Sen. Rand Paul acts like an idiot

[crimresearch]

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.

He should not insist that the Constitutional clause on Senators travelling be followed?

Because everytime I've flown recently, the common procedure for the common people was to go back through for a second scan, or a wanding, not jump right to a pat down.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As I read it, he wanted to go back through the scanner, and they wanted to do a pat down.

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.

Probably true. Congress people have immunity, but it's certainly a bad idea (politically) for Rand Paul to assert it. Especially now when there's such a huge backlash against elitism and the separation between the haves and have-nots.

I'm also not sure there isn't case law that carves out an exception (for reasons of national security) to this immunity in borders, airports, etc. as there is wrt the 4th Amendment for the rest of us. I don't know of any, but I wouldn't be overly surprised to learn there is. I sure wouldn't want a Senator to be allowed to carry a gun onto a plane.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Yep. I would say both parties acted less than optimally. While it was technically illegal to detain Paul, he really had no business telling them how to proceed. (If your job is to make sure no one gets through security with anything illegal, then someone suggesting an alternate way of satisfying security is pretty much a red flag to be more thorough.)

And if he did have a gun on him, it would be a felony, and he loses the immunity. So it's arguable that setting of the metal detector alarm and then refusing to submit to a pat down is probable cause that there may be a felony attempt.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because everytime I've flown recently, the common procedure for the common people was to go back through for a second scan, or a wanding, not jump right to a pat down.

Maybe so, but isn't the common procedure also to obey the request of the TSA security people? Refusal to comply is a problem for TSA, and their usual procedure (as the spokesman said) is this sort of detention.

Also, Paul says he suspects the machine was malfunctioning. Going back through (what Paul said should be done) a malfunctioning machine wouldn't do any good, would it?

My understanding is that the big scan is meant to deliver false positives and not give false negatives as a gross screening. If you get a false positive, then you use one of the more reliable methods to ascertain that there's no problem.

 

[BenBurch]

... because it still acts as a deterannce. ...

To you or I, yes, but not to suicidal fanatics. There have been two attempts to blow airliners out of the sky that failed because the bombs did not work, not because of any security stopping them.

BECAUSE the screening is universal and random and how it works is known exactly, clever people can find ways around it. It is too regular.

I can think of several ways to get things through, but I will not discuss them in an open forum.

 

[crimresearch]

Probably true. Congress people have immunity, but it's certainly a bad idea (politically) for Rand Paul to assert it. Especially now when there's such a huge backlash against elitism and the separation between the haves and have-nots.

I'm also not sure there isn't case law that carves out an exception (for reasons of national security) to this immunity in borders, airports, etc. as there is wrt the 4th Amendment for the rest of us. I don't know of any, but I wouldn't be overly surprised to learn there is. I sure wouldn't want a Senator to be allowed to carry a gun onto a plane.

Why is it a bad idea to assert the Constitution?

We should just let bureaucrats and functionaries determine *which* members of Congress are allowed to travel to vote in DC?

And I doubt that you will find any case case law that deletes or overturns the actual words to the Constitution, since that requires an amendment.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why is it a bad idea to assert the Constitution?

I already answered that above. It's politically a bad idea to assert elite rights. The argument against that is that his behavior strikes a cord with a populist discontent with airport security. (But that could cut the other way. WE have to submit to whatever TSA personnel say, but Congress people don't!)

We should just let bureaucrats and functionaries determine *which* members of Congress are allowed to travel to vote in DC?

I never said that. It is certainly possible that the TSA detention of Paul was illegal AND that Paul acted like a jerk. In fact, that's my take on the incident.

And I doubt that you will find any case case law that deletes or overturns the actual words to the Constitution, since that requires an amendment.

Not necessarily. Emergency authority in the name of national security has often been invoked to limit Constitutional rights. The example I mentioned (basically the suspension of the 4th Amendment when it comes to passing through airport security) comes to mind.

At any rate, the commission of a felony is a pretty important exception to this immunity anyway. As I said, one could argue that setting off the alarm and then refusing to submit to a pat down is probable cause to think that a felony is being committed. If it went to court, Paul would probably win (unless he were in fact trying to carry a gun onto the plane).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can think of several ways to get things through, but I will not discuss them in an open forum.

Planting a device of some sort on a Senator seems like an obvious one!

 

[mumblethrax]

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

We've had several, but the problem is that we have just a few other variables that have changed since 9/11. A consequence is that we can't point to lack of successful attacks and conclude that the change to any given variable as a causal factor. The FAA's policy changed from one of cooperation with hijackers to non-cooperation--that along with reinforced cabin doors is enough to ensure that we'll never see another 9/11-style attack again, and it's unlikely that we'll ever see another successful hijacking of a US airliner. Indeed, all the attacks on US airlines since then have (I think?) been attempts to destroy an aircraft outright. We've just been lucky that none of those have succeeded, but the change in attitude means that the passengers themselves are also a last-line of defense--and that has nothing to do with screening passengers.

Independent audits of TSA screeners, meanwhile, do not lead me to conclude that all this grinning and bearing it is worthwhile.

It's like we were suffering from gorilla attacks, so we started going on organized gorilla hunts, no longer told people to act passively around gorillas, hired ten times as many armed rainforest marshals, and bought a magic talisman to ward against gorilla attacks. Ten years later, gorilla attacks are way down, and we conclude "Man, that magic talisman was money well spent."

 

[TheSapient]

To you or I, yes, but not to suicidal fanatics. There have been two attempts to blow airliners out of the sky that failed because the bombs did not work, not because of any security stopping them.

But does this mean that there is no deterrent effect? Is it not possible that there are people who have not made an attempt because they can't think of an effective attack they think has an acceptable chance of getting through security? I'm not saying I think the current system is reasonable, because I don't. But I wonder how deterrence can be measured.

I feel confident we would see an increase in plane bombings if security screenings were removed altogether. The question is what the optimal solution is.

 

[crimresearch]

I already answered that above. It's politically a bad idea to assert elite rights. The argument against that is that his behavior strikes a cord with a populist discontent with airport security. (But that could cut the other way. WE have to submit to whatever TSA personnel say, but Congress people don't!)



I never said that. It is certainly possible that the TSA detention of Paul was illegal AND that Paul acted like a jerk. In fact, that's my take on the incident.

Not necessarily. Emergency authority in the name of national security has often been invoked to limit Constitutional rights. The example I mentioned (basically the suspension of the 4th Amendment when it comes to passing through airport security) comes to mind.

At any rate, the commission of a felony is a pretty important exception to this immunity anyway. As I said, one could argue that setting off the alarm and then refusing to submit to a pat down is probable cause to think that a felony is being committed. If it went to court, Paul would probably win (unless he were in fact trying to carry a gun onto the plane).

Please stop it with the fake legal expertise, you have no clue what you are talking about. The words in the Constitution cannot be changed by 'case law', which is what you claimed. Nor can they be changed by your fantasy interpretations based on ignorance.


And your new assertion that setting off a malfuntioning scanner is a felony makes you look even more inept. Ever heard of 'mens rea' ?( Don't bother Googling and pretending you can twist that around).


*ETA*: Seriously, this is a skeptic's forum, how can you expect to not be challenged on this sort of stuff?

You are starting with broad assumptions, and attempting to use 'logic' to debate your way back to being correct. As the GPS ruling showed, that plan doesn't work too well in the face of objective reality.

How is what you are posting any different from the creationist woos who try to use 'science' to prove their beliefs, but redefine terms and reinterpret axioms to suit their argument?

 

[sarge]

Yep. I would say both parties acted less than optimally. While it was technically illegal to detain Paul, he really had no business telling them how to proceed. (If your job is to make sure no one gets through security with anything illegal, then someone suggesting an alternate way of satisfying security is pretty much a red flag to be more thorough.)

I don't believe it was even a technical violation to detain him. The text reads "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. "

I believe it means that

Except for the offenses listed (at least one of which Paul might have been guilty of), a Senator may not be arrested if they are in or heading to or from a session of Congress. If they are to be questioned during attendance of a session of Congress, the questioning must occur in Congress.

So - as Paul was not on his way to or returning from a session of Congress, and as Paul was in breach of the peace and was committing the felony of refusing to obey a TSA officer, and as Paul was never arrested (a detention is not necessarily an arrest), then no violation occured. Each of these, individually, removes from Paul any protection afforded by Art 1.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If I see Rand Paul with a gun on a plane...

 

[madfoot]

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

Something more than doing nothing, but less than molesting people.

 

[Minoosh]

... I haven't flown since 2000 - I do not like poor security passing for something else-

I'm curious if this is why you haven't flown.

My desire to travel is a lot stronger than my irritation at the TSA.

 

[madfoot]

I'm curious if this is why you haven't flown.

My desire to travel is a lot stronger than my irritation at the TSA.

You'd have to be some kind of wingnut to not want your junk fondled by brownshirts.

 

[fuelair]

I'm curious if this is why you haven't flown.

My desire to travel is a lot stronger than my irritation at the TSA.

Hasn't affected my travel at al. Just drive instead. Driving is much less a problem than dealing with incomepetants given broad poweres they can't be trusted with that have no provable effect of any kind - except the effect of making people not desire to fly.

When I go somewhere, I want to get in the transportation quickly and easily and leave, get to where I am going and leave. No hassles, no waste, no dealing with the incompetant (not the hirlings fault, but it is what you get the way they pick them).

Re: your statement: I am some curious what you mean about the why. Not sure why there would be another reason - never had, and still don't, any fear of flying, not or related Muslim, am ex-military with security clearance, have no criminal record - so if some other please let me know - but I am quite clear myself that the reason is the TSA and it's preliminary forms since 9-11.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hasn't affected my travel at al. Just drive instead. Driving is much less a problem than dealing with incomepetants given broad poweres they can't be trusted with that have no provable effect of any kind - except the effect of making people not desire to fly.

So you'd rather drive 18 hours than fly all because of the TSA? Really?

 

[Molinaro]

As I read it, he wanted to go back through the scanner, and they wanted to do a pat down.

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.

He was asked to voluntarily submit to a pat down. He chose his other option, to refuse and leave. Nothing was forced on him.

Unless you care to argue that boarding a plane is a right rather than a privilege.

 

[crimresearch]

He was asked to voluntarily submit to a pat down. He chose his other option, to refuse and leave. Nothing was forced on him.

Unless you care to argue that boarding a plane is a right rather than a privilege.

He was 'taken to a cubicle' according to the TSA.

Don't know how accurate that is, but if he didn't want to go to a cubicle, then that was an arrest when done by government employees with badges and uniforms, according to the Supremes.