Ron Paul Says Senator Son Detained By TSA For Refusing Pat-Down

Presidential candidate Ron Paul and his son, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, have been very vocal critics of the Transportation Security Administration. And it doesn’t look like the two will be thinking any more highly of the TSA as, according to the elder Paul pol, Rand was detained by the TSA this morning after refusing to submit to a pat-down.

“My son @SenRandPaul being detained by TSA for refusing full body pat-down after anomaly in body scanner in Nashville. More details coming,” Ron Tweeted this morning.

But the TSA is saying that the Presidential candidate isn’t painting a full picture of the incident. A rep for the agency tells the NY Daily News that Paul the Younger was not detained but was escorted from the checkpoint by local police.

“Passengers who refuse to complete the screening process cannot be granted access to the secure area in order to ensure the safety of others traveling.” the rep tells the News.

Rand was eventually booked onto a different flight and successfully passed through the security checkpoint.

Sen. Rand Paul ‘detained’ by TSA for refusing full-body pat-down, dad tweets [NY Daily News]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. pop top says:

    The son of a guy who is running for President pulled a political stunt for media play? You don’t say.

    • RickinStHelen says:

      A serving United States Senator had problems with the TSA is the bigger issue

      • pop top says:

        He’s been a member of Congress for a year now. One would assume that at some point prior to this he has flown on an airplane. Why haven’t we heard of this happening to him before? I’m sure it’s just a coincidence though.

        • Doubting thomas says:

          Because he is usually not traveling on a commercial airline, and even then less than 40% of the time will someone be sent through the rape scanner. But your conspiracy theory makes sense too.

          • pop top says:

            “the rape scanner”

            -_-

          • MutantMonkey says:

            Rape Scanner O_o

            • athensguy says:

              Reasonable characterization, I’d say. It’s where they look at you naked before they decide if they want to feel you up.

              • pop top says:

                Yes, going through a full-body scanner is exactly the same as rape. I’m sure rape survivors would love to hear their ordeal trivialized in such a manner.

                • MutantMonkey says:

                  People that say this are likely quoting a dated, legal definition of the word saying, “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”

                  • pop top says:

                    Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot that it was popular now to throw the word rape around when talking about paying too much for cable or getting beaten in a video game. Clearly that’s my bad.

                    • MutantMonkey says:

                      Well they are talking about the machines that show you essentially naked. The could, technically, be deemed “carnal knowledge”, though you aren’t strictly forced to go through them so that is where the argument would fall apart, but people don’t need much prodding to jump to sensationalism.

                    • Doubting thomas says:

                      Yes and having a government agent take a nude photograph of you using harmful radiation, then when he doesn’t like what he sees forcibly groping you, with the threat of being arrested and imprisoned if you don’t comply is comparable to being beat in a video game as well right?

                      Sorry if you had your feelings hurt by my word choice . Possibly sexual assault scanner would have been more accurate and more PC

                    • Costner says:

                      I totally understand where you are coming from, but honestly it is just a word, and the context of the term is what gives it power. A woman who was raped may not like the term because of what it means to her, but in the context of someone paying too much for cable I don’t think it is the same concept.

                      It is sort of like an experience I had once when people were quoting movie lines and someone made the obligatory “It’s not a tumor…” line without knowing one of the people in that group was a cancer survivor who had dealt with a life threatening tumor. To most of us, the word tumor isn’t emotional, but to her… it surely was.

                      So again I understand what you are saying – and nobody can compare a legitimate rape to anything else, but at the same time let’s not get to worked up about the political correctness of the term beecause again… the word only has the power we attribute to it. Words have many meanings and that one has (for good or bad) been stripped of it’s original usage to where it is much more common.

                      Sort of like when someone calls someone else a “retard” or says “thats retarded”. Those associated with the developmentally disabled would be offended, but since they now classify their groups as “mentally challenged” etc, should they really get upset that someone is using the term in another context?

                      Keep in mind the words “moron”, “idiot”, and “imbecile” were all legitimate medical terms used to describe varying levels of cognitive ability, but now days they are just insults.

                    • Sad Sam says:

                      It may not be rape but as someone who gets groped each time I fly I find the patdowns to be akin to a sexual assault. I’ve had some very aggressive groping of my crotch (until I figured out that if I wear an above the knee skirt they will not feel me up above the hem of the skrit) and breasts by some very unpleasant people and it was against my will.

                • athensguy says:

                  My version has the machine allowing the perpetrator to decide whether to proceed to physical violation.

          • AEN says:

            All passengers at Reagan National go thru body scanners.

          • Doubting thomas says:

            Re reading the summary it also makes clear that he didn’t refuse the scanner, he refused the pat down. I highly doubt that any US Congressman gets asked to submit themselves to a pat-down on a regular basis. If they were the TSA would have been shut down long ago.

        • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

          Anything is possible. Even Ted Kennedy was on the TSA no-fly list for a long time before it was resolved.

    • Marlin says:

      I am not a Paul fan, either one. But he, rand, has spoken out against the TSA since elected. So I doubt this was a stunt, at least a planned one.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

        So there is no way someone against the TSA would pull a stunt to make the TSA look too overzealous?

        • Stickdude says:

          Just like there is no way that a TSA agent took advantage of an opportunity to stick it to a very vocal critic?

          • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

            If TSA agents are as uneducated as people say they are, they wouldn’t know who he was.

            • Stickdude says:

              That explains why this is only the first time it’s happened. ;)

              Or we can put aside the “political stunt” theories and believe that it happened just as both sides say it did -

              * There was an anomaly in the regular scanner
              * They asked him to submit to a pat-down screening
              * He refused because he felt that a pat-down screening violated his rights

              Stripping down to your 4th-Amendment boxers while capturing the entire thing for YouTube is a political stunt. This was not even close to that.

  2. Matthew PK says:

    Once you have an “anomaly” in the scanner, if you refuse a patdown and opt not to fly you *are not* free to leave.
    Through some ridiculous laws I’d love to see challenged, you can be fined if you refuse to participate through the remainder of the additional screenings.
    This may point to why Senator Paul was “escorted by law enforcement”

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      I’ve wondered how that works.

      I still have several pieces of shrapnel embedded in my lower back that were not practical to remove. I’m always paranoid that they’re going to set of a metal detector, especially as the devices become more sophisticated. I know I’d rather leave than play “pokey” with a TSA agent.

      • Difdi says:

        They basically assume that the only reason to back out of security part-way through is if you have something to hide. Like someone who seems a police roadblock, pulls an illegal u-turn and floors it.

        And yet…if you were to touch a TSA screener in the same places they touch you, you’d be arrested for sexual assault. Backing out of a security check when it becomes clear you’re about to be molested rather than simply scanned shouldn’t make you a criminal.

      • Skeptic says:

        You probably don’t have to worry. Neither millimeter wave nor backscatter Xray machines (collectively known as nudescopes) can see shrapnel, or anything else, beneath the surface of your skin. Walk through metal detectors could, in theory, see the shrapnel if their sensitivity were to be set on “11,” but in practice this is virtually never the case. Lower sensitivity settings are the practice in order to avoid having the WTMDs go off every time anyone with riveted jeans, zippers, and/or a bra and/or body jewelry (including earrings) goes through.

        Part of the problem with TSA’s technology is that it *can’t* see anything subcutaneous, or carried inside a body cavity. Or inside a fold of body fat (e.g. ‘tween the butt cheeks). Or attached to clothing unless the clothes are close-fitting. That’s a lot of things that can’t be detected, despite the ridiculous investment in nudescopes . . .

    • Velvet Jones says:

      I think the biggest problems is they do a full pat-down in many instances. If they see an anomaly on your leg then they should not be grabbing your balls or boobs. But that is not the case. At many check points any single alarm results in the full rubdown. Not to mention the fact that these so called scanners are total pieces of merde.

      • arcticJKL says:

        When I had an anomaly on my back they just patted my back.
        When did they start frisking you when you had an anomaly.

  3. Marlin says:

    I thought once you went in you had to complete the security and could not leave, even if you did not want to fly. If not you were arrested. ???

    • LanMan04 says:

      That’s for us little people. He’s special.

      • kenj0418 says:

        Actually, when heading to/from Washington he kind of is (legally anyway). The guys writing the Constitution didn’t want the executive branch to be to harass congressmen on their way to and from Congress.

        From Article 1 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

    • longfeltwant says:

      I don’t know about “arrested” but if you submit to the search, then you have submitted to the search (obviously). You can’t decide halfway through to change your mind; at that point, you only have the right to remain silent.

      That’s constitutional reasoning, though, which is unnecessary. The only necessary question is “does a majority of the voting public support these searches?” If not, then they should be discarded. But, I’m sorry to say, I think there is a majority who supports the searches, and that’s democracy. Democracies are only so free as the majority wants them to be.

      • David Doe says:

        That is why we don’t live in a democracy, majority does not, and should not, rule.

        • longfeltwant says:

          Of course we live in a democracy, don’t be silly.

          We live (in the USA) in a constitutional republic, which is a kind of democracy. Here, the majority (defined in a few different roughly similar ways) rules on just about everything, with a baseline of rules laid out in the Constitution.

          In the case at hand, the Constitutional questions are answered. Yes, there is a constitutional protection for searches, but no, the TSA does not violate it (unfortunately). Yes, Senators are protected from arrest at certain times, but no, that does not apply to this case because he was not arrested.

          • Velvet Jones says:

            longfeltwant, I suggest you go back to school and learn what a constitutional republic means. It is not a democracy. The constitution exists not only to define the government but also to protect the rights of the citizens. In a democracy the voters could simply vote to violate the rights of certain groups of people(think minorities, religious or ethnic). The constitution protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The higher courts have not ruled that what the TSA is currently doing is legal. They TSA is using a limited ruling from the 70s to keep expanding their power. Based on the S.C.O.T.U.S ruling on GPS tracking today, I think the TSA should be getting very nervous.

            • longfeltwant says:

              Holy crap you have to be kidding me. Do you have a dictionary nearby? Kindly give me your definitions of Republic and Democracy. Oh, sheesh, here I’ll do it for you

              Republic: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives

              Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

              Democracies are governments where people vote; republics are democracies where representatives rule; constitutional republics are republics with a constitution, which normally protects people by requiring supermajorities to change the constitution.

              I’m not wrong about that; you are. We shouldn’t have to quibble over dictionary definitions.

              But, hey, I do join you in hoping that the SCUSA puts a smackdown on the TSA. I don’t think that will happen, but we can always hope.

          • Bob says:

            Make that a Democratically Constitutional Representative Republic. There are many flavors of democratically controlled governments and there are many flavors of Republics and the two do not have to overlap.

      • Difdi says:

        Then it’s probably a good thing we’re not a pure democracy, is it? The United States is now and always has been a constitutional democratic republic. There are things that even a unanimous majority of the people cannot alter about our government (go read the preamble to the bill of rights if you don’t believe me).

        In other words, you can’t vote someone off the island.

      • madelineb says:

        So … if a person consents to sex and then changes his/her mind halfway, but the other person keeps going, that’s considered rape.

        But if a person consents to a search, and then decides halfway that he/she doesn’t want his/her genitalia touched, that’s a crime. On the part of the person being touched. What?

  4. jrs45 says:

    This is an excellent opportunity to dismantle a lot of the TSA nonsense. They violated the constitution directly by detaining a Senator on his way to Congress – this is a very big deal, and is very actionable.

    If nothing else, it will hopefully piss off enough congressmen to initiate actual change.

    • longfeltwant says:

      Ha, ha. Armchair constitutional lawyering is fun!

      “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”

      The key word here is “arrest”. He was not arrested. When you are arrested you are not free to go; Paul was free to go, and in fact he did go.

      Nice try, though.

      • Thalia says:

        Not to mention that last I checked speaking at an anti-abortion rally does not qualify as the business of government, despite what some Congress critters wish.

      • hansolo247 says:

        Nice try is right.

        The word used in the Constitution is Arrest, with a capital A.

        The legal defniition: “A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.”

        two of the three may very well have occured until we know more. ANY of those on a sitting US Senator on their way to/from a session is unacceptable.

    • icy_one says:

      He wasn’t on his way to Congress, he was on his way at March for Life in DC.

    • Actionable Mango says:

      The article specifically says he was NOT detained.

  5. Geekybiker says:

    Now that they’ve pissed off someone important, something will be done to curb them?

  6. coffee100 says:

    Yep. Only problem is Senators are immune from arrest if they are on their way to and from legislative sessions.

    Article I Section 6 of the Constitution.

    • Weapon X says:

      …not to mention the fourth amendment.

      • Thalia says:

        SCOTUS has held that being able to fly on a private airline is a right not a privilege, and you can just take a car if you don’t want to jump through the hoops of showing ID & so on. The pat down hasn’t specifically been litigated, but having to show ID and go through scanners has.

    • TinaBringMeTheAx says:

      Except in cases of “Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace.”

      It could be argued that he was breaching the peace.

      • coffee100 says:

        Breach of the Peace has a well-understood legal definition that presumes “harm, riot, barratory behavior, unlawful assembly” and so forth.

    • longfeltwant says:

      Good thing he wasn’t arrested, or that comment might be germane. As it is, it is an irrelevant non-sequitur, but one which is informative for people who don’t know much about the Constitution.

      Did you also know that the Constitution bans slavery? Ah, good times, discussing these irrelevant Constitutional bits of trivia.

      • coffee100 says:

        He can’t be detained either. He can’t be questioned, prosecuted or otherwise interfered with if he is going to or from a legislative session. He can’t be subpoenaed, compelled to appear, served with a warrant, held, interrogated or cited except under the very specific and limited conditions outlined in Article I Section 6.

        He is a United States Senator and is therefore privileged from any involvement with law enforcement in precisely the same way a representative of a foreign government is immune from prosecution under diplomatic immunity.

        I believe it was said best in Lethal Weapon II. “My dear officer. You could not even give me a parking ticket.”

        • longfeltwant says:

          Oh, shit. My Constitution must be really, really abridged. Could you post the text of your Article 1 Section 6? Clearly I need to update my copy, because it doesn’t say ANYTHING about what you just said. Alternately, I will accept citations of Supreme Court decisions.

          • coffee100 says:

            The privilege belongs to the Senator. As long as he has a reasonable basis to believe he is being detained to or from a legislative session (a vote is scheduled today according to ABC News), privilege attaches and he is free to go. Case closed.

            The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the privileges of a United States Senator under the Separation of Powers. They also ruled against Dred Scott and illegally appointed a President not too long ago, so I wouldn’t spend too much time hiding behind the nine black robes.

            You have a real nice day.

            • Thalia says:

              The privilege is restricted, though. It’s not like Senators have a free pass to do whatever they wish wherever they wish because maybe they are on their way to a session. Rand Paul has announced he was on his way to an Anti-Choice rally. Not a legislative session no matter how you slice it.

              And the Supreme Court most certainly does interpret the Constitution, even the clauses which define such immunities. See Gravel v. United States (SCOTUS, 1972).

              • coffee100 says:

                The privilege is restricted to three very specific limits: treason, felony and breach of the peace. In all other cases, the man is privileged from arrest. The end.

                According to ABC News the Senate convened today at 2PM and a vote was scheduled at 4:30, so it is now settled FACT that this detention has interfered with the Constitutionally mandated function of the United States Congress.

                Anyone else got a banner to wave? Bloody hell.

      • rob_p says:

        As I understand the law you don’t have to be hauled downtown and processed, or read your rights to have been ‘arrested’ under the constitution. Check Merriam-Webster, “to take or keep in custody by authority of law.” Members of the executive branch stopped the senator and held him against his will. He was arrested, just as you and I are at a traffic stop. If you aren’t free to leave, you have been arrested… Of course take all this with a grain of salt as IANAL, just a law student.

    • Such an Interesting Monster says:

      But he wasn’t. He was on his way to speak at a march.

  7. EllenRose says:

    If the Senator were heading for Washington and the Senate, the Constitution notes that:

    “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’m sure the TSA will try to make this into a Breach of the Peace. This time, they may find they’ve bitten off a larger Peace than they can chew.

    • longfeltwant says:

      I have carefully considered your post, and decided that you don’t even have an elementary understanding of the law or the constitution. He wasn’t arrested, therefore there is no need to question whether or not he breached the peace.

      Some people think that just because the TSA is a bunch of jackbooted thugs masquerading as a security force, that means that the TSA is violating the Constitution. No, they aren’t. Their searches are not unreasonable in the legal sense, although they are heinous and unconscionable in the common sense.

      Embrace subtle thought. Separate your very reasonable and noble hatred for the TSA from kooky claims about the legality of their actions.

      • coffee100 says:

        Article I Section 6 would apply equally if he were being cited for littering in Buffalo Mop, Texas.

        • longfeltwant says:

          No, it wouldn’t.

          See how fun it is to just say shit without having to support it? Man, you and I are having fun today!

          PS I’m open minded. You can show me wrong by citing supreme court decisions, but I won’t accept throw-away dialogue from B-rate movies.

          • Stickdude says:

            I do agree with you that Article I Section 6 doesn’t apply here, but not for the same reason.

            In your understanding of that article of the Constitution, would it be legal for a D.C. policeperson to pull over a Congressperson on their way to important vote and hold them up just long enough to miss the vote – as long as they never actually arrested the Congressperson?

    • Difdi says:

      They don’t have to make it into a breach of the peace, since the good senator was not on his way to a session of congress. He was on his way to a political march.

      Senators are not immune from arrest at all times, only in specific cases.

  8. homelesspete says:

    I bet they stopped him for that ugly tie.

  9. mannyvel says:

    “He wasn’t detained, he was escorted to a secure area where he wasn’t allowed to leave.”
    “They weren’t strip-searched, they were temporarily relieved of their clothing.”
    “They weren’t fondled, they were digitally examined.”

    The TSA: Where Your Safety is our #1 Priority.

    • longfeltwant says:

      It’s awesome how you put that in quotes, as if to imply that you are quoting something. You win the achievement for +1 Dishonesty.

    • Madaline_7 says:

      I was reading the comments for this.

      If you are not allowed to leave, you are detained. Period. Just because he wasn’t treated as one of us would be, that doesn’t mean that it was nothing less than detainment.

  10. Zenaiah says:

    Why do these stories always end with the person in question being booked on a different flight and boarding without incident? What changed? No one ever mentions what change has occurred to now make boarding the flight okay. I doubt he changed his mind about the pat down, so I can only assume the ‘anomaly’ on the body scanner was no longer visible. Just goes to show that if you are a terrorist, if at first you don’t succeed just refuse your pat down, get rebooked and try again….

    • Stickdude says:

      There’s a reason it’s called security theater.

      They pretend to protect us, and we pretend to feel safe.

  11. econobiker says:

    Whoah there- a US politician who actually flew commercial and was NOT on some business/lobbyest/multi-millionaire actor ‘s private jet?

    Now that is news-worthy!!!

  12. Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh says:

    I wish Rand Paul was running for president. I’d vote for him because he is vocally anti-TSA.

    • pop top says:

      He’s also vocally anti-choice. :/

      • agent 47 says:

        It’s ok to support someone you don’t 100% agree with.

        • Sad Sam says:

          I think the prior comment was pointing out the inconsistent position.

          Rand Paul against government intrusion and invasion of privacy at the airport.
          But, all for it at the ob/gyn.

          • agent 47 says:

            But the abortion topic is different since it’s not so much about the rights of the mother as it is about the rights of the fetus. Choosing one over the other really can’t be seen as being pro-gov or anti-gov intervention before you’d be dammed either way.

            • agent 47 says:

              Sorry, what I meant is that from their point of view, it’s about the person yet to be born than it is about the birther. Also, that “before” at the end is supposed to be “because.” My kingdom for an edit button!

          • hansolo247 says:

            Rand Paul is definitely against the federal government intervening at your OB/Gyn. His position is that it is a state issue, though his personal opinion is different.

            One can still have a personal preference and be reasonable. I’d prefer that a good chunk of the population get abortions to stop having stupid kids that are a drain on our resources, but I would never actually support such a thing.

      • hansolo247 says:

        No.

        His position is a little more complex than that.

        He’s personally pro-life, but his political position is that it is not a federal issue, just like Ron. If a state wishes to allow abortions, he would accept that. So, if Paul had his way and your state allowed abortions and you wanted one, you could have one. If your state outlawed them, you just need a plane or bus ticket and there would be a charity willing to give that to you if you lacked the means.

        That’s a very clear distinction from the “abortion should be illegal period” crowd, which is fundamentally un-libertarian.

  13. ColoradoShark says:

    1.Seriously, screening a senator? What a total waste of time. He’s not going to hijack or blow up the plane.

    2.Senators, and other officials, should have to endure the exact same procedures as ordinary citizens so they understand what they go through.

    Help me resolve these two arguments.

    • longfeltwant says:

      1. Almost nobody has a bomb. That’s not really the point.

      2. Good point.

    • Raider Duck says:

      I’d agree with #1 a lot more. Did the TSA seriously think that US SENATOR RAND PAUL presented a possible terrorist threat? Because if they didn’t think that, then harassing him was nothing more than a waste of time and resources.

      It would be nice if TSA agents were even half as concerned with catching bad guys as they are about looking “tough.”

    • Thalia says:

      This is like the conflict between my dislike for Rand Paul and my dislike for the TSA. I hope this leads to the TSA getting smacked, and I hope this also leads to Rand Paul being smacked.

      1. Senators are not less likely to bring bombs onto planes than grandmothers, babies, or any of the hundreds of others groups that are frisked.

      2. Yup.

  14. drblair says:

    Wish they detained Rand indefinitely

  15. bigtxpapa says:

    Good for TSA! 1. The Senator was never detained, as Law Enforcement work for the Airport or Locally jurisdiction and he was escorted and most likely the police cleared him.
    2. All members of our government should be treated like the rest of us as they were put into those jobs by us. They should not get special priveledges. You fly commercial, you get screened PERIOD! Don’t like it take the Bus or your buddies Private Jet.
    Paul is just like all the other whiners who want the ability to be treated like god because they had the money to get voted into a job.

    • msbask says:

      1. The police cleared him HOW? If I refuse to a pat down by the TSA, how do I get the police to “clear” me?

      2. I agree 100%.

  16. Hermia says:

    From what I’ve read the Senator pulled up his pant leg to show the TSA agents that there was nothing there, but they demanded a full body pat down. I can’t blame him for refusing. What right do they have to feel you up if your leg was the only issue. He showed his leg, let him through.

    Strangely this happened with my mother who is a breast cancer survivor who wears a prosthesis. She set off the body scanner with her “left chest” and leg. She told the agent she wears a prosthesis, they had her lift up her pant leg to show there was nothing there and let her go on her way – no pat down.

    I was very thankful that my 68-year-old mother was not subjected to the pat down, because she’s got an anxiety disorder and it could’ve sent her into a panic attack. Still, why was that enough for the agent to clear my mother, but not enough to clear Rand Paul?

    The TSA is security theater, and they’re horribly inconsistent at it. Their violate their own guidelines all the time. I don’t trust them one bit.

  17. Hermia says:

    From what I’ve read the Senator pulled up his pant leg to show the TSA agents that there was nothing there, but they demanded a full body pat down. I can’t blame him for refusing. What right do they have to feel you up if your leg was the only issue. He showed his leg, let him through.

    Strangely this happened with my mother who is a breast cancer survivor who wears a prosthesis. She set off the body scanner with her “left chest” and leg. She told the agent she wears a prosthesis, they had her lift up her pant leg to show there was nothing there and let her go on her way – no pat down.

    I was very thankful that my 68-year-old mother was not subjected to the pat down, because she’s got an anxiety disorder and it could’ve sent her into a panic attack. Still, why was that enough for the agent to clear my mother, but not enough to clear Rand Paul?

    The TSA is security theater, and they’re horribly inconsistent at it. Their violate their own guidelines all the time. I don’t trust them one bit.

  18. djdanska says:

    While a shame, it is nice to know that the TSA provides the same molestation and feel ups to officials as to grandmas from florida. lol. Hypocrites they are not.

  19. Sad Sam says:

    I hate the TSA and get groped just about every time I fly. But, does anyone find it ironic that Rand Paul doesn’t want the government to touch his junk but he was traveling to DC for a right to life rally.

    Rand Paul against government intrusion and invasion of privacy at the airport but all for it at the ob/gyn.

  20. longfeltwant says:

    The point, of course, is that we can’t know who has a bomb (or whatever). Thus, if we want to catch bombs, we have to check everyone really carefully. That part of the argument, I understand.

    But so many people then leave off as if they have settled the issue, but they have not. The next question is, “how much freedom are we willing to trade for how many bombs?” That is a democratic question which citizens should consider with maturity, understanding, and honesty.

    • msbask says:

      The majority of people that I have asked have actually said “As much as necessary. Whatever keeps me safe on the plane. They have to do what they have to do to keep us safe.”

      I swear, I only know idiots.

  21. pgr says:

    He is a fucking A-hole just like his dad and doesn’t deserves to be a US senator. If he didn’t come from a backwater state full of hillbilly rednecks he’d still be screwing Medicare with his medical practice and never ever get elected as a dog catcher!

    Having said that though the TSA is also full of idiots so I guess he met his match. Get rid of then all I say ;)

  22. Kensuke Nakamura says:

    I don’t know who to hate more, the entitled senator who thinks he’s too good for security screenings that we have to put up with all the time, or the TSA who is punishing a guy because their equipment malfunctioned.

    • Stickdude says:

      [citation needed]

      Where has he ever said, or even implied, that he thought he was “too good” to go through the screenings? He went through the initial screening just like everyone else – he didn’t think he was “too good” for that screening. He just felt that the pat-down screening infringed on his rights – a position he has consistently held since Day 1.

  23. longfeltwant says:

    You keep saying these untrue things, as if repeating them makes them true.

    What you are asserting is not (at all) supported by the plain reading of the Constitution. I do realize that the plain reading of the Constitution is not the end of constitutional jurisprudence — there are also two centuries of court decisions. You clearly can’t appeal to the Constitution, so I invite you to appeal to court decisions to support your assertions. You might be the kind of person who knows a heck of a lot about constitutional jurisprudence, and if so you can educate me. If not, if in fact you know less than I do, then you might consider thanking me for educating you.

    Also, one other point, of COURSE the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over privileges of Senators. Who else would? What other body would decide whether the TSA overstepped its bounds? Who else would you appeal to, NAMBLA? France? the FDA? the school board in Los Angeles? the Queen of England? No, obviously it is the supreme court which decides these things.

    It sort of sounds to me as though you are the kind of person who thinks “The TSA is bad, therefore it must be unconstitutional.” That is very, very poor reasoning, so make sure not to fall into that trap.

    • coffee100 says:

      You strike me as one of those people who thinks anyone who quotes the Constitution also plucks a banjo with their single tooth and leads a four-member apocalyptic cult that wanders swamps in rural Georgia looking for kryptonite.

      Who decides jurisdictional issues? Why that would be the Congress of the United States! Imagine that! The people who make the laws also decide who has jurisdiction over them.

      Further, Congress can strip jurisdiction from the Supreme Court, and since you’re apparently so aroused by black robes, you’ll be interested to know our erstwhile defenders of the American Way ruled UNANIMOUSLY in 1869 that Congress does, in fact have the power to tell the Supreme Court to sit down and shut up.

      According to your worldview, apparently, United States Senators can be accosted in broad daylight by whatever union-scale ticket-writer happens by regardless of their responsibilities that day. Says you: The Supreme Court has now apparently claimed jurisdiction over the United States Congress who presumably must now appear and file motions requesting leave to convene committees or schedule votes.

      What’s next? The Supreme Court issues a bench warrant for the President?

      To put it simply and as succinctly as I know how: You sir, are on crack. Only some exotic mixture of recreational chemicals would lead one to believe that Constitutional law issues from the rulings of one of three co-equal branches of the government that same Constitution established. Allow me to offer a quote:

      “The Court, through the years, has incrementally extended its tentacles and influence over every area of American life. In wearing out several mirrors admiring the limitless power it has arrogated to itself, it apparently now feels it can do anything at all” — Vincent Bugliosi

      How prescient.

      The Constitution comes first. Not the Supreme Court. The People of the United States and the States they inhabit are not only free to interpret the instrument by which they consented to the creation of the Federal Government, but it is their duty to remind all governments in this country where their jurisdiction stops.

      Limitless jurisdiction is a tyranny-baiting megalomaniacal fantasy that everyone with a badge or title in this country seems to pursue with a frantic starved energy normally reserved for frat house pizza deliveries.

      It is about time we are all reminded the Constitution is the clearly-written, easy to understand LAW. It does not require ratification by the Supreme Court or anyone else, and if we are at a point where we must countenance this plurality of authority jockeying for their share of unlimited power, then it is time we lowered the flag and adjourned this star-spangled attempt at self-governance lest we further defile the memories of those who gave so generously to defend it.

  24. sqeelar says:

    He is pretty well hung. Maybe he didn’t want to give the TSA guy any feeling of inadequacy.

  25. Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

    In a related story, former Senator Larry Craig asked to be patted down twice. Craig later explained that “after hearing of Seator Paul’s plight, I decided to take one for the team”

  26. pika2000 says:

    Should’ve taken Obama’s jet.

  27. skakh says:

    Awwww, they couldn’t find a reason to put this bozo behind bars! That would have made the entire concept of the TSA bearable.

  28. TsuKata says:

    Doesn’t this just point out how useless the whole endeavor is? Let’s hypothetically say that there is actually some thing that can be hidden in a body cavity that can cause a giant plane to be hijacked or blown up. Let’s further hypothesize that some person about to board plane A had some sort of threatening device on their person. The backscatter detects an anomaly. The person refuses a patdown search. They’re escorted from the premises.

    Then, apparently, this person simply books a new flight for plane B, goes through again, and “passes”, as Senator Paul did. Plane B goes boom instead of plane A. Good job, TSA!

    So…what was the point of the search at all? Oh, that’s right…to make us all *feel* safer.