airportcop

TSA is a red tape out of control agency sponsored by our government. Yes indeed airport security and screening needed to be upgraded and beefed up but not like it has gotten since TSA has been empowered. The financial waste and abuse of power are out of control. Some of it is good but way too over the top for most. There are some good people who work for the TSA and then there are some power hungry folks too. It needs to be revamped and regulated somehow. I can tell you some scary things about the TSA. As for one they can find out much more personal information about you than any police department can and way faster too! I hope the new president whomever he is fixes this problem.

__________________
Romans 12:12 (NIV) Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

airportcop

Here is how screening works in the TSA. You can before entering the screening process refuse to participate but after you begin screening then you are supposed to have to finish it since you might be a threat! I think the worst thing they can do is call the airport police and have you escorted out but that is about it unless they decide to impose a civil or federal fine against you which TSA can do and have done for other violations. They say that when you alarm that the alarm must be resolved or figured out. Oh yeah, they can also refuse to let you clear screening which will not allow you to fly. I have seen it done before. Wonderful system isn't it! The Israelis have a much less intrusive and better way of doing it. It is called profiling for terrorists! It is proven to work too!

__________________
Romans 12:12 (NIV) Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.

Foxrac

I think that TSA need to be heavily regulated and re-trained at military grade level to protect citizen's rights and Obama is capable to support but only big issue is the congress won't act it.

__________________


In Moto We Trust

TXgolfer

Always a wealth of information my man!

__________________
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:21


Sometimes at night, I see their faces. I feel the traces they've left on my soul

Grayma

I joined in December, but I have been reading about a month or two before that. I read a lot because I'm trying to learn as much as I can about Deaf/deaf stuff, and that is how your posts strike me. I withdraw the observation, however, because you're right, it's still not fair- there have to be thousands of posts I've not read and what people post about in an online forum is not a reflection of their entire lives. I hope to keep peace.

No, I am not a supporter of Bush. I'm a staunchly Pro-life Libertarian. At this point, I'm not a supporter of any of them. They all disappoint me.

Politicians, meh.

As for your point about the elderly gentleman (or my little girl, for that matter) vs Rand Paul- you're right- that's the point. TSA exceeds its authority but doesn't increase security. They need to alter the way they screen completely (or rather, go away).

But it feels like to me you are saying, 'Rand Paul should stop whining, TSA abuses other people, so he should just shut up and take it,'

Whereas my response is never that just because a government office abuses one person, it's okay for them violate the law with another person. It should be, "Finally, now that they've targeted a Congresscritter, somebody with the power to fix it, maybe something will be done." And also, TSA just lies, to my personal knowledge, so I do not believe their version anyway, but that's deeply personal.

As for the idea that there might be a good reason to detain a Congressman- if there was good enough reason, really, TSA wouldn't have it. They wouldn't recognize a threat if it spit in their eye and shouted "Arrest me!" If there was a genuine reason, a real suspicion that a congresscritter was a threat, no other government agency would leave that to TSA to take care of- and, at any rate, as Reba pointed out the Constitution does list three exceptions. An automatic beeping that Paul did not deliberately set off is not a 'breach of the peace' under any circumstances.


As for your last point- this is not fair, but I posted a lot of links, and I can't remember which one you're referring to and can't check it. I really, really, really should have gotten off the computer an hour ago. If I don't fold laundry now, my husband and I will have to sleep on the couches or kick the kids out of one of their beds.

going by memory, my point was that the first two years Obama was in office his own party had full control of both house and Senate. Therefore, there was nothing preventing the Democrats from repealing anything they wanted- if you have a majority, it's actually quite simple. So it's no longer reasonable to blame everything on Bush. If Democrats didn't like it (and in most cases they do like what Bush did and intend to capitalize on it, just as much as any other politician), they could have repealed any of it- the Patriot Act, TSA, renditions, Guatanomo, everything- it was entirely within their power for a full two years. Republicans could not stop them. Republicans still only control one of the Houses now.

Secondly, there was an attempt by Republicans to reduce funding on the TSA. But it failed. Not because of the Rebublicans.

This is a link I still had up, but I didn't post before because, well, I just figured I was already over some limit somewhere.
It's from december of 2011:

"It looks like Congress' recent jabs at TSA were just posturing after all. Last Friday, President Obama signed a spending act passed by both houses of Congress. The act gives TSA a $7.85 billion budget increase for 2012 and includes funding for 12 additional multi-modal Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams and 140 new behavior detection officers. It even includes funding for 250 shiny new body scanners, which was originally cut from the funding bill last May."

Click on the link- they have a lot of hyperlinks in the text. Also, it's from Slashdot, which is not a conservative stronghold. Democrats didn't repeal it when they controlled both Houses, and they increased its powers last year- the Republicans must have helped because they have a majority in one of the Houses now, but with Democrats controlling the other and a Democrat in the executive branch, you can't keep blaming the TSA on Republicans.

I'm not saying they'd do better. I'm just saying you can't blame this one on them anymore if you ever could (I'd still like to see the actual voting record for the earliest vote on the TSA).

But... laundry. I blame.... The Supreme Court. They haven't come up yet and somebody should blame them for something.

Jiro

it does not matter if it's 10 seconds or 10 minutes. you are veering into a very dangerous territory.... where you should just comply to police's request to search your car when they have no probable cause. why? "hey if you got nothing to hide, you should just let them do it when requested."

in this case, he is U.S. Senator and to think that he MAY or may not pose a security risk to air travel is comical. He is federally protected by Constitution that he is NOT to be detained or delayed or whatsoever in any matter if he's on his way to Congress or related.

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

DeafCaroline

ok, for sake of debate.....let's say he's carrying a gun.Or let's say he's carrying 10 bottles of Oxycontin. Should he still not be detained? Are politicians truly exempt from any detainment for any reason whatsoever as long as "they're on their way to Congress within 10 days before and 10 days after assembly or whatever the exact wording is". That's what I'm asking.

deafskeptic

If I were the bystander, I'd be thinking this guy thinks some people are more equal than others.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

saywhatkid

Just wondering; if he had to use the airport toilet for a "sit-down procedure," and there was a long line, would the Constitution require all those folks waiting for a toilet to step aside?

Sorry, just had to toss this out there.

__________________
"Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies." ~ Mother Teresa

Jiro

as stated in OP - this should answer your question.

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

DeafCaroline

all rightee.

naisho

This whole situation is a lot like another random analogy - not exactly the same level, but comparable to reference to why I can see people are debating about this across 100,000's of websites less than ~24 hours since it happened.

It's like the city cop who parks in an non-designated parking spot to go do what they were doing - like a red zone, yellow zone, or handicapped zone.

A) If it wasn't an emergency situation, that is a complete outrage and an abuse of law-granted power -- the cop should withhold to transportation rules like any other standard US citizen.
B) To another, this may have fell within legal jurisdiction of the cop, depending on what exactly he was doing -- they are sovereign authority of that area.

Hard for me to have a concise opinion, both sides raise excellent points.

Daredevel7

I think this is one of those cases where it is not black and white. A judgement must be exercised whether the congressman is being detained for illegal purposes. Was the TSA trying to detain him in order to block him from voting in Congress? Highly doubtful.

I mean, let's be honest, the Constitution doesn't really think of everything. Is there something in there in order to solve these problems:

"Congressman goes crazy and goes on a shooting spree just before voting in Congress. Should he be detained or allowed to vote THEN detained?"

"Congressman gets shot just before voting in Congress. His doctor says that he needs surgery now. Congressman wants to vote before surgery. His doctor does not want to let him go because he's worried that he will die. Is his doctor trying to illegally detain him?"

We can come up with crazy scenarios like that. Highly improbable, but just trying to show that sometimes we can't rely on the Constitution to solve all problems. A simple exercise in judgement is needed. Look at why it is in the Constitution in the first place. The law exists to make it illegal to have people detain congressmen from voting. So were those people trying to detain them from voting for personal/political reasons?

Funny part about all of this? Rand and TSA are basically like "oh water under the bridge" and have already moved on.

Apparently, we haven't.

Daredevel7

Duplicate post.

Here's a fun picture instead:

saywhatkid

Just another case of "Our guy was wronged!" "Shut your piehole!"

__________________
"Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies." ~ Mother Teresa

Reba

Did you not read: "...except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace?"

It's the shooting that detained him. I imagine if the shooting happened at the Capitol, no one would be voting that day.

It doesn't matter about personal or political reasons. If a person in authority detains a Congressman going to or from the Capitol without that action coming under the "except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" clause, then it's an illegal action.

Then quit posting.

Cheetah

Reba,

So, you are saying the alarm that was set off does not qualify as "except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" clause?

__________________
The Cheetah Consulting services
No request too small, no fee too large!
Serving the deaf world wide since yesterday.
Open daily 9 ~ 5

LoveBlue

How about they turn off the alarm and just use the flashing lights?

__________________
Severe-to-profound hearing loss in both ears.
SD @ 100db L-88% / R-96% - unaided
Phonak Naida IX UPs

Jiro

http://www.alldeaf.com/current-event...st1532705.html

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

Daredevel7

I didn't know that one can be detained for treason/felony without trial.....?

Daredevel7

I can't! I just can't!!!

Jiro

well - one would have to be caught in action such as DUI/punching someone/etc. or have an arrest warrant for it

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

Banjo

Are these cats a part of the Jets or the Sharks?

LoveBlue

Probably the Jets since I'm sure they'd love to eat Sharks.

__________________
Severe-to-profound hearing loss in both ears.
SD @ 100db L-88% / R-96% - unaided
Phonak Naida IX UPs

Reba

No, it wouldn't. The Constitution protects Congressmen from those with law enforcement authority from detaining them.

Reba

Of course one can be detained under a warrant.

Reba

Did you read my post about the definition of breach of the peace? The explanation is there.

Cheetah

I did read it. But until this goes to court, I doubt we will have an agreement here. I can see both the detainment and the breach of peace being contested. Don't hold your breath, I don't see anyone suing anyone any time soon over this issue.

__________________
The Cheetah Consulting services
No request too small, no fee too large!
Serving the deaf world wide since yesterday.
Open daily 9 ~ 5

Reba

I didn't say or expect that it would go to court or result in a suit.

saywhatkid

So, if a group of environmentalist wanted to prevent a known anti-environmentalist Congressional member from voting, they could employ a "s*it in" protest?

__________________
"Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies." ~ Mother Teresa