Rand Paul illegally detained at airport

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiro said:
Actually Reba brought up a very good point. Although he was not detained but it's a violation of constitution.
Click to expand...
According to the definition, he was detained. "to keep from proceeding; keep waiting; delay"

You could say they are kind of above the law to a certain degree during session and in this case, it was illegal of TSA to "temporarily" detain him for further security screening because TSA was preventing him from attending Congress.
Click to expand...
The Constitution doesn't specify a time limit of temporary or not. Paul was detained/delayed from his original flight and had to take a later one.

The principle behind this law is that the Founders didn't want law enforcement agencies to influence legislative business by harassing them on their way to work or preventing them from making important votes.
 
AlleyCat said:
How so? Caroline's post was right -- he did detain himself by refusing to a pat down.
Click to expand...
No. TSA could not legally detain a Congressman. If he didn't agree to a pat down, they had to let him go.
 
Banjo said:
What if a congressman was a sleeper cell terrorist with plans to blow up the House of Congress? What would happen? Would the security procedure change?

I was just wondering about that.
Click to expand...
Note that one of the Constitutional exceptions is treason.
 
Reba said:
No. TSA could not legally detain a Congressman. If he didn't agree to a pat down, they had to let him go.
Click to expand...

No, I understand that. What I meant was he did detain himself, regardless of whether he needed to or not (legally). He left the checkpoint voluntarily and just booked himself another flight. Whether TSA was right or wrong in detaining him isn't what I was getting at and why I agreed with DC's post.
 
Reba said:
According to the definition, he was detained. "to keep from proceeding; keep waiting; delay"


The Constitution doesn't specify a time limit of temporary or not. Paul was detained/delayed from his original flight and had to take a later one.

The principle behind this law is that the Founders didn't want law enforcement agencies to influence legislative business by harassing them on their way to work or preventing them from making important votes.
Click to expand...

It isn't violation of constitution, IMO.

It is actually Rand Paul's fault to refuse to cooperate with TSA so he just detained on his own.

The constitution does not define about situation with TSA and I don't trust Rand Paul at all so he need to be complete screened as regular citizens.
 
AlleyCat said:
No, I understand that. What I meant was he did detain himself, regardless of whether he needed to or not (legally). He left the checkpoint voluntarily and just booked himself another flight. Whether TSA was right or wrong in detaining him isn't what I was getting at and why I agreed with DC's post.
Click to expand...

Yup, if it is believed to violation of constitution so need be resolved by court so I don't see any Paul's case will goes to court.
 
Tousi said:
You are just being obtuse/tactless/insensitive, targeting Reba just for the sake of doing so.
Click to expand...

how am i being insensitive and tactless about rand paul deliberating detaining himself by refusing a pat down after he set off the alarm?

give me a break. you're being absurd.
 
Reba said:
No. TSA could not legally detain a Congressman. If he didn't agree to a pat down, they had to let him go.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
Mod note:

Okay take it easy you guys, please.
 
Another way to look at it:

If a congressman is speeding to go to Congress, and a policeman stops him for speeding, is this detainment?

Actually, let's use a better analogy.

If a congressman is on the way to Congress and has a tailight that is out, and a policeman stops him to inform him about his taillight, is this detainment?

There's a million different ways of looking at it.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Another way to look at it:

If a congressman is speeding to go to Congress, and a policeman stops him for speeding, is this detainment?

Actually, let's use a better analogy.

If a congressman is on the way to Congress and has a tailight that is out, and a policeman stops him to inform him about his taillight, is this detainment?

There's a million different ways of looking at it.
Click to expand...

You're right, just wondering what the laws are on detaining a congressman from going to a shopping mall for a speaking engagement, as was what happened with Paul Rand. He was not on his way to Congress at all.
 
DeafCaroline said:
You're right, just wondering what the laws are on detaining a congressman from going to a shopping mall for a speaking engagement, as was what happened with Paul Rand. He was not on his way to Congress at all.
Click to expand...

Yea, I'm just thinking what if he was going to Congress, since that's what Reba was talking about. I'm looking at it from a hypothetical standpoint.
 
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?
 
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...

exactly, every single airport in the US has a sign that says "you are entitled to refuse a patdown and are allowed to freely leave the airport if you choose to refuse one." or something along those lines, they're posted at every customs/baggage checkpoint. No signs say "politicians exempted".

I've been asked to step aside a few times for patdowns (either i set off the alarm or it was just a random check). it's literally just seconds of them patting you up and down, and that's it! i mean, what's the big deal?

I've even witnessed a former Prime Minister of Canada willingly step aside and have customs rifle through his suitcase. He didn't raise a fuss at all and was even joking around with the agents.

I think Paul Rand was being a bit of a drama queen.
 
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.
 
DeafCaroline said:
how am i being insensitive and tactless about rand paul deliberating detaining himself by refusing a pat down after he set off the alarm?

give me a break. you're being absurd.
Click to expand...

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.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top