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: 15
89
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by curious7
 

Actually, people ARE exempt from the law. There are all sorts of forms of "immunity" from the law, in fact, TSA agents are immune from prosecution of acts that would get you and me in jail.
Unless of course you have IMMUNITY.
A Senator should not be subjected to the same sorts of security checks that the general public may have to endure for public safety. If we need protection from our Senators.....well that just opens up an entirely new can of worms doesn't it?


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




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 





Actually, people ARE exempt from the law. There are all sorts of forms of "immunity" from the law, in fact, TSA agents are immune from prosecution of acts that would get you and me in jail.


This is a misunderstanding of immunity. It is understandable that so many misunderstand immunity and how it works, especially because there are terms such as "partial immunity" and "full immunity". However, in order to enjoy immunity - partial or full - the government agent relying upon it must be operating within the boundaries of their jurisdiction. Outside of that jurisdiction, there is no immunity, partial or full.

Too much speculation is going on in this thread and not nearly enough is known, but if it is true that what created this event was a metal detector sounding alarms after Rand Paul went through it, and if it is true that upon alarm bells ringing Paul requested a second chance to walk through the metal detector but this request was refused in order to demand a full body pat down, then arguably that full body pat down demand was not within the jurisdiction of the TSA agents and their actions following this were unconstitutional.

Of course, that is a lot of ifs. It is best to wait until the facts come out, but in terms of immunity, government agents do not have immunity from the violation of any individual's unalienable rights.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
The Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate can arrest the TSA for impeding Senate Operations.


Senator Paul should request the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate to arrest the TSA Agents, and the Head of the TSA until such due time this matter can be sorted out.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Understood.
The argument I was addressing was the assertion that no one is above the law, and therefore President Obama himself would be subjected to the same scrutiny were he to fly coach.
In practice, certain people are "above" the law if they get away with it, don't you agree?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Here we go, from the horse's mouth



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
wow


crazy



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I have seen the question asked and no one has answered it. Did they know who he was? Yes at least 2 years ago when I last flew, you had to have your ID in your hand to get in the screening area and had to give your boarding pass (showing your name) to the screener before you went through.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I read he refused a pat down

who is he to refuse ?

what a joke



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by curious7
 

Actually, people ARE exempt from the law. There are all sorts of forms of "immunity" from the law, in fact, TSA agents are immune from prosecution of acts that would get you and me in jail.
Unless of course you have IMMUNITY.
A Senator should not be subjected to the same sorts of security checks that the general public may have to endure for public safety. If we need protection from our Senators.....well that just opens up an entirely new can of worms doesn't it?


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


nonsense

then they would just be perfect bombs



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 

Oh no! Another potential terrorist, our own Senators!
Oh my! Someone help us!
Enter the police state, where you can feel SO safe in your delusion.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Understood.
The argument I was addressing was the assertion that no one is above the law, and therefore President Obama himself would be subjected to the same scrutiny were he to fly coach.
In practice, certain people are "above" the law if they get away with it, don't you agree?




I am not sure if I agree or not. I have read enough of your posts to feel fairly comfortable in assuming that you are no advocate of indiscriminate or even discriminate warrant-less searches. The federal government has been expressly forbidden from engaging in search and seizures without a warrant. I have yet to see any cogent or compelling argument that argues that flying on a commercial airline constitutes a surrender of the right to due process of law.

In terms of your assertion that "certain people are 'above' the law if they get away with it", those who get away with a crime are not above the law, they have just managed to escape certain consequences of their actions.

Under the rule of law, no one is above the law. Getting away with lawlessness does not change the rule of law, it only means the rule of law has been disregarded.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


yes.. he was targeted..

how many other senators has this happened to .. easy to see what's up ..



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


That would be the Rubicon wouldn't it?

They don't have the "natcho's" too uphold the CONSTITUTION as it is,

Under the Law of The Constitution it should be upheld,
once the breach has been,
fired.

But as a CONSTITUTIONALIST,, did Rand Paul BREACH the Peace,,,
by his actions, and therefore his DUTY,
too ensure order was kept,,,?

ahhh the Constituition,, luv it



Me.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
lol, I can see that this man truly is the son of Ron Paul, because he's accusing the scanners of being set to go off randomly when there isn't even a threat.


I wouldn't doubt it though.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


so basically your saying he hit the Power-Ball Lottery???? lol





posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Under the rule of law, no one is above the law. Getting away with lawlessness does not change the rule of law, it only means the rule of law has been disregarded.

If I can get away with lawlessness, I am above the law, or immune from the law. It doesn't change the rules OTHERS live by because they are not above the law. Justice, if it ever were blind, is no longer, and very selective.
We don't really have "law" anyway, we have dictates and mandates disguised as legitimate "law".
JPZ, I have a tendency to call it like I see it. For example, If I know we have election fraud, then it is no use to me when people want to discuss the results as if they mean something. To me, they mean nothing because the system used to tabulate was corrupt. So, I want to talk about the corruption, not the results of the election.
I am more interested in the motivations of the corrupters and the affect of this corruption on the scales of justice, than I am on academic arguments that ultimately cannot protect you or your rights.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I read he refused a pat down

who is he to refuse ?

what a joke


He refused because he is anti-TSA and has called for the abolishment of the TSA in the past. He doesn't believe that the TSA has the right to pat down and violate American citizen's privacy with no warrant or probable cause. He wasn't just refusing because he felt privileged by being a US Senator. Stop spreading that lie that is now being perpetuated by the anti-freedom media in this country.
edit on 23-1-2012 by WP4YT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 





If I can get away with lawlessness, I am above the law, or immune from the law.


If a man murders another man but is never found out to be the murderer, he got away with murder. This did not make him above the law or immune from the law, it only means he got away with murder.




It doesn't change the rules OTHERS live by because they are not above the law. Justice, if it ever were blind, is no longer, and very selective.

We don't really have "law" anyway, we have dictates and mandates disguised as legitimate "law".


Justice does not work in a positive sense, but rather in a negative sense. We are more likely to recognize justice in its absence than we are in its presence. Staying with the murderer who got away with murder, if at some point justice finally catches up to him, it is not a return to justice after a long absence that is experienced, but rather - assuming the murderer is successfully convicted of his crime - a remedy is offered in the absence of justice.

True justice is when no crime exists. Given that there are so many individuals all to willing to harm others it is arguable that justice has never truly existed, and that we establish governments - among other reasons - to establish justice, but it is an ideal that remains a consummation devoutly to be wished.




I am more interested in the motivations of the corrupters and the affect of this corruption on the scales of justice, than I am on academic arguments that ultimately cannot protect you or your rights.


It would be a mistake to assume that because I refuse to dumb down my posts (unless, of course, I am feeling stubbornly stupid that day) makes the content of what I speak to merely academic. The greatest problem the U.S. faces today is not that tyranny has found a Barcelona lounge chair in which to roost, but that so many have most imprudently acquiesced to this tyranny, making unfathomable remarks such as "law is what you make of it" and "the law is meaningless" and "if the government says it is the law, then it is the law".

The problem is never tyranny, the real problem is the holders of the inherent political power and their tolerance of tyranny. The surest way to restrain tyranny is by living under the rule of law, but what good would your leaping into action be if you or those you hope to lead do not even understand the simple truth about law/

All law is simple, universal, true and absolute. I am at a point where this has become pedantry from me, if not dogma and that is problematic. I keep posting this assertion in hopes I can some how get through to people that law is not made, it is either self evident or eventually discovered, but humanity can have no hand in making law. They can only legislate.

Yet, even so, hordes of people, the world wide over vehemently argue the point with me. If you are one that would argue the point of law existing outside any government creation, then your claims of leaping into action are risky at best, and flat out dangerous at worst. It is imperative that People know the law. After all, ignorantia juris non excusat.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Law means nothing to me if I am beyond its reach. Justice means nothing to me if the law doesn't apply to me.
You speak of law as if it is a sacred and universal truth, but legislation is human folly, and I am actually fine with that, but I maintain that some people, in practice, are "above" the law, or "beside" the law, or "below" the law. They are exempt in practice. I don't much care how you phrase it to fit your interpretation of the words themselves.
Soldiers that go overseas and kill people are murderers in my "law" book, but they sure seem to get away with murder year after year. In practice, law like beauty is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 





Law means nothing to me if I am beyond its reach. Justice means nothing to me if the law doesn't apply to me.


No one is beyond the reach of law and law applies to everyone. Occasionally, a person will jump out of an airplane only to discover that their parachute will not open. Most, upon such a discovery, plummet to their deaths, but on rare occasions, and under certain circumstances, some will live to tell the tale. This does not make them immune from the law of gravity and whatever reasons they survived, I assure those reasons were in full compliance with the law of gravity.




You speak of law as if it is a sacred and universal truth, but legislation is human folly, and I am actually fine with that, but I maintain that some people, in practice, are "above" the law, or "beside" the law, or "below" the law.


I speak of law as it is and am not at all concerned with any sacredness it may have. I am quite content to leave the sacred and the profane to the priest class lawyer sect who love to utter their mystical incantations in hopes the laity will marvel in awe at their shamanic legal powers.




They are exempt in practice. I don't much care how you phrase it to fit your interpretation of the words themselves.


Birds are not exempt from the law of gravity as it effects humanity. Birds of a feather are better equipped to deal with gravity and aerodynamics than humans, in terms of genetics, are. All creatures, great and small, are subject to the law of gravity and must conform to its principles in order to survive.

This birds metaphor was not a game of semantics, it was merely an example illustrating the simple, true, universal and absoluteness of law.




Soldiers that go overseas and kill people are murderers in my "law" book, but they sure seem to get away with murder year after year. In practice, law like beauty is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.


Earlier I gave an example of a man who escapes criminal prosecution and conviction for the crime of murder. I argued that he got away with murder, but truly it is not clear, even if that man was never properly arrested, tried, and convicted for murder that he actually "got away with it". There are psychological consequences, and your example of soldiers sent overseas to kill is an example where psychological damage seems to be quite regular among soldiers. Consider, as just one example, post traumatic stress disorder:


Many veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan returning home have faced significant physical, emotional, and relational disruptions. In response, the United States Marine Corps has instituted programs to assist them in re-adjusting to civilian life, especially in their relationships with spouses and loved ones, to help them communicate better and understand what the other has gone through.


It is quite possible that a good percentage of the soldiers who were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq agree with your assessment of murder and that a fair percentage are suffering from a stress disorder because "they got away with it".

No one is above the law.



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join