Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senator Rand Paul Detained By the TSA

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the your-dad's-not-president-yet dept.

Privacy 941

cervesaebraciator writes "Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has been detained by the TSA in Tennessee for refusing a pat-down. Apparently an anomaly appeared when he received the full body scan. While he offered to undergo the body scan once more, he was informed that only a pat-down would be sufficient to clear him. He has since been detained and the story is developing."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793415)

"A senator would make a great mule," Simmons tells me.

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (4, Funny)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793435)

No one expects the Aqua Buddha!

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (5, Insightful)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793459)

This is a good thing, the more awareness about the TSA from lawmakers will bring about a much needed reigning in.
-nB

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (3, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793551)

Unfortunately I bet most other congresscritters whip out the 'shall not be obstructed on their way to and from congress' (paraphrased) clause of the Constitution and just bypass TSA's checkpoints altogether.

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (4, Insightful)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793729)

Except that your paraphrasing fails to uphold the word or the meaning of the clause you refer to. If they could invoke that clause so easily, they could justify ignoring traffic lights too. In fact, that clause only provides limited protection from arrest. Being denied access to a secured area is very different from being arrested.

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (1)

RockClimbingFool (692426) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793801)

Oh really? Lets see if you are able to leave said area without being arrested or searched. Take your pick.

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (1)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793825)

Um, except that he was prevented from making his way to congress and ended up missing a session while otherwise he would have been on time without breaking any law.

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (0, Troll)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793883)

How do you know he wasn't breaking any laws? The fact that he would rather leave and rebook his flight than take a pat down is a bit weird.

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (2)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793677)

I'm not certain, but given the rest of his politics, I'm pretty sure this one is one that doesn't support TSA

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793827)

read TFA to be certain:
"Like his father, Rand Paul has libertarian leanings and has been a fierce critic of TSA’s pat-downs of passengers at airports, which he views as government overreach. The senator grilled TSA Administrator John Pistole last year after a 6-year-old girl from Paul’s hometown, was patted down by airport security."

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793869)

UPDATE:

Senator Paul was kicked out of the airport because he refused to be sexually groped by the SA. He's still sitting in Nashville and trying to figure out how to get back to D.C.

By law they are now supposed to fine him $10,000 (for leaving the scene after being scanned), though I suspect it will be waived - as it was waived for the 'don't touch my junk' guy.

.

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (3, Funny)

mveloso (325617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793731)

An old friend of mine's father was in the Pope's press pool. Talk about exempt from screening; those guys got away with everything. Not to mention the reporters!

Re:Well, there goes *that* heroin shipment (2)

tokul (682258) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793773)

"A senator would make a great mule," Simmons tells me.

Don't confuse Republicans with Democrats.

An anomaly?! (2)

DC2088 (2343764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793441)

Patdown soon, fellow STALKER!

Re:An anomaly?! (5, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793793)

He was carrying a Crystal for -30% radiation damage and a Spring for +30% impact resistance, good combination for today's air travel experience.

Obligatory (1, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793817)

The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away...

-Grand Moff Tarkin

Re:Obligatory (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793837)

Don't cross the streams!

MUAHAHAHAH (-1, Flamebait)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793449)

I LOVE IT! Not only is a nutjob getting harassed, but they finally decided to harass someone that can do something to shut their asses down.

Re:MUAHAHAHAH (1)

mvar (1386987) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793509)

At first i thought this was about RON Paul. Now that would be fun to watch

Re:MUAHAHAHAH (4, Informative)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793545)

Rand is Ron's son.

Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793565)

I LOVE IT! Not only is a nutjob getting harassed, but they finally decided to harass someone that can do something to shut their asses down.

Both Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul have been very vocal opponents of the TSA (I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is running on a platform to completely dissolve the TSA as well as a number of other agencies and departments of the federal government -- although that depends on where he's speaking and to whom). Even if you don't believe he would go that far, Ron Paul has introduced the American Traveler's Dignity Act [house.gov] which specifically addresses being treated like cattle. I would wager most of this was coolly calculated by his son as beneficial to Ron Paul's campaign efforts -- bringing attention to such policies and putting them on the debate table.

Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That (5, Informative)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793695)

Both Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul have been very vocal opponents of the TSA (I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is running on a platform to completely dissolve the TSA as well as a number of other agencies and departments of the federal government -- although that depends on where he's speaking and to whom).

It doesn't depend on who he's speaking to, the guy's one of the more consistent politicians ever in Washington. Here's the plan you're talking about documented in writing: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/ [ronpaul2012.com]
You may not like his ideas, but he doesn't flip flop on them.

Re:Both Pauls Have Been Trying to Do Just That (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793777)

It is probably why they are doing the harsh treatment. Is it smart no, however what it does is make the little men at the TSA who feel threatened by such people make them feel big and empowered. Granted this will only strengthen their case however for the short term it will make these people feel good.

It reminds me back in High School talking to someone from an other high school, who was angry because some reporter made a joke that it must be the pollution in the cities water that made these kids more aggressive and better at foot ball. This news made him so mad that he wanted to find that reporter and beat him up...

The moral of the story is that people often act on their gut feelings and don't do things logically.

Re:MUAHAHAHAH (1)

FunPika (1551249) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793611)

Based on TFA...this probably won't affect much since it sounds like Rand Paul is already a "fierce critic" of the TSA.

Re:MUAHAHAHAH (1)

Khomar (529552) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793861)

These words will likely haunt you when it is your turn to be harassed and strip searched. Don't think it cannot happen to you.

well this should be entertaining (3, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793473)

"we detained you during campaign season. whoops."

yeah, this should be fun.

Oh dear. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793475)

So, will some TSA "agent" lose their job or is Rand Paul not big enough fish to throw that kind of weight around?

Re:Oh dear. (3, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793505)

So, will some TSA "agent" lose their job or is Rand Paul not big enough fish to throw that kind of weight around?

Even if he isn't, his dad probably is.

Re:Oh dear. (2, Interesting)

magarity (164372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793585)

So, will some TSA "agent" lose their job or is Rand Paul not big enough fish to throw that kind of weight around?

TSA is under the executive branch while Paul is a member of the legislative branch. Guess which party is in charge of the executive and which party Paul is a member of and ask yourself this question again.

Re:Oh dear. (4, Insightful)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793619)

Guess which branch funds the TSA and ask that question again.

Re:Oh dear. (2)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793851)

They refer to themselves as "officers", not "agents". The STRIP Act [latimes.com] seeks to smack those petty tyrants down a few pegs. Tell your Congresscritter to support it.

knee metal from previous injury (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793485)

According to another news site. Maybe the Paul's want to be confrontational.

Actually, entire Adamantium skeleton (3, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793553)

Ron Paul wanted to give his kids all the advantages.

Re:knee metal from previous injury (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793563)

I used to be a senator; then I---

on second thought, too easy.

Re:knee metal from previous injury (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793577)

In this case, being 'confrontational' when standing up for your rights is certainly not a bad thing.

Re:knee metal from previous injury (3, Insightful)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793645)

Yeah, I bet he deliberately had knee surgery and asked for extra metal so he could set the TSA up fo a fall.

Hanlon's razor : Never attribute to malice (Paul) that which is adequately explained by stupidity (TSA).

So what they've done is... (5, Funny)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793487)

... they've pissed off a Southern Man and a Republican, in a position of political power.

Yeah. I can't see this ending well whichever way you slice it.

Re:So what they've done is... (3, Interesting)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793601)

I don't see the problem you do with it. Rand Paul was already against the TSA. Now if they did that to the Speaker of the House or the leaders of ether party then it would ignite a fire storm. The TSA irritating Rand Paul is like preaching to the choir.

Re:So what they've done is... (4, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793755)

Problem is, now they've given him an anecdote. And anecdotal evidence is quite convincing in politics, even if it's logically invalid.

Re:So what they've done is... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793761)

Actually, not at all. Once the other senators (for or against) realize that they are no longer immune to the laws of the little people, they'll be damned sure to do one of two things:

1) start chartering private jets or hop on military transports for all of their flights.

2) actually do something about that abomination they helped to deposit at every major airport in the US.

The betting pool is open, though sadly I'm gonna have to call dibs on #1.

Re:So what they've done is... (3, Interesting)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793791)

I'm pretty sure that Rand Paul is irritated by the TSA without even interacting with them. The existence of the TSA is enough to irritate him. And me.

Re:So what they've done is... (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793867)

There is a difference between being against something and being pissed off at it. I am against my neighbors barking dogs, but if I get pissed off enough I'll get a sack and take a trip to the river.

Standard Procedure (5, Insightful)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793495)

I know we all hate the TSA, but under the existing rule structure, his detention should not be surprising or treated with contempt. The alternative is that the TSA screener decides on his/her own who gets to walk through without a pat down if the scan shows up something suspicious. I'm not commenting on the overall efficacy or "correctness" of the procedure; if we're going to have rules, they should be enforced fairly and consistently. That said, I am in favor of some types of profiling, but I don't think being an elected official gives you any sort of waiver. They've already proved that they can't be trusted.

US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (5, Informative)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793523)

(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) 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.

Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (0, Troll)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793699)

Add that to the list of reasons I consider this document too inadequate to pass muster as a legitimate foundation for government, that and it was ratified by people who are all dead. How can it possibly have any legitimate force? Ridiculous.

Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (5, Informative)

Mr 44 (180750) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793749)

Maybe you should think about it some more.

That clause is designed to prevent situations like what recently happened in the Ukraine, where leaders of opposition factions in the government are arrested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/world/europe/09ukraine.html [nytimes.com]

Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (3, Informative)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793839)

The First Amendment was ratified by people that are all dead too, and there's plenty of people that disagree with it's interpretation. Should we toss that one out while we're at it?

Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793889)

You find it ridiculous? Which part of it? The part where it protects unpopular representatives from being harrassed, impeded and prevented from reaching the Capitol building by their opponents? Try firing your synapses a little harder.

Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793785)

what makes you think the TSA cares about what your puny constitution says, citizen?

Re:US Constitution Art 1 Section 6 - Compensation (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793805)

He wasn't going to Washington for a House session, according to his Twitter post he was going to speak at a pro-life event.

Re:Standard Procedure (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793557)

Wrong. Unconstitutional detention of any human should always be treated with contempt. Or are we not playing by THOSE rules anymore?

Re:Standard Procedure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793661)

I know we all hate the TSA, but under the existing rule structure, his detention should not be surprising or treated with contempt.

Rules are rules, even stupid ones that dehumanize Americans without making anyone safer.

Re:Standard Procedure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793855)

"Rules are rules, even stupid ones that dehumanize Americans without making anyone safer."

You're a good little fascist.

Just remember, when the revolution comes, you will be on the losing side.

Re:Standard Procedure (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793669)

The rules themselves are what is contemptable. It has little to do with a particular screener.

Re:Standard Procedure (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793697)

Since your post indicates a predilection towards acquiescence to authority, I was wondering if you could answer the following questions: How does boot taste? Is there any brand of boot that you prefer licking over others?

Re:Standard Procedure (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793725)

Why would he be detained? Why not just told that he may not fly and turned away? That's the purpose, right - to keep dangerous items, like shampoo in quantities of greatrer than 3 oz, and "tampered" shoes, off of airplanes.

If he didn't pose an immanent threat, he should have simply not been allowed to enter, and his checked luggage returned to him at the counter.

Re:Standard Procedure (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793897)

I just RTFA, as I should have on such a sensationalist headline. Of course he wasn't really detained, except to tell him about the pat down, have him refuse, and have him escorted out of the area. He's already re-booked a flight and is on his way to Washington. Not really a story.

Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (3, Informative)

edibobb (113989) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793497)

Before the Department of Homeland Security took over the United States it was unconstitutional to arrest a member of Congress while Congress is in session.

Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793531)

He's not arrested, just "indefinitely detained"

Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793665)

Honestly, this. I suppose there's something commendable in having the Congressfolk play by the same rules as everyone else, but I hope this raises awareness of the monster we created in the TSA: an organization whose devotion to safety has degenerated into cowardice.

Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793587)

Before the Department of Homeland Security took over the United States it was unconstitutional to arrest a member of Congress while Congress is in session.

Don't know whether that's accurate, but in any case he wasn't arrested so it doesn't really apply. From TFA, he was briefly detained (not detained at all according to the TSA) and missed his flight, then booked a different flight and passed through security without an issue.

Of course, if he wasn't a senator he probably would have been arrested for refusing to complete the security process.

Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (1)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793597)

He wasn't arrested. According to TFA, he was simply prevented from entering the "secure area" of the airport. He missed his planned flight and was forced to catch another. The subsequent screening went without incident.

Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (1)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793891)

The TSA defines "anything past the screening area" as "secure areas", IIRC, so that's a load of crap.

Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (1)

codex24 (130799) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793657)

Before the Department of Homeland Security took over the United States it was unconstitutional to arrest a member of Congress while Congress is in session.

How did the advent of the DHS change the supposed Constitutionality of that?

Re:Unconstitutional to Arrest a Congressman (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793743)

But they're not...oh, I see what you did there.

Tail wagging the dog? (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793513)

I can see this ending in a very popular political move against the TSA by Rand Paul.

Proud to have voted for him (2, Insightful)

rbowen (112459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793519)

I'm proud to have voted for him. I will continue to vote for him in the future. We need more senators like him who care about civil liberties, who listen to their constituents, and who understand that he is there working for me, and not for corporations.

More power to him.

Re:Proud to have voted for him (1)

Attack DAWWG (997171) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793623)

Wasn't he the one who said it was "Un-American" to criticize BP?

Re:Proud to have voted for him (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793653)

Yes. A corporation has more money/speech than a person, so therefore, it is un-American to question or criticize them.

Re:Proud to have voted for him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793715)

Uhm... he just didn't want to be touched by a stranger, although he accepted to go through the scanner, even asked to be let to do it again. No reason to vote him, unless you really like people that don't like to be touched by strangers. I suppose there are lots of them too, I for instance don't like to be touched by strangers. Even more, I dislike TSA. Will you vote for me ?

The lesson here: (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793525)

Don't be critical of the TSA or you might miss your flight, you damned terrorist!

Not enough bias? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793527)

Paul added: "We have to bring some sense to what we're doing in this country ... we treat everybody equally as a terrorist suspect."

There are other things he said along this line. Basically he wants to see the TSA harassing some people more than other. The people he thinks are more likely to be terrorists. So if you look like you come from Kandahar, expect to be treated worse under his plan? That's not good security and not the kind of society I want to live in.

Re:Not enough bias? (4, Insightful)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793753)

Actually that's the best possible security. If statistics prove repeatedly that terrorists are exponentially more likely to be males of age X, from nation of Z, and there's a nervous looking X year old guy with a Z passport wearing an oddly lumpy coat in July you'd be pretty irresponsible not to ask some questions.

This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution (5, Interesting)

McGruber (1417641) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793535)

US Constitution Article I section 6

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.

Senator Paul was apparently on his way to Washington, where the Senate has votes scheduled for this afternoon. It appears that the Executive Branch (TSA) just violated Article I section 6 of the Constitution.

Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793627)

Yeah except for the part where he wasn't arrested, or detained...

Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793717)

From TFA: Ran Paul was detained 'indefinitely'

Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution (2)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793765)

The same FA also says that the TSA disputes his account of it, and says they turned him away from the security gate. That is no indefinite detention by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, he already boarded another plane and left....

Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793781)

they shall not be questioned in any other Place

I'm sure the TSA asked some questions. If they did, they violated the constitution. Not that there's any fine or punishment for violating the constitution.

Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793795)

Yeah except for the part where he wasn't arrested, or detained...

*looks up at headline*

Senator Rand Paul Detained by the TSA

*facepalm*

Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution (1)

bodland (522967) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793633)

The Patriot Act probably has something in it that forced his detention....in the end this is probably staged to expose a major flaw in the draconian Bush era terra laws...

Re:This is a Huge Violation of the Constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793651)

This privilege is never invoked because it's political poison.

Except that he wasn't detained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793537)

They just told him he couldn't go through the security checkpoint...which is what happens when you refuse to jump through the security hoops.

Refused a pat-down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793541)

What kind of conservative Republican is he supposed to be?

Re:Refused a pat-down? (2)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793799)

The kind that understands and defends the Constitution. Rare, but not an impossibility.

RHIP (-1, Redundant)

El Torico (732160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793571)

Someone at the TSA should have realized that elected representatives have perks that the hoi polloi do not. In this case, Article One, Section 6, Clause 1 states,"Members of both Houses have certain privileges, based on those enjoyed by the members of the British Parliament. Members attending, going to or returning from either House are privileged from arrest, except for treason, felony or breach of the peace."

I wonder if the TSA is going to claim that Senator Paul was "breaching the peace".

We are too politically correct... (1, Insightful)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793575)

When the TSA or police use lots of racial or religious profiling everyone is up in arms about them being bigoted or prejudicial. "Oh they are picking on people who look Middle Eastern" "they are picking on the blacks" and whatnot. So then the TSA checks everyone without discriminating at all to show that anyone, even a senator, has to be groped and scanned before boarding because that senator might be a terrorist. Now the TSA has to be an equal opportunity offender and overly check people that are clearly not terrorists for the sake of equality.

Let the TSA and police do their jobs without having to equally check everyone so we can pretend like terrorists don't all come from the same background. Racial profiling might not be politically correct but it works. If we are wasting time harassing senators who are obviously not going to hijack the plane then something is obviously wrong.

Is a senator a terrorist? Probably not. This isn't Homeland. Are the five guys with brown skin with box cutters and mace terrorists? Yes probably but let's let them get on the plane. Is the family with grandparents smuggling cocaine in their luggage? Probably not. Are the two nervous looking Columbian men clinging to their luggage hiding something? Probably. But the TSA for political correctness has to check randomly and not profile which wastes time and resources and allows guys like Richard Reid the shoebomber into planes while Rand Paul is denied a flight.

Move along, nothing to see here (0)

Doofus (43075) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793579)

The story was posted long after the situation was resolved, according to the linked Politico article.

Doesn't seem worthy of a front-page location on Slashdot.

maybe the sumary is misleading (1)

swatthatfly (808033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793583)

According to the article: “Passengers, as in this case, who refuse to comply with security procedures are denied access to the secure gate area. He was escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement,” the official said.

Civil Disobedience (4, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793599)

You can call him a right-wing nut-job all you want, but Rand Paul is a strong opponent of the TSA, the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, and all sorts of other government abuses against civil liberties. I'm sure he is doing this to help prove his point.

I wouldn't be too hard on Rand Paul (2)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793603)

From what I've heard, he's already pretty critical of the TSA pat-downs. From June of 2011: http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/06/senator-rand-paul-questions-invasive-tsa-searches/ [randpaul2010.com]

Hopefully this will open more eyes in congress and generate some more pushback against the overgrown agency that the TSA has become.

I've had two instances of an annomly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793607)

One was a peney, the other a gum wrapper. Once i removed these items i wasnt asked to go through the scan again, just waived through.

This is going to make a funny Daily Show tonight.

not detained at all... (2)

JoeRobe (207552) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793629)

He just refused a pat-down, so they turned him back from the checkpoint. The TSA has explicitly said that at no point was Paul detained. According to CNN [cnn.com] he rebooked on another flight and went back through security without a problem. That makes the story a lot less interesting...

Re:not detained at all... (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793853)

Except that for all they know, he could have been flying at the last minute to get to a critical vote. There's a reason the constitution doesn't allow individual states to arrest congresspeople going to or from their job.

In this instance, no harm done. But, do we want the TSA to, in any way, be able to influence Congress?

I like this (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793659)

I think both Rand and his father are nut jobs. No, let me rephrase that - I think they have a very simplistic, but consistent, core values from which they derive a series of logical positions which vary from downright practical to socially unworkable. It's that latter part that makes them nutty. I like their logical approach; I am disappointed in their finesse and (in)ability to understand practical application of social policy.

Still, this is how things get changed, and if anyone is going to give the middle finger to our new establishment - and get away with it - it's likely to be someone like the Pauls. I'm surprised he was even required to go through the screening process; I was under the impression that members of congress - those that don't skip it entirely by flying private - would essentially be waved through or would have been provided an alternate entry point.

I presume he was flying business or first class, and was not subjected to the long queue.

Re:I like this (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793779)

I think the reason is more simple than that. Some TSA officers probably feel like they have an axe to grind with the Pauls over their anti-TSA statements. This is a simple case of getting even. That much said, both Rand and Ron are right in the matter. I am not really much of a fan of Rand, but his father Ron I'd like to see as the next President. The reality, however, is a long shot.

News for Nerds? (-1, Troll)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793727)

I guess enough white nerds have a man-crush on this poser, that it's news.

According to TSA, Paul was not detained (5, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38793733)

According the TSA, Paul was not detained at the checkpoint by the TSA, but was not allowed to proceed into the secure area because he refused the pat-down required by TSA procedure, and was escorted out of the checkpoint by police. He subsequently rebooked on a different flight and was rescreened without incident. This seems to be covered in most of the news stories on the incident (
CNN [cnn.com] , MSNBC [msn.com] , Reuters [reuters.com] .)

Re:According to TSA, Paul was not detained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38793841)

I didn't know regular people were allowed to back out after failing a scan....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?