Rand Paul illegally detained at airport

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tousi said:
I didn't say anything about Rand Paul; I was referring to your diatribe elsewhere the other day wherein the mods didn't do anything and, among other things you said to Reba, she'd get an F for Debate.

Well, I gave you an F for having a tantrum, telling her you were done with her but it looks very much like you are doing pretty much the same thing in order to get her out of her comfort zone, to make her think twice, etc when speaking to you.

That's just what I see/foresee.....
Click to expand...

So why post on this thread about it instead of sending me a PM? And secondly, mind your own business. Reba is a tough dame and capable of speaking for herself.
 
naisho said:
It's a bit of a gray area, the way I see it.
Technically Senator Paul didn't do anything wrong except set off the alarm and didn't like the idea of being frisked. Some articles stated he went through another one later without setting it off.

I've seen cases where people next to me in line at the TSA had something that set them off, they forgot a belt or coin or something. Sometimes, I've wondered if my HA's would set it off but it hasn't to date yet.

I'm just glad he doesn't have intentions to sue the TSA or something over constitution rights. It would be a good case or publicity for him, but in the end us taxpayers would end up paying for the gov's mistake if so.
Click to expand...

Actually, if anyone can post a link to congressmen's consititional rights to be exempted from patdowns but not xray machines, I appreciate it much.

Secondly, that constitutional rights only apply to those on their way to make a vote in Congress? or does it also apply to politicians going to a shopping mall to make a speech?
 
Tousi said:
I didn't say anything about Rand Paul; I was referring to your diatribe elsewhere the other day wherein the mods didn't do anything and, among other things you said to Reba, she'd get an F for Debate.

Well, I gave you an F for having a tantrum, telling her you were done with her but it looks very much like you are doing pretty much the same thing in order to get her out of her comfort zone, to make her think twice, etc when speaking to you.

That's just what I see/foresee.....
Click to expand...

You seems a little moonstruck.
 
Jiro said:
Airportcop- perhaps you could shed a light on this. Are you aware of this Constitutional law regarding Congressmen?
Click to expand...

Here is what I know. In my airport the only congressman I know that was exempt from screening by the TSA was Roy Blunt when he was the majority or minority whip. The reason he was exempt then was that he had armed security escorting him on the plane. He was escorted by the U. S. Capitol Police. This provides a TSA exemption. Also like in the case of the former U. S. Attorney General John Ashcroft who also flew out of my airport he was escorted by the FBI and was thus exempt. When Congressman Blunt was no longer the majority or minority whip he was no longer able to bypass TSA screening. This is what I know. If they don't have law enforcement protection accompanying them or escorting them then they are not exempt from TSA screening. I was unaware of what Reba posted but it does bring up a good question.
 
DeafCaroline said:
i've looked this up and can't find any TSA laws exempting congressmen. but there is a big question mark in my head though - if congressmen should be exempted from any TSA security screening, what's even the point of going through any machines at all? and why should they have to go through xray machines but be exempted from patdowns even if they set off the alarm? it doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that he should be exempt from screenings. In fact, he voluntarily rolled up his trouser leg and rolled down his sock of the leg that set off the alarm to let the TSA person see his bare leg. He also offered to go thru the magnetometer again.

The only illegal part was the detaining.

p.s. Paul Rand was not on his way to make any important votes. He was on his way to a speaking engagement that had nothing to do with Congress.
Click to expand...
"The senator told the Bowling Green Daily News that he was "detained" in a small cubicle and couldn't make his flight to Washington for a Senate vote scheduled later in the day."
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul detained by TSA at Nashville airport [Opinion: The Arena] | Louisville.com
 
airportcop said:
Here is what I know. In my airport the only congressman I know that was exempt from screening by the TSA was Roy Blunt when he was the majority or minority whip. The reason he was exempt then was that he had armed security escorting him on the plane. He was escorted by the U. S. Capitol Police. This provides a TSA exemption. Also like in the case of the former U. S. Attorney General John Ashcroft who also flew out of my airport he was escorted by the FBI and was thus exempt. When Congressman Blunt was no longer the majority or minority whip he was no longer able to bypass TSA screening. This is what I know. If they don't have law enforcement protection accompanying them or escorting them then they are not exempt from TSA screening. I was unaware of what Reba posted but it does bring up a good question.
Click to expand...

I looked up TSA laws regarding congressmen and found a wikipedia article stating the exact same thing you just did. Exemptions are made if the person is very important like house speaker or if they are accompanied by security. Nothing said about congressmen.

HOWEVER, so many politicians have been grumbling about how they were treated by TSA that they want to change the laws regarding airport screenings not just for themselves but also for citizens. So, if they do, that's a plus.

Congress grumbles about TSA
 
DeafCaroline said:
I looked up TSA laws regarding congressmen and found a wikipedia article stating the exact same thing you just did. Exemptions are made if the person is very important like house speaker or if they are accompanied by security. Nothing said about congressmen.

HOWEVER, so many politicians have been grumbling about how they were treated by TSA that they want to change the laws regarding airport screenings not just for themselves but also for citizens. So, if they do, that's a plus.

Congress grumbles about TSA
Click to expand...

It's their own fault for the way TSA is now.
 
Reba said:
I didn't say that he should be exempt from screenings. In fact, he voluntarily rolled up his trouser leg and rolled down his sock of the leg that set off the alarm to let the TSA person see his bare leg. He also offered to go thru the magnetometer again.

The only illegal part was the detaining.


"The senator told the Bowling Green Daily News that he was "detained" in a small cubicle and couldn't make his flight to Washington for a Senate vote scheduled later in the day."
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul detained by TSA at Nashville airport [Opinion: The Arena] | Louisville.com
Click to expand...

Ok, please post a link, any link whatsoever that says it's unconstitutional to detain a politician for refusing a patdown after he set off the alarm.

and this article says differently: "The senator said in Monday’s interview that he had no plan to intentionally challenge the TSA over a pat-down request, and was disappointed that the incident resulted in him missing an important speaking engagement.

“I had a speech to 200,000 people on the National Mall (at a Right to Life rally) and I didn’t make it,” he said."

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul delayed at airport after refusing pat-down | The Courier-Journal | courier-journal.com
 
DeafCaroline said:
Ok, please post a link, any link whatsoever that says it's unconstitutional to detain a politician for refusing a patdown after he set off the alarm.

and this article says differently: "The senator said in Monday’s interview that he had no plan to intentionally challenge the TSA over a pat-down request, and was disappointed that the incident resulted in him missing an important speaking engagement.

“I had a speech to 200,000 people on the National Mall (at a Right to Life rally) and I didn’t make it,” he said."

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul delayed at airport after refusing pat-down | The Courier-Journal | courier-journal.com
Click to expand...

First things first. We are bringing the cart before the horse. Show me a link where it says the patdowns are Constitutional to begin with.
 
Beowulf said:
First things first. We are bringing the cart before the horse. Show me a link where it says the patdowns are Constitutional to begin with.
Click to expand...

Thanks for simplifying it.

DeafCaroline, no one can bring out a link specifically, because as of right now, I don't think (at least) there's been a similar case with any politician involving the TSA. That's why I, or anyone else, we can't. We can only state or show our opinions that it may have been legal/illegal.
 
naisho said:
Thanks for simplifying it.

DeafCaroline, no one can bring out a link specifically, because as of right now, I don't think (at least) there's been a similar case with any politician involving the TSA. That's why I, or anyone else, we can't. We can only state or show our opinions that it may have been legal/illegal.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just wondering why some were saying it's unconstitutional if they cannot show where in the constitution that a congressman's right was violated? And it's also about commonsense really, a congressman has to go through the xray machine and have his belongings with him screened but he is automatically exempted from patdowns, even if he set off the alarm? It just doesn't sound logical at all.
 
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In my opinion, the patdowns are uncessary and unreasonable.
 
"...The U.S. Constitution actually protects federal lawmakers from detention while they’re on the way to the capital.

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

The Senate is back in session today at 2 p.m., with votes scheduled at 4:30 p.m. It is not clear if Paul will make it to Washington by 4:30 p.m. on his new flight...."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/rand-paul-in-pat-down-standoff-with-tsa-in-nashville/
 
The regulations governing the TSA do not have to have any specific exemptions for Congresscritters, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Admittedly, I am hostile about the TSA. See this little cutie?

IMG_0301.JPG


Doesn't she look deeply threatening? Violent, even? That's my child with disabilities. She is 24, but functions almost at the level of a two year old, completely nonverbal (except for mama), still in diapers, about four feet tall.

We have never taken a flight where TSA did not insist that she take off her leg brace to run it through security, yet TSA lies and says that is not their policy. Therefore, I know better than to believe anything TSA says about what they did do or what they wouldn't do.

The last time we *ever* flew with her- TSA detained *her*. We had asked for wheel chair so that removing the brace would be easier for her. An attendant was pushing the chair. My husband wasn't with us and my other kids were forced to go through a different security line from mine because of the wheel chair (never did understand that- it was THEIR wheel chair)- where TSA hags were making my youngest daughter cry because she had a 2 ounce bottle of lotion a friend had given herthat wasn't in a ziplock bag. I turned to see why my child was crying, when my other kids all dropped their jaws and stuttered at me to turn around quick.

TSA had quietly wheeled my wheelchair bound daughter away behind my back, put her in a glass cubicle and walked away. They'd decided she merited special screening.

I went chasing after them in my stockinged feet trying to explain to them that they could NOT take this child anywhere without her mother because developmentally she was only two, completely nonverbal, and couldn't understand them. They argued with me that she wasn't two. I tried to explain what 'developmentally delayed' meant. They didn't listen (I don't think they had the vocabulary for it), but they did eventually agree that I could stay with her, which was a good thing since I wasn't going anywhere. I did complain. TSA said it never happened, they would never do that.

Yet, I know other parents of disabled children who have had similar experiences. So pretty much any time there is a discrepancy between any person's account and TSA's version, I am pretty sure TSA is lying.
 
Reba said:
"...The U.S. Constitution actually protects federal lawmakers from detention while they’re on the way to the capital.

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

The Senate is back in session today at 2 p.m., with votes scheduled at 4:30 p.m. It is not clear if Paul will make it to Washington by 4:30 p.m. on his new flight...."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/rand-paul-in-pat-down-standoff-with-tsa-in-nashville/
Click to expand...

He made it.
 
Cheetah said:
Is it fair to assume that all persons in security knows all of the individuals in public office that might fall under such a constitutional ruling?

How can security know the business of a congressman?

Why would a congressman refuse a pat down? Didn't they put TSA in place?

What did the congressman take off to prevent a second alarm?

If this had happened to you or me.... Would we have been allowed to leave, rebook, and go through security a second time?
Click to expand...

1. Congresscritters have I.D.

2. It's not their business what the congresscritter is doing. The Constitution forbids them from detaining members of Congress.

3. Congress put TSA into place, but I am reasonably sure Paul voted against that, and also Congress did not create all the additional thousands of regulations and practices that TSA uses. The TSA did that.

4. Think about diplomatic immunity. It's the law. It does mean people get away with things ordinary citizens don't, but there are good reasons for it, nonetheless.
The reason Congresscritters are exempted from being detained is so that Congress critters can not be intimidated by threat of arrest if they don't vote the way somebody wants them to, or prevented from attending important votes so that the vote in different than it would have been otherwise, and so Congressional business can not be interfered with by power mad little self styled demigods.

It's okay if you think that's unreasonable, but it is the Constitution, which is the law of the land. It can't be changed by TSA regulations. You don't judge the Constitution by the TSA. It's the other way around.
 
Grayma said:
The regulations governing the TSA do not have to have any specific exemptions for Congresscritters, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land...

Yet, I know other parents of disabled children who have had similar experiences. So pretty much any time there is a discrepancy between any person's account and TSA's version, I am pretty sure TSA is lying.
Click to expand...
Wow! :shock: What a terrible experience!
 
Didn't Bush's Homeland Security department have much to do with increased screening at airports and thus granted more power to TSA?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top