal purposes and completely harmless on their own) would accidentally combine to give off heavy smoke and moderate flame.


I really loathe the incompetant TSA bully boys and girls (and, no, I have never had any kind of run in with them - just know the difference between real security and TSA goons).

 

[fuelair]

I know what confirmation bias is, but could you explain what sort of evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

You can't because there is nothing to base your assumption on: that was the point of the gorilla protction thing - if no gorillas are coming after you, it does not prove the gorilla protection thing is working, it just proves no gorillas are coiming after you - unless the thing obviously prevents visible gorillas near you from getting to you. There is no evidence the TSA is doing that for reasons I note/request negative verification for a few posts above this.

 

[fuelair]

Plus what BenBurch said above.

 

[ravdin]

I know what confirmation bias is, but could you explain what sort of evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

Convince me that the $1.2 billion we spent on the TSA in 2011 was worthwhile? I'd want to see a list of their successful catches that's a whole lot more impressive than this one:

http://blog.tsa.gov/2012/01/tsa-top-10-good-catches-of-2011.html

Their #1 catch was some C4, which was a great find and obviously no one should be allowed to carry on a commercial flight. However, the TSA found it on a return flight, after the passenger had already brought it on board a previous one.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Could you explain what the heck you are talking about to a layperson?

From the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 6 (first paragraph):

They 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.

In other words if you impede a congressperson from going to or from the chamber of the House in any way you are in technical violation of the constitution. He was made to miss his plane. If his ultimate destination on that trip was Washington DC he could've made a big stink over it but he chose not to. Additionally you can only question a congressperson on criminal matters (the whole point of the TSA searches is to catch criminals) in the chambers of congress.

The idea was to prevent a representative of the people from being arrested or otherwise detained on a legal matter (real or trumped up) for political reasons and miss an important debate or vote. They must be questioned and put on trial in the congress first to determine if they should be impeached for the offenses. If impeached (or if they are not re-elected) once their term is over they may be prosecuted for crimes just like any other citizen including any crimes done while they were in office.

That's why I mentioned the spirit of the law vs the technical aspects of him being detained and missing a flight. In the spirit of the law it was fine for him to be delayed a bit because, as we all know, the house isn't normally doing anything on a weekend and the intent wasn't to prevent him from a debate or a vote. However, technically the constitution doesn't make that or any other exception.

 

[Minoosh]

Rand Paul's actions today were a lot less idiotic than the security theater performed by the TSA every day.

My thought.

Interesting observation.
What do you believe the correct level of security checking is?

To me it's not the level of checking, more to do with the obvious theater involved. I got pulled aside at Heathrow for a random check and didn't mind at all. The British take homeland security seriously but you get to keep your shoes on. In the U.S. it seems designed to make security staff appear diligent.

Could the Paul thing have been politically motivated?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I think he just forgot to take off his, ahem, adornment, so to speak.

Either that or he was carting aqua buddha with him.

 

[psionl0]

From the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 6 (first paragraph):

That didn't do Bill Clinton any good.

Another example that there is no such thing as a constitution - just a SCOTUS.

 

[Kay]

Convince me that the $1.2 billion we spent on the TSA in 2011 was worthwhile? I'd want to see a list of their successful catches that's a whole lot more impressive than this one:

http://blog.tsa.gov/2012/01/tsa-top-10-good-catches-of-2011.html

Their #1 catch was some C4, which was a great find and obviously no one should be allowed to carry on a commercial flight. However, the TSA found it on a return flight, after the passenger had already brought it on board a previous one.

Just because they didn't catch anyone doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile, because it still acts as a deterannce. It's like saying that since no one ever attempted to steal my car when I left it locked, I shouldn't bother locking my car when I leave it. These are security precautions, after all.

 

[pgwenthold]

I would too if they took it more seriously. The TSA screener takes your half-full Evian and tosses it in the barrel next to her.

All you have to do when that happens is call the FBI and tell them there is a suspected explosive being stored in a public location in an airport. Don't do it unless you have a lot of flexibility in your travel plans, though, because the FBI will shut down the airport.

I'd like to see it happen a couple of times, though.

 

[ravdin]

That didn't do Bill Clinton any good.

Another example that there is no such thing as a constitution - just a SCOTUS.

For starters, Bill Clinton was never arrested or detained.

Secondly, he never served in Congress, so even if he had been detained this section of the Constitution wouldn't have applied to him.

 

[sarge]

That the TSA is (or isn't) a collection of trained monkeys spending lots of tax dollars doing nothing but inconveniencing air travelers does not mean that Paul was not acting an ass as well.

Assuming that he was treated as any other passenger would have been in similar circumstances, the better reaction would have been to submit to the demands of the TSA and then summon the head of the agency to the Senate to discuss the situation and work diligently to fire the agency head and change the offending security procedures. He is a US Senator - arguably among the most powerful 125 people in the country. He should not insist on procedures that only a Senator could expect to enjoy.