Rand Paul Allegedly Detained by TSA

From the official Twitter feed (I'm pretty sure!) of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas):

My son @SenRandPaul being detained by TSA for refusing full body pat-down after anomaly in body scanner in Nashville. More details coming.

Will update as we get more.

UPDATE: Rand Paul's communications director, Moira Bagley, confirms.

UPDATE II: CNN Radio reporter Lisa Desjardins Tweets "Sen. Paul was willing to go thru scanner again, but he refused a pat down," and "He [went] thru scanner once, set it off. TSA insisted on pat down, he insisted on 2nd scan."

UPDATE III: The TSA comments to The Daily Caller:

The TSA says Sen. Rand Paul "was not detained at any point" but "triggered an alarm during routine airport screening and refused to complete the screening process in order to resolve the issue."

"Passengers, as in this case, who refuse to comply with security procedures are denied access to the secure gate area," the TSA adds. "He was escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement."

"The passenger was screened by millimeter wave imaging technology using automated target recognition," the TSA continues. "This technology uses the same generic image for all passengers to further protect passengers privacy. When an alarm occurs a yellow box indicates where an anomaly is. A targeted pat down is used to resolve the alarm."

TSA spokesman Michael McCarthy told The Daily Caller that "when an irregularity is found during the TSA screening process, it must be resolved prior to allowing a passenger to proceed to the secure area of the airport. 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."

UPDATE IV: Public Radio International reporter Todd Zwillich:

"Sen Rand Paul is "headed to DC," spox sez. "Weird how the anomaly disappeared during the same screening process."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Pls., let him NOT have said "Don't you know who I am?"

  • Arcaster||

    It was probably more like, "Ah, you must know who I am."

  • rafterman||

    Its a hell of a gambol on RP's part.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    And a restriction of gamboling on the TSA's part.

  • BelowTheRim||

    Hell of a gambol indeed. Finally a good use of the gambol.

  • ||

    "It's a hell of a PR gamble". There I fixed it.

    Man sets off screener at airport, refuses to comply with follow up screening procedures. Nothing surprising follows, sport and weather up next.

  • Mastermind||

    I tell you what to think; I don't care what you thought
    I tell you what you get; I don't care what you got

  • ||

    OMG-OMG-OMG!

  • adam||

    Actually, if he is traveling to DC to attend a session of Congress, that would be a legitimate response. See 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;")

  • Amakudari||

    Yeah, but what about the Commerce Clause?

  • COMMERCE CLAUSE||

    No opinion this time.

  • KDN||

    Standing up to the TSA is treasonous. Do you want the terrorists to win?

  • Suki||

    Breach of the Peace applies to pretty much any contempt of cop thing, does it not?

    Rand is never going to develop the reputation of a rebel if he keeps doing whatever he is told.

  • ||

    He wasn't arrested.

  • Zeb||

    The point of that part of the constitution is to prevent people from detaining legislators in order to prevent them from voting or other business of congress. I think that this is at the very least a violation of the spirit of the constitution. He was prevented form traveling as he intended to. Had it caused him to miss an important vote, it could potentially have had major consequences.

  • The Derider||

    Can he drive the wrong way down a one way street in order to make a vote? Can he steal a car in order to make a vote? Could he hijack a plane?

    I think you've got to make a distinction between the frivolous detention of congressmen and congressmen refusing to obey the law. Refusing to go through airport security measures, as imperfect as they are, seems like the latter.

  • Zeb||

    Unless the crime rises to the level of "Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" they can. So, I'd say yes to the one way street and probably no to stealing a car or hijacking a plane.

  • ||

    Thank you, representative for Narnia.

  • ||

    Thank you, representative for Narnia.

  • Zeb||

    And I don't think you can make the distinction that you want to make for frivolous detention. The frivolity of any detention woudl have to be determined after the fact. If the senator misses a vote, the harm is done.

  • CE||

    If you're stopped by law enforcement and prevented from proceeding, you've been arrested. It doesn't mean the same thing as being jailed. See the French word "arreter," meaning "to stop".

  • Fabius||

    So, wait. I thought we libertarians were supposed to be refusing the scanners and doing the pat downs. Have I been doing it wrong?

  • poetry||

    haha. yeah, i'd be curious what rand's thought process was, here. seems like if you're okay with the scanner, you'd be okay with a pat-down.

  • Fabius||

    See, I actually feel the opposite. I just go with the pat down because it disrupts the process and creates a starker image for the sheep in line.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    I opt out because I feel that if the TSA wants to invade my privacy, they should have to get their hands dirty. By the same rationale, I also wear a kilt and a jock strap I haven't washed since high school.

  • Matrix||

    They wear rubber gloves, so their hands won't get dirty.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I have worn rubber gloves for dirty non-touching-people work, and still felt like I had to scald my hands. I can't vouch for the hygiene of TSA cunts, though.

  • Radioactive||

    my junk would melt your puny rubber gloves...just saying

  • NoVAHockey||

    agreed. my opinion is "glove up and earn it"

  • Jose||

    Well put, sir. Well put.

    Fondling decrepit middle-aged men is one Hell of a way to earn a living, even if you wear rubber gloves.

    Also, I'm down on the whole being bathed in ionizing radiation thing.

    Silly times, these, when it's not OK to bathe dead meat in radiation for food safety, but it's ok to bathe living human meat in radiation for security theater.

  • West Texas||

    +1776

    Hell yeah the scanner is more convenient, but fuck you, TSA, I'm a citizen, not a servant, and if you really think I'm a threat then you can actually do a little work for your paycheck. The scanner is lazy security theater.

  • ||

    Since I usually go to the airport to catch a plane, I go through the scanner rather than give the TSA an excuse to delay me so that I can't catch that plane.

    Why would I deliberately diminish my own liberty?

  • ||

    You are deliberately diminishing your own liberty when you assent to their orders in the first place. Why not make them uncomfortable, make other passengers see what kind of fucked up shit they are doing and make a political statement at the same time.

    Unless, of course, you like going through the rape-scanners and don't believe being forced to allow a government agent to look at a picture of your innards without a warrant is infringing on your liberty.

  • sasob||

    He isn't diminishing his liberty - They are diminishing his liberty.

  • ||

    He's allowing it to be diminished, so IMO, he's diminishing it because he's submitting to their use of force.

    Tomayto, tomahto.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    by that rationale, everyone who flies diminishes his own liberty.

    I would agree.

    That said, sometimes flying is the only reasonable way to get somewhere and a man has to do . . .

  • ||

    Why not STFU and take a train.
    You read the part where he said he goes to the airport to get on planes? Yeah, well that's the cost. If you don't want to pay it, then don't. They're not dropping the price.

  • JB||

    Why not STFU and die.

    Seriously, get the fuck off my planet.

    I open a commercial airport and guess what? The government makes me put people through security theater. That's not a price; it's government nonsense.

    You are the type of person who would be a Nazi in Germany.

  • West Texas||

    If you willingly go into the cage and give them the key...

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'm with Fabius -- although the pat-down is probably more of a personal invasion, refusing the Rapi-scan is a tangible protest and more of a disruption to the system.

  • Korduroy Kristen||

    Yep - that's why I can the hands-on option. Put front and center for everyone to see.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I think either way if you're fucking with the TSA it's all good.

  • nicole||

    Same here.

    I also do actually think the way they make you stand for the scanner is more demeaning than actually getting patted down, even with your arms out. I don't know why more people aren't bothered by it; I had a totally visceral reaction against it one time when I was late for my flight and had to go through the scanner for time reasons.

  • ||

    If you stand normally with your arms at your side, the scanner can't read as effectively between them.

  • ||

    Then they should get a warrant requiring me to consent.

    Or they should let the airline set their own security rules. Then I could decide for myself if I want to contract them for their services.

  • ||

    I can see someone having more of an objection to an agent of the state laying hands on them without any basis for suspicion of illegal activity.

  • Mo||

    But a high tech strip search is cool?

  • waffles||

    Supercool, it's like science fiction made real. Real neato, that is.

  • ||

    Laying hands is = to the rape-scan search, IMO. And since opting out (loudly) and making them stick their hand down our pants paints a vivid picture of what we are being subjected to, not only to the sheep in line but to the TSA agents as well. That's why I always opt out and tell them I want the search performed in public.

  • Mainer||

    Same here. Opt out, public search.
    But I don't think the sheeple really notice.

    Next time I fly, I think I'll wear shorts and a t-shirt, and doff the t-shirt. Will they frisk a guy in nothing but gym shorts ?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'm going to have a shirt made that reads, on both sides, "THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM LOOKS LIKE", which will be used solely for flying.

    I opt-out, public pat down.

  • yonemoto||

    it's not. the raperscan can give you cancer. Laying hands might give you cancer, but the risk is low. Trust me, I'm a biophysicist. I totally freaked out when I saw a PREGNANT TSA AGENT operating the rapiscan. She gave me the usual "flying exposes you to radiation schpiel".... I was too horrified to give her my "compton scattering versus radiation absorption" lecture.

  • Santa Holder||

    Naughty List:
    Fabius
    poetry
    A Secret Band of Robbers
    Matrix
    NoVAHockey
    Jose
    Citizen Nothing
    Korduroy Kristen
    Red Rocks Rockin
    nicole
    RC Dean
    Mo
    waffles
    sloopyinca

    ....

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I wish to subscribe to your Naughty Newsletter.

  • ||

    good blog name, that.

  • anon||

  • ||

    How about: "Santa Holder's Naughty List"?

  • Matrix||

    what, you gonna revoke my security clearance?

  • Jordan Elliot||

    Perhaps an effeminate male TSA agent will pat him down, grab his cock and say "I'm feeling a little Rand-y! Tee hee!!"

    Other than that, this could lead to a great sympathy vote if played correctly to the flatliners in this country.

    And que the conspiracy talk.

  • poetry||

    he tried to carry explosives onboard to, uh, help his father's campaign?

    seems legit

  • West Texas||

    ¿que?

    spanish!

  • ||

    I get the feeling this isn't going to end well for anybody (with the possible exception of one or two TSA agents who get to assert their authority).

  • BakedPenguin||

    authoritah.

  • Radioactive||

    respect it...

  • o3||

    paul related - i thought ron paul's post-primary speech was very good. i also feel the demise of the evangelical issues bodes well for the gop moving into the future. this may partially offset the complete loss of the growing hispanic voting block.

  • poetry||

    no threadjacking rand's attempted hijacking, please

  • robc||

    I realize its closer to BG, but thats what he gets for flying out of Nashville instead of Louisville.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Nashville > Louisville as a city.

  • robc||

    There are more breweries in Louisville, therefore you are objectively wrong.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And bourbon > "Tennessee whiskey."
    Seriously, fuck the Lincoln County Process.

  • robc||

    Most TN whiskeys meet the qualifications to be labeled as bourbon.

    But, yeah, I agree with you.

  • robc||

    Looking it up, all TN whiskeys meet the definition of bourbon.

    A Tennessee Whiskey is a straight bourbon whiskey produced in the state of Tennessee.

    And, of the 4 on the market, 3 use the Lincoln Co Process, the only 1 that doesnt is the only one made in Lincoln County.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    the only 1 that doesnt is the only one made in Lincoln County


    Yeah. That's Prichard's, which is a cool little place located out in the middle of nowhere in a former school. (The shipping room is in the old gym, which still has the basketball hoops up.)
    They're open for tours, but seem to get maybe five or six visitors a day -- kind of the anti-Jack Daniels.
    Prichard's is an inspiration. The guy started with a little still made from one of his wife's pressure cookers. Plus, no fucking charcoal.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Although, honestly, Prichard's seems to be more into rum, and only do the bourbon thing because it's expected.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Louisville is part of the Golden Triangle of Evil in Kentucky.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Louisville, Lexington, and which other city?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Paducah?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    One city that sucks can still have an airport that is better than the one in a better city. Podunk cities rep their nicer, uncrowded airports.

  • robc||

    Louisville is the major air hub for UPS. So its a nice if you are a package.

    And it gets insanely crowded after the last commercial flight lands, because at that point UPS is allowed to shrink the gap between landings.

  • Ted S.||

    So its a nice if you are a package.

    I've got a nice package. Does that count? :-)

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Most of Louisville's airport wouldn't exist were it not for UPS.

  • sarcasmic||

    after anomaly in body scanner

    What does that mean?

  • ||

    A cucumber wrapped in aluminum foil.

  • sarcasmic||

    Maybe he was smuggling foie gras.

  • poetry||

    "wif armadillos down our trousers"

  • o3||

    constipation

  • Sheriff Bart||

    It's twue! It's twue!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I read in a Mel Brooks interview that in that scene Bart was supposed to add "Uh, you're sucking on my arm" but was cut by the studio/censors.

  • Sheriff Bart||

    I heard that, too. I am still trying to figure out the "I am not from Havana" line.

  • ||

    Perhaps because he does not want her smoking his cigar?

  • ||

    A Constitution in his pocket.

  • Loki||

    He recently had the 4th amendment tattooed on his chest in ink that shows up on the scanners.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'd get one of those if they existed. True story.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    I wonder if you could do that with x-ray contrast.

  • slowburnaz||

    Google: Bill of Rights, Security Edition. Penn & Teller FTW.

  • veemee sashimi||

    Created by "Chainsaw" from Summer School.

  • ||

    TSA has no law enforcement authority. They can tell you you can't get on the plane. But they cannot detain you. So, technically he was "detained" by the airport cops.

    It is still, however bullshit. Unless they have evidence he committed a crime and tried to smuggle something illegal on a plane, refusal to submit to a search is your right. It does not create probable cause to detain. They can say "you can't go through" and you can say fine I am leaving. But they cannot detain you. It is total bullshit.

  • Jerry||

    They can detain him if he was committing a felony? But that was probably not the case.

  • ||

    detention != arrest

  • ||

    Depending on the nature of the "anomaly" it might have been enough for probable cause.

  • ||

    What you are saying should have happened, happened.

    You are describing the story you just read but would still like to suggest something else in your head is BS. Which is a nice summary of the sentiments of the commenters here.

  • ||

    TSA has no law enforcement authority. They can tell you you can't get on the plane. But they cannot detain you. So, technically he was "detained" by the airport cops.

    It is still, however bullshit. Unless they have evidence he committed a crime and tried to smuggle something illegal on a plane, refusal to submit to a search is your right. It does not create probable cause to detain. They can say "you can't go through" and you can say fine I am leaving. But they cannot detain you. It is total bullshit.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    Yes and no. That is a civil fine not a criminal fine. They can't arrest you or detain you. But apparently they can try to fine you for leaving.

  • ||

    And if you don't pay the exorbitant fine, they can then arrest and detain you.

  • Oh Really?||

    "The Federal Government disagrees with you John."

    I am shocked the government is claiming to be in the right.

  • Maxxx||

    What do the black robed overlords of liberty have to say?

    Oh yeah they said fucking you terrorist loving traitors.

  • BigT||

    They appear to be moving in the right direction. Just today they agreed that attaching a GPS to your car requires a warrant.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....comboPNE_p

  • sarcasmic||

    By entering the airport with the intent to get on a plane, it is assumed that you are guilty of terrorism.
    Until you prove your innocence they can do whatever the fuck they want.

  • ||

    sarcasmic, you really missed a good thread on here the other night. Here's the story I posted. Oh, and in the thread, dunphy said he never called your anecdotal evidence bullshit. I wish you'd have been there. This should take you somewhere close to dunphy's blatant lie.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's not necessarily a lie on his part.
    His lie, or straw man rather, is to insist that those of us with a tainted view of the police have this view thanks to Reason and youtube, not due to things we have witnessed with our own eyes.
    He just ignores things that he doesn't like.
    For example in my case he insists that my beef is with being convicted of a crime, which is false.
    My beef is the fact that the police report failed to mention that the car that hit me (while I was intoxicated on a bicycle) ran a red light. That put 100% of the fault on me and resulted in my being forced to fix the car, while the 16yr old kid who had had his license for a week got a big fat break.
    After he hit me he was like "Oh man, that's totally my fault. My dad will fix everything" and he was right. His dad was on the scene as the cop got there, the two of them went aside and talked for a while, and everything was indeed fixed.
    Fixed for the kid at the expense of the person who obviously could not afford an attorney (they don't provide attorneys in CO for OUI offenses).
    So yeah, I'm bitter all right. Bitter about being railroaded by a dick with a badge.

  • ||

    Well, he said he never dismissed your (or anybody's) anecdotal evidence, which pissed me off.

  • sarcasmic||

    He reframes it.
    He will see my story and say "He's only butthurt for being convicted of a crime."
    I'm "butthurt" about having to fix a car that hit me after running a red light, thanks to the efforts of the cop and the driver's father.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You hate cops for that?

    Try getting a shotgun pointed at you as a 16 year old boy who is standing in his front yard for no fucking reason whatsoever other than I was "violating curfew" after Hurricane Andrew.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's not the only reason.

    That's just the one dunphy focuses on.

    There are others like when I had a cop whisper to me "Give me one reason. Please. I'm begging you. You know I want to. Give me one fucking reason." for saying "What the?" when he kicked my legs out from under me.

    Or when I saw an outdoor jam session broken up, and the cops were just running around beating people up and smashing equipment.
    I stood there slack jawed until on of them ran at me and I raced off.

    Then there was the time I overheard a drunk cop (en vino veritas) lament about never having the opportunity to kill someone, and his drunk cop buddies consoling him.
    That freaked me out. Here was a bunch of guys who took on a job that involves carrying a gun because they hoped to use it to take a life.
    I'm supposed to respect that?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Always expect the feds to try to do whatever they want. That includes TSA thinking they have authoritah.

  • poetry||

    So, the real question is: did he do this on purpose?

    Think about it. He flies probably every week, at least once. He goes through the body scanners constantly. What are the odds the "anomaly" was actually that, and not something he wanted to have happen?

    Just thinking, here. I'm open to interpretations..

  • Tonio||

    Let's turn that around and ask if they did this on purpose. Think about it. He flies all the time. He's a US Senator. He's a known critic of the TSA. They had to have known that there would be blowback from this. So either they were incredibly stupid, or one of the TSA guys is covertly on our side.

  • jasno||

    Which brings up an interesting idea - TSA agent should be the new job of choice for aspiring libertarians. Get hired, act like an asshole, give them a bad name, get fired or quit and resume life normally.

    Hell, you could apply that logic to a lot of government positions.

  • Loki||

    It was probably just a false reading. I wonce had "an anomoly" detected when I went through one of those things. It detected something on my leg. And no, I didn't have an ankle holster on. Those things are stupid, they give false readings all the time.

  • ||

    Correct. Which makes leaving the airport based on a false reading a decision you've made for different reasons.... that go on Twitter.

  • ||

    Speaking of the Constitution, looks like someone forgot the check Article 1, Section 6:

    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. 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.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Is he also immune from the 10,000 dollar fine as well?

  • ||

    Probably not, but since the fine is an adjunct to the illegal "arrest"/detention, I'm having a hard time seeing it stick.

    Naturally, I expect Congress to rise as one man to denounce this violation of their Constitutional privilege.

    Defunding the TSA would send a nice, clear message, no?

  • Nipplemancer||

    Defunding the TSA would send a nice, clear message, no?
    we can only dream

  • ||

    "arrest"/detention

    Now that's pretty slick. Doesn't say anything about detention in the text you quoted.

  • ||

    If he was on his way to a session of Congress, I would say yes.

    The problem with RC's argument is that "felony" doesn't mean what it used to. And neither does "breach of the peace". I have no doubt that any aspiring lawyer in TSA can make the argument that not doing exactly what the TSA goons say is both a felony and a breach of the peace.

  • adam||

    Felony in the modern parlance means a crime that can lead to a jail sentence of one year. If the max penalty is a $10,000 civil penalty (i.e no jail time and not even a crime), then it's not definitely not a felony. Breach of the peace is a bit more plausible, but I think a federal judge would hold TSA to a pretty high standard on that one. It will never get to a judge because the TSA will quickly back off.

  • Maxxx||

    but I think a federal judge would hold TSA to a pretty high standard on that one.

    Dream on.

  • protefeed||

    It will never get to a judge because the TSA will quickly back off.

    Oh, I am hoping that the TSA is so dickish and tone-deaf to the mood of a substantial portion of the country that they don't back off, and Rand Paul goes nuclear on their ass in the Senate.

  • GroundTruth||

    Time to terminate the TSA once and for all. With extreme prejudice. After that, if you want to get on a plane, it's between you and the airline.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Why do you hate America?

  • ||

    Felony? That's a tough one. You have the right to refuse to be searched by actual police officers.

    Unless he was very belligerent and disruptive, I can't even see "breach of the peace", much less a felony.

  • ||

    It is a stretch. But don't think they won't make it. And don't think some won't buy it.

  • ||

    But apparently you guys think "arrest" means detention, which it doesn't.

  • Zeb||

    It can sometimes. And in the context in which it appears in the constitution, I think it means more or less the same thing.

  • Ezra Klein ||

    But that thing is over 2000 years old. And how do I know you translated it properly from its original Sanskrit?

  • robc||

    As dunphy would point out, detaining and arrests are different things.

    But, that seriously limits them.

  • ||

    Under the Constitution they are not. There is one question "am I free to leave?". If you are not, it is an arrest for 4th Amendment and constitutional purposes.

  • robc||

    I agree with you. I have argued this with dunphy.

    But I see the lawyers trying to make his technical argument.

  • ||

    They can make it, but no court will buy it.

  • sarcasmic||

    You absolutely sure there is no judge who would buy the "detention isn't arrest" argument?

  • JD||

    Nope. Precedent's quite clear on that point.

  • sarcasmic||

    You are free to leave. But you will be served a hefty fine for doing so.

    So technically it is not arrest.

  • Oh Really?||

    "You are free to leave. But you will be served a hefty fine for doing so."

    That wouldn't be "free to leave" then.

  • sarcasmic||

    You are free to leave, and after doing so you will be served a fine.
    No one will stop you from leaving.

    Try stepping out after being arrested.

  • Oh Really?||

    "You are free to leave, and after doing so you will be served a fine.
    No one will stop you from leaving."

    NO you aren't. There are consequences to leaving, therefore you are not free to leave.

    Keep repeating it as much as you like, you're WRONG.

    Stop being a cunt about it.

  • ||

    You are free to leave, and after doing so you will be served a fine.

    The state will impose a punishment on you if you leave, therefore, not free to leave.

  • ||

    There is one question "am I free to leave?". If you are not, it is an arrest for 4th Amendment and constitutional purposes.

    Umm, no. If you walk out the door of Walmart and the alarm goes off, you are neither under arrest NOR free to leave.

  • jasno||

    Wait - what? Was there a sign on the door of walmart letting me know that if a specific sound is emitted when I attempt to exit that I have specific responsibilities? I don't think so.

    If the alarm goes off I'm ignoring it. If they want to chase me down and attempt a citizen's arrest they can do that - risking a lawsuit for unlawful detention.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    THIS ^^^^^^^

  • protefeed||

    If the alarm goes off, I'm going to stop and see what set it off, since it's not shoplifting until you step outside the door. Once was walking around a store with a kid in a stroller, and something got bumped off the shelf and landed in the stroller. Alarm goes off, I find the object, put 'er back on the shelf, apologize to the clerk, and go free.

    If I kept walking out of the store, then it could have escalated into a shoplifting charge despite no intent on my part.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Yes you are. I have walked past those things many a time. If the flunky wants to accuse me of stealing or physically restrain me, I will stop. But otherwise I will not be inconvenienced by their faulty equipment.

  • ||

    Exactly, people ignore that shit all the time. You're absolutely free to leave.

  • ||

    If you're not free to go, you're under arrest. Poncy hairsplitting by lickspittles of the police state aside.

    Who knows, though; this might well have exceeded a "dentention". Was he stopped just long enough to determine his identity and for a "frisk"? Was he moved to another place? Did he request to leave, and was this request denied?

    I'm guessing on all three counts, this went beyond a technical detention to an arrest. I can hardly wait to find out, though!

  • Tonio||

    As John pointed out, above, TSA doesn't have police powers so they can't have arrested him. Now if the airport cops do that...

  • adam||

    TSA could not have lawfully arrested him. That does not mean they didn't unlawfully arrest him.

  • Loki||

    Refusing a TSA erotic patdown is the same thing as "breach of the peace". Silly man though he had rights or something. It's almost like he thinks this is a free country or something.

  • ||

    Are you that same idiot loki who is always splattering his moronic opinion on volokh?

    Stop.

  • ||

    So if Pat Leahy walks out of Walmart on the way to the Capitol and the alarm goes off, they don't have the right to stop him to ask to see his receipt?

    Arrest != detention.

  • Zeb||

    If he decided not to show them the receipt and walked away, even if he were shoplifting, there is nothing they could do at that time as he would not have committed a serious crime. So, no, they don't have the right to stop him if he does not choose to stop on his own.

  • ||

    Nuh-uh. Shopkeeper's privilege. If you walk out and refuse to show your receipt they can grab you and drag you back in.

    They probably wouldn't, because they can be sued out the wazoo if they can't prove reasonable suspicion (and they don't have sovereign immunity). But they could in theory do so.

  • Zeb||

    I disagree. That would be an arrest. And they are privileged from arrest (doesn't say arrest by agents of the state) if they are on their way to a session.

  • Tony||

    He is an extremist and the TSA has a job to stop all extremist threats.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Isn't the real Tony enough for you people?

  • ||

    You mean this isn't the real Tony?

  • ||

    There is no real Tony, just a parade of sockpuppets presented in various degrees of attractiveness to the people who cannot stop arguing with them.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    This isn't the real Tony?

  • Jordan Elliot||

    Damn. Beaten to the punch. That's what I get for not refreshing more and doing other shit while I'm trying to read here.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I believe there is a Tony... and a few spoofers who do a credible job impersonating him on occasion.

    And he DOES think that way.

  • The TSA Agent||

    [Sassy Black Lady voice] That'll teach y'all for tryin' to get rid of my job![/Sassy Black Lady voice]

  • West Texas||

    Ma'am, I know you won't arrest me because if you try and grab me with those acrylic nails they'd break right off... Not to mention that those tight pants probably don't afford you the luxury of quick movement

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It was only a matter of time before the terrorists infiltrated Congress. I really thought it was going to be the House, but apparently Obama's weak national security policies have emboldened them to get someone into the Senate.

    Regardless, in light of this, I call on Ron Paul to end his campaign for the Republican nomination for president.

  • CE||

    Yeah, judging from the results in South Carolina, it's time to go full third party and start working to get on the ballots.

  • ||

    I would like to pretend this will turn into something which can be used to slap down the DHS monster.

    But it won't.

  • ||

    If they had harassed the right person it would have. But using government agencies to harass political opposition is how Obama rolls. They are going to get an award for this.

  • ||

    ""If they had harassed the right person it would have. "'

    Who is this "right person" you speak of?

  • ||

    Anyone connected to the national Democratic Party or the Obama Administration.

  • ||

    Your partisanship is amusing.

  • ||

    It is reality vic. that is how Washington works. You really think they don't know who people are and people with connections don't know who to call?

    Your innocence is amusing. You have clearly never been around government.

  • NotSure||

    What would be required is that it happens to some family member of a politician who supports the police state. As far as I know this guy is more pro freedom, so yes nothing will come out of it.

  • Scoldy the Griefer Troll||

    OMG OMG OMG!

  • ||

    Speaking of law enforcement. I learned something new today. Apparently Canada has much softer sovereign immunity for law enforcement than the US. You can sue a cop in Canada for misconduct pretty easily.

    Odd that the police advocates never point out the lawless chaos that has ensued in Canuckistan as a result of this.

  • ||

    You mean to tell me the streets AREN'T running red with the blood of the innocent?

    Will wonders never cease?

  • Scoldy the Griefer Troll||

    I learned something new today.

    But John. You know everything!

    Disappoint I am.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Yes, but they have an onerous gun registration and control scheme, so there's your answer. Herp derp.

  • Frequent Flyer||

    I fly every week. I regularly get patted down after I go through the scanner. Usually they want to pat down one or both of my arms. As best as I can tell, it's becuause my shirt sleeves are rolled up. TSA are truly America's finest.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I have a solution for you.

  • Zeb||

    Where will he keep his smokes if he doesn't roll them up in the sleeve of his t-shirt?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Try rolling up your pants legs and see what they do.

  • db||

    I roll up my boxer shorts.

  • Fisting Ennui||

    Was that a wee little earthquake the stimulated my pooper just now?

  • nobody||

    I realize I'm attempting to threadjack the hijack, but Radley just retweeted that Sotomayor wrote that it may be necessary to reconsider the 3rd party doctrine.

    Can one of you lawyer types explain what that might mean?

  • ||

    I believe that is a reference to the idea that you have no expectation of privacy in information being held by third parties (such as an ISP).

  • Gray Ghost||

    Surprisingly, Sotomayor is in favor of expanding the right of privacy in information disclosed to third parties without an explicit guarantee of confidentiality.

    More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties...This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellu- lar providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers...I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.

    Would not have guessed a former D.A. going to the trouble of floating this idea in a concurrence. Wonder where it'll lead? (If anywhere.)

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    This is good.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Stopped clock, twice a day, et cetera.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Maybe. But I'll take it.

    And of course it doesn't hurt that her argument is completely spot-on.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    She'd best savor being right, as it likely won't happen much more in her career.

  • ||

    I always wondered about this. How is it that LE can't open your mail (or library card for that matter) without a warrant, yet they can open your email?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It's for our own good

  • ||

    To make us safer.

  • dope||

    There should be no expectation of privacy with email, unless you encode it. Email is like sending post cards.

  • ||

    Don't really care if they CAN read it. Only care if they are allowed to use it against me.

    IOW, was the law against opening your mail to ensure privacy or was it a limit upon government as to what procedures can be used to prosecute you? As I understand it, there was no right to privacy prior to RvW.

  • Zeb||

    Griswold, I think.

  • sarcasmic||

    Maybe he should have taken off his cock-ring before stepping through the metal detector.

  • ||

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2.....erted.html

    The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that sticking a GPS tracker on a car is a search.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    You Sugarfree'd the link.

  • ||

    It works for me.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    Yeah well...

    ...it's working for me now. My net has been cutting out sporadically so I'll chock it up to that.

  • ||

    Hey, look at that, our robbed overlords got something right.

  • ||

    Blind squirrels.

  • robc||

    robbed?

    I think they rob us.

  • ||

    Stupid phonics monkey didn't teach me to spell a damn thing.

  • Brett L||

    What? 9-0? Holy shit. Of course, now they'll just have drones shadow us.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    I said the same damn thing...

  • robc||

    3 opinions.

    The wise Latina probably has the best one.

    Alito's concurrence (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan) seems the least freedom friendly.

    Scalia's decision basically boiled down to "they had to trespass on the car to place the tracker, thus illegal search, we could consider other stuff, but no need".

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It seems Scalia's objection could be overcome by remote monitoring. Doesn't make me warm and fuzzy.

  • robc||

    Scalia specifically said that it was the "minimum" protection. He didnt consider other forms of monitoring in his decision, as they were unnecessary.

    But, some remote monitoring is legal. The vote would have been 9-0 the other way if the cops had driven around following his car.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It is legal to follow, but if they could monitor you autonomously, would that be legal? We're quickly approaching that point in terms of technology.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    We're already there. It's just a matter of money or justification to the Feds for a device.

  • ||

    ""It seems Scalia's objection could be overcome by remote monitoring.""

    Since tresspassing is his issue, placing the tracking device on a car in a public parking lot would pass.

  • ||

    Or if your car was parked on the street.

  • Zeb||

    They are still trespassing in the car.

  • ||

    You don't have to be in the car to place something on the car. People place flyers on cars for years and that's not trespassing if it was done in an area considered public.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    No, his issue was that attaching the device and monitoring it constituted a search.

  • ||

    Funny how this is a search according to Scalia, but a dog sniffing your car isn't.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "By attaching the device to the Jeep, officers encroached on a protected area."

  • ||

    You're misreading that, the "protected area" is the private property referenced is his lawn, which they had to cross to get to the Jeep.

    Trespassing WAS his issue with this, NOT what you said.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I don't think so. Here's the context:

    "By attaching the device to the Jeep, officers encroached on a protected area. In Class itself we suggested that this would make a difference, for we concluded that an officer’s momentary reaching into the interior of a vehicle did constitute a search."

    He's obviously talking about dealing with the Jeep, not the property on which the Jeep was parked.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Doesn't Scalia's opinion best address the actual issue before them?

  • robc||

    Yes, and Sotomayor agreed with his decision. She then went down an irrelevant path wondering about other stuff.

    Alito's decision seems okay with trespassing.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Alito's concurrence (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan) seems the least freedom friendly.

    Shocked, I am.

  • poetry||

    the anomaly was a spine

    "isn't this guy supposed to be a senator?"

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Heh heh.

  • ||

    He's just leading by example, people.

  • TSA||

    We are the law...

  • ||

    If they had harassed the right person it would have.

    They kept Ted Kennedy off a plane, and that didn't slow their growth one bit.

  • ||

    Who was in the White House then? With BO running things, I doubt they would now.

  • ||

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....ormuz.html

    Is anyone bothering to notice that the Iranians are about to try to close the Straights of Hormuz?

  • ||

    I'm trying to figure out what the Iranians think they're going to accomplish.

  • ||

    I think they are desperate. The sanctions this time appear to have teeth. And they are on a brink of a revolution. Starting a war, even one in which they are going to get their asses kicked may be the only way they feel they can stop that.

  • ||

    Unless they plan to have us occupy them and get worn down over a decade, it's not a very good strategy.

  • ||

    Occupying sounds great except that the current generation of Mullahs would all end up dead or in prison. So I doubt that are too interested in that even if they thought it would end in victory some day.

  • ||

    Not to mention the fact that if we wage war on Iran, all of those dissidents who are unhappy with the current regime and still trying to overthrow it would turn their attention and hatred toward America.

  • WTF||

    I'm trying to figure out what the Iranians think they're going to accomplish.

    Their own glorious destruction?

    Each of these Nimitz class vessels carries a complement of fighter aircraft with more striking power than the entire Iranian air force.
  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's the scary thing about the mullahs. Twelver Islam is the mirror opposite of U.S. "Left Behind" Evangelicals. Like them, they believe an apocalyptic war in the Middle East will bring about their Messiah, the Madhi.

  • db||

    Mmmmmmmmmmmm... Shai-Hulud.

  • ||

    Good luck to them. That crisis would be over in about 69 minutes.

  • poetry||

    true, but the war would last forever!

  • ||

    Been going on ever since we decided to overthrow a duly elected government. Go figure!

  • ||

    Oh it is just so simple. All of the issues in Iran go back to 1953. The clash of modernism and Islam have nothing to do with it. If we had just let the communists take over back then, they would love us.

  • T||

    No, but they still would have sold us oil and they'd have gone to hell in their own way without dragging us into it.

  • ||

    They sell us oil now. And since when do people need a reason to blame outsiders for their problems?

  • ||

    Muslim extremism is a relatively new thing. Ask yourself why.

  • ||

    No it is not. It goes back thousands of years. And if there is anyone to blame for the rise of it, it is the Soviet Union as much as anyone who encouraged Muslim terrorist during the cold war as a way of waging proxie war on the US.

    And this may come as a shock to you but other societies have lives of their own and problems of their own. Not everything that happens in the world is the result of the evil United States.

  • Arcaster||

    Not everything that happens in the world is the result of the evil United States.

    True, but we do have an uncanny nack for making shit worse and/or arming our future enemies.

  • ||

    No it is not. It goes back thousands of years.

    Examples?

    this may come as a shock to you but other societies have lives of their own and problems of their own.

    I suggest the best course of action is to leave them to their problems.

  • ||

    Last sentence not supposed to be italicized. Squirrels.

  • WTF||

    Examples?

    Well, at least hundreds of years, anyway.

  • ||

    Examples?

    Wahhabism dates back to the 1700s. The mad Mahdi swept out of the Sudan in the 19th Century just to give two examples. Islam, like all religion ebbs and flows between secular softness and new revolutionaries intent on restoring the true faith.

  • ||

    Yes, their periods of violence do ebb and flow. Just like the Europeans. My point was, WE (the US) were on relatively good terms with the middle east prior to throwing our weight around. I don't claim to be an expert in middle east history, but I form my opinion based upon courses I took in the military. This Wiki article seems agree with my coursework.

    According to Burgess, the escalation of terrorism during the later 20th century has its roots in three pivotal events circa 1979: the Iranian Revolution, the post-Cold War global religious revival, and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. These events, Burgess goes on to argue, were factors that fueled a recourse to religious terrorism.[5][6] American historian Walter Laqueur described the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan as the "global trigger" of Islamic terrorism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

  • Chatroom Crank||

    The Mahdi wasn't a response to British imperialism?

  • ||

    Wahhabism dates back to the 1700s. The mad Mahdi swept out of the Sudan in the 19th Century just to give two examples.

    [] Proves "It goes back thousands of years".

    You're a fucking idiot John.

  • Mensan||

    Let's see,
    2012-1740 = 272 years
    2012-1881 = 131 years

    Yep, thousands of years, it all checks out.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Examples?

    Ever hear of a little group known as the Ḥashshāshīn?

  • Zeb||

    Islam hasn't existed for thousands of years.

  • goneGalt||

    It goes back thousands of years.

    Small quibble. Muslim extremism, at most, only goes back to the 7th Century.

  • poetry||

    [Muslim extremism] goes back thousands of years

    Fuck you are retarded. Islam itself only goes back to the seventh goddamn century.

  • Mensan||

    Francisco d Anconia: "Muslim extremism is a relatively new thing. Ask yourself why."

    John: "No it is not. It goes back thousands of years."

    How exactly does the extremist version of a 1,400 year old religion go back thousands of years? Are you actually claiming that Islamist extremism predates Islam?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It goes back thousands of years.

    Being that Islam has been an institutionalized religion for less than 1400 years, that's a tough stretch, John.

    But not an unexpected one from a "TEH MOOSLIMS ARE OUT TO KILL US ALL" conservative.

  • dope||

    Saudi Arabia

  • ||

    You do realize that our deposing of the elected government and installation of the puppet Shah is what directly led to the vast majority of Iranians supporting the Islamist overthrow of the Shah in 79 right?

    Of course that was their folly since shit just got worse for them, but hindsight is 20/20.

  • sarcasmic||

    From the linked article.

    However, officials believe that the balance of forces against Iran makes any such move against the Strait of Hormuz highly unlikely.
  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I interpret this as the West is trying to provoke them at this point.

  • Radioactive||

    I think we should provoke them back to the stone age...just saying

  • robc||

    That would seem to be a problem that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Qatar could handle.

  • robc||

    Kuwait too, I left them off the list.

  • Mo||

    No need to wet yourself. Iran isn't going to close the Straits unless they get attacked first.

  • ||

    I don't plan to wet myself MO. I would much prefer to piss down your throat.

    And I wasn't aware you had some special access to the Iranians that NATO, the Russians and everyone else doesn't have. If there was no chance of them shutting the straight, I doubt anyone would bother sending aircraft carriers. The Canadians could shut down the Straights of San Juan De Fuca if they wanted to. But somehow we never send carrier groups there. I wonder why?

    Who knows what the Iranians are going to do. But the Libertarian glib "they would never do anything like that" is just fucking comical. If only the world conformed to our wishes.

  • ||

    ""Who knows what the Iranians are going to do. But the Libertarian glib "they would never do anything like that" is just fucking comical.""

    The thinking that Iran will not because Iran knows they would be on the losing end in short order isn't a leap.

  • ||

    What's a little more mysterious is what counts as winning or losing from the Iranian perspective.

    A symbolic closing of the Straits, spiced with a few dead Iranian heros, could be just the thing to get some political/diplomatic progress on other fronts.

  • ||

    It is a leap. I can name you a thousand times countries have miscalculated and done stupid things. As a matter of fact, pretty much every war ever fought is the result of that.

    You wouldn't do it. But you are not the Iranians. I would like to think they will not do that. But there is no telling what they will do.

    It is odd how people who openly express so much skepticism towards government seem to have a blind faith in every other government in the world acting rationally. Since when have governments ever acted rationally?

  • Applederry||

    When it comes to perpetuating their own existence, governments can be very rational. Now, with a tumbling economy and unrest in the populace, Iran may very well see closing the strait as an option for survival, but picking a fight with the three most powerful military forces in the world, is most assuredly one of the last on their list.

  • protefeed||

    I can name you a thousand times countries have miscalculated and done stupid things. As a matter of fact, pretty much every war ever fought is the result of that.

    Well, technically, no. If a country starts a war and wins, and gains more loot or taxes than the cost of the war, then that is not a miscalculation on their part.

    And if the country being invaded resists and loses, but the consequences of not resisting are about as bad as losing, then that country also has not miscalculated.

    But, yeah, most wars seem to involve one or more parties thinking things will turn out much better for them than what actually happens.

  • ||

    Dude, there's no need to get all uncivil and shit.

  • Not an Economist||

    But Iran's definition of being attacked might be slightly more expansive than yours.

  • Arcaster||

    “Each of these Nimitz class vessels carries a complement of fighter aircraft with more striking power than the entire Iranian air force.”

  • ||

    So what? We could destroy their air force and bomb the shit out of them. But doing that doesn't always win a war.

  • Arcaster||

    Just pointing out what I found interesting in the story. But since you brought it up, what would our goal in a war with them be? I'd say destroying their ability to attack us would be the main goal. I'm sure you won't be happy until all the Iranian people have denounced Islam, but that seems a bit much to me.

  • ||

    You win a war by breaking the other side's will to fight. The problem is that we would bomb them, reopen the straights, but they would still claim victory and plot to close it again. If the other side still has the will and ability to fight you, you haven't won. See for example Israel in Lebanon. They have routinely bombed Hezbollah and reduced their ability to attack Israel. Yet, Hezbollah always claims victory and continues to fight on.

    You don't get peace until your enemies give it to you.

  • Arcaster||

    So destroying their ability to fight wouldn't be enough? How many future America-haters willing to blow themselves up while killing Americans do you think you'll create while breaking their will to fight?

    The problem is that we would bomb them, reopen the straights, but they would still claim victory and plot to close it again and not let their asshole leaders get removed from power by their own people.

    You said it yourself upthread:

    And they are on a brink of a revolution. Starting a war, even one in which they are going to get their asses kicked may be the only way they feel they can stop that.

  • ||

    "So destroying their ability to fight wouldn't be enough?"

    No. Because they can always rebuild that. And yeah, I am sure there are a lot of American haters who want to blow themselves up. It sucks to be us. As I said, we get peace when our enemies give it to us.

  • Arcaster||

    Or we get peace when we quit fucking with other countries.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Or when we quit letting them get on planes coming to the US. We let the 9/11 hijackers in. Just like we will let in any one else who wants to attack us.

  • Arcaster||

    So where can I purchase this mind-reading technology that tells when a person is coming to the U.S. to attack us as opposed to coming here for business, vacation, visiting family, etc.?

  • Radioactive||

    or you kill each and every one of them and salt their ruins...radioactive cesium is nice for this...1/2 life not too onerous re repopulation

  • ||

    You win a war by breaking the other side's will to fight.

    What war? There is/would be no war. It would be a response to a hostile act. The objective would be to reopen the straits. In doing so, we'd eliminate a good portion of their "navy", ensuring they couldn't close them again.

    There need not be a war.

    Predicting the ramifications of such an action is open to debate.

  • dope||

    We don't need no stinking goals!

  • ||

    "" But doing that doesn't always win a war.""

    No, but it will reopen a feeble attempt to block a waterway.

  • ||

    Until they decided to block it again.

  • Radioactive||

    or we kill each and every one of them

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Dude.

    Shut the fuck up.

  • ||

    Or we could let them block it.. and then UAE, Saudi, Iraq, etc. can move shipping ports out of the strait.. but that would require us not getting to sabre-rattle and let other countries deal with their problems.

  • ||

    I bet Peter King is in front of a teevee camera right now, braying about how the system worked, and proves TEH LAWZ IS TEH LAAWZ.

  • ||

    MSNBC just reported on this. He was not allowed on the plane. Was removed by airport police. Not in custody.

    (Yeah, yeah, I was watching MSNBC. It's one of the channels on the satellite news mix channel. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.)

  • cynical||

    First they attack the gays, now they're attacking the straights. What will those crazy Persians get up to next?

  • Loki||

    Next they'll be putting in blue shag carpet, gold curtain rods, the place will lookg really nice...

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "libertarians were supposed to be refusing the scanners and doing the pat downs"

    My feelings are strip club rules.
    Real individuals avoid airlines anyway.

  • Zeb||

    What strip club rules?

    It's not gay if you keep your eyes closed?

  • Gray Ghost||

    If so, they're doing it wrong, considering the article notes that NATO just put a carrier + escorts in the Persian Gulf. The article implies that another carrier is in the vicinity. Whether they can do anything better inside the Gulf, than they could do outside the Gulf---besides serve as an awfully tempting target---is another question.

    Interestingly, the help from NATO seems to be an ASW frigate from Britain, and an undisclosed ship from France. No doubt there are plenty of anti-mining resources as well.

    I'm not worried yet. People haven't started shooting yet, and things aren't mysteriously blowing up. Well, unless they're Iranian.

  • poetry||

    tl;dr

  • Gray Ghost||

    Well, that was meant to be a reply to John, at 11:23...

    Regarding the original point of Rand Paul, how widely has the "travelling to and from Congress" been interpreted in the past? I'm familiar with the story from Charlie Wilson's War, but is that doctrine applied that often outside the District?

  • Old Mexican||

    Rand Paul's communications director, Moira Bagley, confirms.


    Ah, the TSA just obtained a fillibustering Senator against them.

  • Old Mexican||

    Sen. Ran Paul: "You're asking for what now? Money, that is? Aw, isn't that sweet of you? Remember that time when you did't let me on my flight?"

  • mad libertarian guy||

    He would have said that anyways.

    He's about the only outspoken critic of security theater in DC (besides his dad of course).

    Like I said last week: Rand Paul as your Senator is like a nice warm blanket because you know that he'll virtually always be on the right side.

  • Tim||

    What? Did he have one of those cupcakes in a jar thingS?

  • poetry||

    fart cupcakes

  • rather||

    "after anomaly in body scanner"
    Move over Scott Brown :-)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Let's just call this what it is: Tea Party darling Rand Paul in an armed standoff with Federal agents.

  • ||

    "Extremist leader detained on rare excursion from compound"

  • Tim||

    He does fit many of the Homeland Security terrorist warning signs, like "interested in the constitution"...

  • ||

    They'd be perfectly justified in shooting him.

  • Loki||

    NYT Headline: "Tea Party Supporting Extreme-ist Detained by Heroic TSA Agents While Attempting to Board Flight in Nashville, Flying Safer Than Ever"

  • ||

    the TSA just obtained a fillibustering Senator against them.

    Pretty unlikely.

    However, I would not be surprised if Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell fast track legislation exempting members of congress and their staffs from TSA searches.

    I mean, come on; if a Senator isn't a "trusted traveler" who is?

  • protefeed||

    the TSA just obtained a fillibustering Senator against them.

    Pretty unlikely.

    really? the next time the TSA wants funding you think its unpossible that Rand Paul is going to get up and argue that they need to be defunded -- and keep on arguing that until his voice gets tired?

  • Tonio||

    However, I would not be surprised if Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell fast track legislation exempting members of congress and their staffs from TSA searches.

    Ain't gonna happen. Wouldn't go over well with the little people, and dammit they're still allowed to vote for some reason.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I've scanned several website commentaries on this Rand incident, and a lot of the usual suspects are hooting shit like "it's a publicity stunt" and "well, the TSA should detain terrorists", which is typical of liberals who SHOULD be against this sort of shit happening in the first place.

    Just shows how authoritarian the left really is.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Mr. FIFY,

    Just shows how authoritarian the left really is.


    We kind of knew already.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I know, OM... I just like saying it.

  • sarcasmic||

    which is typical of liberals who SHOULD be against this sort of shit

    Liberals have principals, not principles.

    It depends on who is caught for it to be "shit" or not.

    In this case the principal was not on their team, so it's time to celebrate.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Yeah, the other day on another forum some jackhole was braying about how much better the Dems are on civil liberties than the Repubs. Riiiiiight.

  • ||

    Shit, that Nick (who I suspect was a regular just sock puppeting) retard was spouting the same stuff yesterday on one of the comment sections here.

  • Tim||

    If Ted Kennedy was still with us, he'd know how to handle this: "Ok, I failed the scan, send me into the back with that little blond number there and the bottle of scotch from my carry on. Tell the pilot to hold at the gate."

  • ||

    How far would 3 oz of scotch really get you?

  • T||

    Yeah, but the quart bag was filled with 3 oz scotch bottles.

  • Spoonman.||

    Goddamn EPA making shitty software that breaks all the fucking time and has no goddamn documentation or troubleshooting. Assholes.

    Sorry.

  • Tim||

    Did they declare you an endangered species again?

  • ||

    No, no. His pants are wetlands.

  • poetry||

    hey reason, it's not "allegedly" anymore

  • ||

    Flying while libertarian--a known offense. Rand should know better.

  • MlR||

    I hope this was worth it.

  • ||

    The Left's new motto:

    QUESTION QUESTIONING AUTHORITY

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Nice.

  • sarcasmic||

    QUESTION QUESTIONING OUR AUTHORITY

    ftfy

  • BoscoH||

    A spokesman for Ron Paul's campaign suggested that son Rand's giant balls might have triggered alerts from TSA agents.

  • CE||

    But that's all they wanted to verify with the pat-down.

  • poetry||

    +1

  • kinnath||

    Not one person mentioned the possibility of a campaign stunt.

    Either you all beleive Rand to be beyond reproach, or you're all still hung over this Monday morning.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    I said conspiracy and the possibility of motivating the sheeple with this.

    I WANT MY DUE RECOGNITION!

  • kinnath||

    I missed that. Poor comprehension skills (unrelated to the consumption of alcohol).

  • killazontherun||

    If the TSA actually has a record of catching anomalies instead of letting bombs slip through I could see how you could think that is a possibility. He must have had the metal buttplugs up his arse for months going in and out of airports to set off their alarms.

  • ||

    The TSA says Sen. Rand Paul “was not detained at any point” but “triggered an alarm during routine airport screening and refused to complete the screening process in order to resolve the issue.”

    I guess that depends on what the definition of "detained" is, doesn't it?

    After all, if you are prevented from proceeding to the gate, that looks a lot like "detention" to me.

    But what do I know? I don't even belong to AFSCME.

  • sarcasmic||

    You can turn around but you may go no further.

  • ||

    After all, if you are prevented from proceeding to the gate, that looks a lot like "detention" to me.

    So whenever I see a "road closed" sign on a street I intended to turn onto, that means I'm being detained?

  • ||

    From the definition of detained: Keep (someone) from proceeding; hold back

    So to answer your question: yes.

  • ||

    When the "Road Closed" sign includes the language, "And if you ignore this sign we will put you in jail and put your name on a Federal watch list", then your stupid analogy will scan.

  • ||

    Not one person mentioned the possibility of a campaign stunt.

    I like to think I'm at least as cynical and paranoid as the next guy, but unless he had a camera crew lurking in the bushes, I'm going to go with standard-issue TSA moronic douchebaggery.

  • ||

    Seeing as he's not up for reelection for four more years, the timing would be a little off.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    *cough For his dad *cough

  • kinnath||

    I am certain that the event was unplanned. But I am also certain that both Ron and Rand will bring this up in Ron's ongoing campaign for president and Rand's continuing work in the Senate.

  • ||

    It would be stupid of them not to.

  • ||

    You can turn around but you may go no further.

    If you're a senator; if you're a peasant, any attempt to depart is an explicit admission of nefarious intent.

    "He's trying to get away! Tase to kill, boys!"

  • Joe M||

    "Passengers, as in this case, who refuse to comply with security procedures are denied access to the secure gate area," the TSA adds. "He was escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement."

    And yet, from the story above, we know:

    "What he's done, he's violated federal law and federal regulations which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it," said Michael Aguilar.
  • ||

    I see he was on his way to DC after all.

    Which raises a very interesting question:

    Under the Constitution, does anyone have the authority to make a Congressman go through security screening? Is getting on a plane without doing so a felony or breach of the peace?

  • ||

    The problem is that he wasn't headed to a session of Congress but to give a speech at the right to life march. I think for your rule to apply he has to literally be heading to a session of Congress as soon as he gets off the plane.

  • ||

    I think for your rule to apply he has to literally be heading to a session of Congress as soon as he gets off the plane.

    What about stopping for a meal?

  • ||

    I see your point, though. If he wasn't planning to do anything Congressy while he was in DC, the privilege wouldn't apply.

    I would think just about anything having to do with the bidness of Congress would work, though.

  • ||

    Screening != arrest

    Are you trying to give even more special privileges to our elected scum?

  • ||

    I was thinking that, if you can't arrest someone for refusing to be screened before getting on a plane, then how exactly are you going to make them get screened?

    If you are immune from arrest, aren't you immune from screening as well?

    Unless, of course, they simply ground the plane until you get off of it. So that's probably the real answer.

  • ||

    Simple. You deny them access to the plane.

  • Zeb||

    I say if it has the effect of preventing a congress critter from getting to a session of congress, then it violates the constitution. In this case, it probably doesn't. But if he had been on the way to vote on something and some unscrupulous TSA person decided to delay him in screening to prevent him from voting, that is exactly the sort of thing that it was intended to prevent.

  • ||

    Well he was on his way to a session that began at ~2:30 with the first vote scheduled for 4:30.

  • ||

    Setting off the scanner happens ALL THE TIME in airports. Yet 99.97% of the time it does not require a grope or patdown to resolve. You have pocket change you forgot or something. So you put it in a plastic bowl that goes through the xray and you step through the scanner again.

    I'm not going to claim conspiracy however. Rather I suspect the random patdown flag went off. It's a stupid ass policy, thinking that random patdowns improve our security, but no one ever accused the TSA of having an excess of brains.

  • Joe M||

    Hm, but he set of the alarm for the rapi-scan, not the standard metal detector.

  • ||

    Oh. The story said he "went thru", rather than "stand still with arms held out", so I assumed it was the standard metal detector.

    I revise my statement then. Those scanners detect all sorts of shit, which are made unrecognizable by process. So I bet a tenth of the people through it have to get patted down.

    I got patted down because I had a plastic comb in my pocket. I was not allowed to take it out and show them, the pervert had to reach his hand in my pocket and remove it.

    A 59 cent plastic comb.

  • Joe M||

    You could comb somebody's eyes out with that!

  • GILMORE||

    I got patted down because I had a plastic comb in my pocket. I was not allowed to take it out and show them, the pervert had to reach his hand in my pocket and remove it.

    dear fucking christ,

    this kind of thing takes an already ridiculous situation and elevates it to the painfully absurd. I recall something similar to this happening with me once (where a screener was like, "whats that in your back pocket"?)... and they *wouldn't let me remove it*... they had to swab the area with like an explosives sensor, then carefully extract the item with rubber gloved hands and tongs. I think it was chapstick or something.

    When i was like, "why the fuck is it your policy to refuse to allow me to remove it - taking a simple issue of forgetting to empty *all* my pockets, and turning into ALERT MODE!! SWAT TEAM SCREENING CODE RED!!... wasting everyones time, elevating the absolutely mundane to some kind of existential threat to national security. I think i even said as much, something to the effect of "I get it. If you didn't treat fucking lip balm as equivilent to radioactive-razorblades stuffed in C4, then you'd be out of a job."

    I don't think that comment got me on my plane any faster.

  • Mensan||

    Customs agents are just as stupid as the TSA. A few years ago I was returning to the US from Australia at LAX. Before I left Sydney I bought some fruit to eat on the flight. As we were deplaning I realized I still had a few pieces of fruit left, so I quickly ate what I could while we walked to customs, but I ended up with one banana left that I didn't want to eat.

    I looked around for the amnesty bins (the trash cans in the international terminal to throw out stuff you don't want to bother declaring), but apparently, unlike every other airport I've ever been through, LAX didn't have them.

    I got to the customs counter, and told the guy that I didn't want to declare the banana; I just wanted to throw it away. They were having none of that, and I was quickly directed to a separate screening area. When I arrived at the separate area, banana in hand, there was one guy standing there. He told me we needed to wait for the other guy to get back before we could proceed. Apparently, disposing of a banana was a two man job.

    After about 10 minutes of twiddling my thumbs the other Customs guy showed up. I told him that I just wanted to know where I could get rid of the banana, and that I had nothing to declare. He said, “Sir, you need to put your bag on the conveyor belt.”
    I complied, and then he said, “I need you to place the fruit inside your bag so I can scan it.”
    “Why? I don’t want to keep it. I’ve been trying to throw it away this whole time.”
    “I still need to scan it, Sir.”
    “Fine, whatever.” I submitted, and placed the banana in my backpack (I was tired after a 15-hour flight sitting next to a hyperactive toddler, and just wanted to get out of there).

    They rolled my bag into the scanner, and stared very intently at the screen for what seemed like an unnecessarily long period, occasionally moving the conveyor back a bit, then forward a bit.
    Finally he said, “It appears you have a banana in your bag.”
    “Yeah,” I said, “you told me to put it in there 45 seconds ago.”
    “You can’t bring produce into the country.”
    “I know. That’s why I’ve been trying to get rid of it.”
    “I need you to remove the banana from you bag, sir, and place it in the bin at the end of the belt. We have to confiscate all prohibited items.”

  • Loki||

    You have pocket change you forgot or something. So you put it in a plastic bowl that goes through the xray and you step through the scanner again

    It seems you're thinking of the metal detectors. He apparently set off the (former) nudie scanner (they changed it so that now it just shows a genereic stick figure and highlights any areas that it "detects" somethinging).

    As I mentioned previously above, I had that happen to me once. They just patted down my leg, which is what they mean by "targeted patdown". I'm sure the TSA will spin this as "the system works, nothing to see here".

  • tommy||

    Rand Paul - attention whore

  • GroundTruth||

    Great timing. Ron Paul should certainly be able to use this to score a few more vote from folks sick of the shredding the Constitution.

  • ||

    I am certain that the event was unplanned. But I am also certain that both Ron and Rand will bring this up in Ron's ongoing campaign for president and Rand's continuing work in the Senate.

    Quite an unsubtle difference.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Stay off airlines. They have sunk lower than Amtrak in regards to libertarian individual satisfaction.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Besides the subsidies that go to Amtrak, what, exactly, is unlibertarian about it.

    I can take a firearm with me, and I've never been searched in any way before getting on?

  • ||

    So whenever I see a "road closed" sign on a street I intended to turn onto, that means I'm being detained?

    Yes, you tendentious douchebag. But, by all means, if you see a "Bridge Out" sign, keep going.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Excellent.

  • CE||

    Interestingly, the neocons whose policies brought us the TSA seem to be pushing for expedited and less intrusive screening procedures for military veterans. Even though veterans seem more likely to me to snap and commit violent acts, due to the stress they experienced in combat.

  • Tonio||

    Don't see that happening. Nidal Malik Hasan.

  • killazontherun||

    Comments from the fine commentariat residing at the NYT:

    I fly often and am not a fan of the TSA. But just what else can they do in a time when people are bringing bombs onto planes in their shoes, underwear and even bottles of innocuous looking liquids. If the TSA stops the searches then planes will go down and people will die. So personally I'd rather be hassled than dead.

    The problem is that Libertarians only seem to care about their own liberties and seem blind to how allowing people to do whatever they want often results in harmful consequences to others.

    And a survivor of 9-11 offers his wisdom to us lesser mortals.

    ...as a survivor of 9/11 I would agree that these procedures can be an inconvenience but I would never call them theatrics. I saw close to 3,000 people die because we didn't take security seriously. As for Paul I guess he has a problem extending liberty to women. Funny how these "libertarians" don't seem to get that the so called right to life shouldn't in a civil society allow women to have a right to control their own bodies.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Reworded to reflect the actual feelings of these fuckers:

    I fly rarely but am a big fan of the TSA. What else can they do in a time when people continually circumvent and protest our poorly funded bureaucracy designed to molest children and grandmothers? If the TSA stops the searches then a lot of former burger flippers will lose their cushy boner-sustaining jobs. So personally I'd rather be raped than see useless fucks unemployed.

    The problem is that Libertarians show us how little we care about our own liberties and show us how blind were are to the destruction and dessication of the rights we are supposed to care about.

    And a survivor of 9-11 offers his wisdom to us lesser mortals.

    ...as a "survivor" of 9/11 I think these procedures are needed so the population can be properly cowed. I saw close to 3,000 people die (on TV) because we didn't trust our liberty-destroying fearocracy enough. As for Paul I guess he has a personal view I disagree with so regardless of anything else he says, whether it be 1+2 = 3 or "the sky is blue", I will oppose him vehemently. Funny how I think all libertarians don't seem to get that the so called right to life shouldn't in a civil society allow women to have a right to control their own bodies when plenty of them have more nuanced views. Also, I am fucking piece of shit who "works" for the TSA.

  • GILMORE||

    killazontherun|1.23.12 @ 1:24PM|#

    Comments from the fine commentariat residing at the NYT

    Dude. You really shouldn't do that. It is masochistic. Or rather, sadistic of you for posting it here.

    The NYT comments section= cornucopia of liberal big-government-dumb.

    The "9/11 survivor" thing is kind of a needlessly self-aggrandizing title. I was 3-4 blocks away when the buildings started coming down. My brother was in a building considerably closer. Big whoop. I have never considered myself a "survivor". Maybe I would if I had been in the buildings when they were hit. But the whole thing sort of presumes that his fucking opinion matters more somehow because he is 'closer' to the event.

    The fact that he thinks, "we didn't take security seriously" before 9/11 seems to suggest that we DO now.

    Like, *we totally could stopped 9/11* with shoe removal, passenger groping.

    Frankly, i'd consider a 'real' "9/11 survivor" to be a passenger on the airplanes who *just happened* to have been wearing a parachute that day... and was also sitting in an 'exit' aisle.

  • ||

    as a survivor of 9/11

    You know, I survived 9/11 too. I should start calling myself that.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I like it. We should all get business cards printed up.

  • Arcaster||

    Brilliant!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He plans to speak at the March for Life, which is where he was headed when he was stopped. I certainly hopes he gets there, or speaks remotely.

    https://twitter.com/#!/SenRandPaul/status/161460626357633025

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Try this link:

    http://bit.ly/xN4UDy

  • RZR||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Libertarians are a people constantly in search of issues to be self-righteous about.

    And statists constantly look for new ways to fellate the state. (Awesome name for a band.) But at least the writer didn't dive into identity politics.

    Libertarians are a people constantly in search of issues to be self-righteous about. This is the problem of a political movement about "freedom" peopled largely by white men with college degrees and above-average incomes: there's not a lot of freedom they don't already have, and not a lot of situations where their civil rights are being potentially trampled.

    Oh well. At least he's consistent in his opinions, right?

    trucha @Max Read
    I'm sorry Max but does that not go against what you said here?

    "But: Just because we're not huge fans of the people who are driving these protests—and just because they seem a little late to the table—doesn't make their claims illegitimate. And maybe—maybe!—getting people involved with this might make those people more concerned about civil-rights violations that aren't specifically inconveniencing them. And that would be nice for everyone, right?"


    Max Read @trucha
    Heh. Opinions evolve!
  • Mr. FIFY||

    My God... the Gawker stoopid...

    "...if the worst way your civil rights have ever been violated is by having your body touched by a government employee while you wait to board a plane, you are pretty lucky."

    Gawker: Vanguard for the possible-future Democrat-ruled police state.

  • Coeus||

    Also from the article:

    Couple that with the fact that TSA agents are union workers, often minorities, just trying to do their jobs, and it's really difficult to feel like this is a "stand" worth taking at all.

    How completely fucked up does your worldview have to be to not only type that sentence, but to also leave it in after you read the stupidity back to yourself?

  • Coeus||

    Interesting. This is the first time I've seen Gawker side with the TSA. That's just a coincidence though, I'm sure.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    True that, Coeus... put Team Red in charge in 0'13, and Gawker will think the TSA is the devil in uniform.

  • ||

    what else can they do in a time when people are bringing bombs onto planes in their shoes, underwear and even bottles of innocuous looking liquids.

    Every

    fucking

    DAY!

  • ||

    I think he was every bit as likely to be a terrorist as my 11 year old niece when she gets the TSA patdown/grope. As a group politicians are more likely to be terrorists/terrorist sympathizers just not the kind TSA can do anything about.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Meanwhile, Obama and his buddies are snickering in the Oval Office.

    And you can damned well bet some TSA co-workers are gonna take the Rand-groping goon out for a drink after work today. If they're not already drunk.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And for those fucktards who think this incident was ginned up by Rand to help out his old man:

    The SC primary *has happened already*, Team Blue.

  • jt||

    pathetic support for civil liberties on an alleged libertarian site

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What the fuck are you on about, jt? Did you even bother to read any of the posts?

  • Tanvi||

    the article is so helpful and attractive. It is full of useful material
    and many information which can be easily understand……

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement