It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senator Paul is being detained at the Nashville Airport by the TSA

page: 11
89
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by The Sword
 


Dr. Paul is pro life in his personal belief, but as the Constitution doesn't allow the government to dictate an individual's decision to have a baby or not, he's pro choice in his stance.

The man's got integrity and he doesn't flip flop like Mitt flop


Ron Paul is in favour of letting individual states make that decision...

www.bbc.co.uk...

I guess that means he doesn't have to make it himself. I don't see how that makes him pro life, he'll just let people at a state level decide.

Off topic, but was giving clarity




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Toffeeapple
 


Just to clarify:


Oops, I forgot to take my keys out of my pocket", so you'd remove they keys & go through again - no alarm - problem solved.

Why wouldn't they just let him go through again?


You refer to the "metal detectors", there.

The story from BNA (Nashville) is that he was passing through the full-body scanner.....the one that is so controversial. The "naked" scanner, shows a picture of the body sans clothing.

IIRC, even the acknowledged that it was a "processing glitch" that showed up as an anomaly in the image.

And, to Sen. Paul's credit.....NO one should have to undergo an unnecessary physical search simply due to a computer flaw or glitch. A re-screen is a perfectly logical alternative.

But "logic" and "TSA" seem to be mutually exclusive terms in many cases.


Thanks for that clarification, and I agree, they seem to either be a bit dense, or maybe they were being awkward because they liked the idea of inflicting a search on that particular gentleman.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
This probably has to do with his views on the issues. This is how bullies operate. But the TSA IS finally getting the right idea, just the wrong government officials. Seriously though, how in the name of all things holy can they detain a sitting us SENATOR??? These people are so stupid it is pathetic. This just shows they are STILL out of control, showing no signs of improvement.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
This probably has to do with his views on the issues. This is how bullies operate. But the TSA IS finally getting the right idea, just the wrong government officials. Seriously though, how in the name of all things holy can they detain a sitting us SENATOR??? These people are so stupid it is pathetic. This just shows they are STILL out of control, showing no signs of improvement.


So.. US Senators should be above the law?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


I know I've answered this question several times already.

The TSA is not "the law." They are a security agency tasked with preventing hijacking and terrorism on airplanes.

So, true to their mission, is detaining a sitting Senator a task that helps them prevent hijackings and terrorism? Was there ever a concern that this Senator was actually planning to hijack or otherwise terrorize a plane?

Being "above the law" makes no sense. He didn't break any law, and he wasn't accused of anything. They had a computer malfunction, and a SENATOR was the lucky recipient, and they should have been able to quickly assess the risk and move on.

FBI agents, Federal Marshalls, DEA. US Forestry, and many other Federal Law enforcement personell are able to skip the scanners, because their integrity and intentions are already well-established. Why wouldn't a sitting Senatory be the same way?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Does anyone know if they recognized the senator or if he identified himself as a senator on his way to a session? Did HE bring up the alleged Constitutional breach with the TSA agents? If he didn't identify himself, the agents are hardly at fault.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Seriously TSA? I'm sure he's a terrorist...


Senator Paul is being detained at the Nashville Airport by the TSA. We will update you as the situation develops.

TSA agents, having negative IQs since 1984! YES WE CAN!


I'm sure you wrote this before all the facts had come in (and as usual I'm late to the party) but he wasn't detained at all. I do however find it really stupid that he was sent away.

I have this weird thing with Rand Paul in that I'm not sure if I like him or not. I live in his state and around election time when he got voted in I was incredibly upset that he won the election (I forget why tbh) but looking back on it he hasn't been that bad I don't think.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


No, Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list.

I actually don't see the problem here. Paul set off the alarm and was asked to be patted down. The same would happen to anyone. If someone sets off the scanner, I damn sure want that person checked to make sure they are not carrying weapons. Yes, the chance of Paul carrying a weapon on a plane is incredibly small, but people complain about politicians being treated like royalty; Paul was treated like anyone else. I'm happy with this.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Furbs
 


I know I've answered this question several times already.

The TSA is not "the law." They are a security agency tasked with preventing hijacking and terrorism on airplanes.

So, true to their mission, is detaining a sitting Senator a task that helps them prevent hijackings and terrorism? Was there ever a concern that this Senator was actually planning to hijack or otherwise terrorize a plane?

Being "above the law" makes no sense. He didn't break any law, and he wasn't accused of anything. They had a computer malfunction, and a SENATOR was the lucky recipient, and they should have been able to quickly assess the risk and move on.

FBI agents, Federal Marshalls, DEA. US Forestry, and many other Federal Law enforcement personell are able to skip the scanners, because their integrity and intentions are already well-established. Why wouldn't a sitting Senatory be the same way?


They are legally mandated. That makes their activity lawful. Law Enforcement Officials (LEO) are able to skip the scanners because they are legally mandated to be allowed through. Senators are not.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



If a Senator can be detained, then the intrusiveness of our Government, and the complete and total erosion of our liberties, and the lack of any common sense of enforcement officials becomes very apparent.


If a Senator can be "detained" (or just not allowed to board a plane
), then the TSA is not showing any favoritism and should be applauded.

Do you think he should be allowed to pass through security just because he is a Senator? Do you think he should have special privledges that we don't?


oh man imagine what would happen if they detained the pres and wanted to strip search him.
it would be ALL OVER THE NEWS and the tsa agents that performed it would be like rock stars. fortunately, he doesn't have to go thru that. it would be incredibly embarrassing for him. like it is for most americans.
edit on 23-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
how do leaders and politicians from other countries travel to and from the usa?
do they go thru tsa? just curious. thought crossed my mind and wondered how much intercontinental political travel we have incoming and outgoing from foreign countries and if their entourages are all thoroughly
scanned.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


As I said in an earlier post. They have so far been accused of stripping an elementary school boy all the way to his undies, removing grandmothers from their wheel chairs, and inserting their hands inside the panty line of girls aged 2 to 82! They have cupped the hump, and done plenty of other monstrous things without any real concern that the people were indeed terrorists.

All the while ignoring the people that fit the profiles of terrorists, because "profiling" is politically incorrect.

So, I go back their "mandate" as you call it. Indeed it is a lawful mandate, so they get away with these things, but are these things truly in line with their mission and mandate?

Would the framers of the TSA mandate and procedures agree that turning away a Senator over a software glitch be in line with the mission and mandate of the agency? Would they agree that stripping a 10 year old boy to his underwear or cupping the breasts or other areas of a young woman be in line with the mission and mandate of the agency?
*
*
*
*
Last time I flew, I was detained by TSA in the Miami airport, but only very briefly. I stood in line for over an hour in what turned out to not be a LINE~!! There were ticket agents at a counter, and there were barricades and there were people sitting on luggage all about, and so I got in line. The people moved around from time to time, and I followed, and some left, and more came behind me, and in front of me, and eventually (after an hour) I learned, along with another 100 people or so, that these particular ticket agents were not doing anything at all related to the line, and the people that had come and gone had simply gone up and asked the right question and then been dismissed. Nobody could explain why there were cattle barricades directing people into a line, or where we should actually go to be processed, and I lost my temper, and I said some things, and I was subsequently escorted away by some security agents.
The point is, that made sense. Nothing else in the Miami airport makes any sense, but detaining me actually made sense.

Detaining a Senator in Nashville makes no sense whatsoever!



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


But did they know he was a senator? Did he ID himself?

I don't think anyone is standing up for the TSA are they? That's not the argument. It's whether or not a senator should be allowed to board a plane when he tweaks the machine.

What SHOULD happen in this case?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


What should happen in this case could go several ways.

Personally, I don't think he needs to go through Security. Romney and Santorum are probably flying their own planes, and other Senators are probably flying private charters on the tax-payer dime, and here is a guy doing his best to be responsible and he gets hassled.

I would think he could show credentials and go on through, or skip the procedure entirely. His staff is a different story, if he travels with an entourage, they should be checked.

Now, if he does go through the scanner, and it singles him out, then the TSA staff should pull him to the side, verify his identity, and then send him on his way.

I suspect, most TSA people couldn't name a single Senator, and would have no idea who Rand Paul was, even with his credentials. That is probably why he didn't get waived on through.

Also, the TSA staff are subjected to regular abuse by their victims, it is a 2-way street, and I'm sure they have heard every insult and excuse in the book, so they probably were not listening to anything Paul had to say. That is par for the course, and I can't knock them for that. It is a tough and unrewarding job, for very little pay. Unless you count the carte blanche to molest people as "rewarding."

edit on 23-1-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Im not about to jump on your strawman, I will merely repeat my earlier sentiment.

TSA is the law of the land, and the Senator is not above it.

If you don't agree with the law, change it, until then.. it is STILL THE LAW.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


.....

TSA is the law of the land, and the Senator is not above it.

........


While I am reticent to encourage repetition. And I certainly do not hold for inequality in the application of law enforcement (are TSA agents "law enforcement" officers?).

How is it so that the TSA establishes law? Where in has it been legislated that TSA policy is the law of the land? Or am I missing something?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



The Law states that 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. 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



" they shall not be questioned in any other place "

Right there , the TSA has Violated the Law and must now suffer the consequences ..
edit on 23-1-2012 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


That is not a "strawman." What an overused rebuttal.


What I did was point back to the very mission and mandate for that agency. I am also in a government mandated field for government regulations, law enforcement, and disciplinary actions. When we run into a gray area, as a supervisor, you know what I go back to? I go back to our MISSION! The gray areas are not so gray when you remember why you are doing what you are doing. Common Sense becomes very enlightening at that point.

As for changing the law, the guy they were harassing is the very guy most vocal in trying to change said law.
Kind of ironic, but then again, I highly doubt any of them knew he was who he was, so I don't see any big conspiracy, but changing the law is not such a simple solution. Also, the law is not specific in regards to how they operate. Their internal processes and procedures are not laid out by law, and none of us have any say over how they choose to execute the mission mandated by the law that empowers them. It would be very difficult to entirely repeal their mandate, and as long as they are mandated, they can create their own rules and procedures, and none of us have any say in that.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
As a firm supporter of Ron Paul, I have to say this is a lot of talk about nothing.

Debate at 8, dont be late, no need to hate, Rand Paul left the gate.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Rand Paul has asserted that the machines go off randomly even though no metal has been detected, thus forcing a certain number to submit to a physical pat down. He doesn't believe this is necessary for people that clearly have a record of flying, or have government business, or whatever criteria would establish that there is no risk there. In fact, he is against forcing anyone that common sense would dictate is NOT a terrorist from a physical pat down.
The TSA is clearly out of control, the law uses NO common sense, and the agents are little more than thugs. I am happy that Rand Paul is bringing attention to this despicable organization.


edit on 23-1-2012 by SurrealisticPillow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join