Rand Paul Detained by TSA

[Ms Tree]

So you have pretty much acknowledged that what they have in AMS would not work here. So how do you want it done here?

 

[delldude]

Sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself. Would you want soldiers and Marines patrolling our nations airports?

Who are those guys packing automatic weapons at the airport then?

 

[777 fixer]

Who are those guys packing automatic weapons at the airport then?

Example dell.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself. Would you want soldiers and Marines patrolling our nations airports?

Frankly I'm not 100% for sure.

One of my HUGE personal "Beefs" with TSA is I don't they can spell "Professional" much less act professional.

The other question is how would I do it? In thinking a bit about why I like the Dutch procedure I came up with this.

I like the tiered process. In Holland no less than three sets of trained eyes look you over and that's not counting the Marines or
airline ticket counter folks who seem to be a little more alert and skeptical. To me a true security apparatus should be looking for inconsistencies of any kind. Appearance, Visual cues, verbal ques, body language all of this goes into a determination of probable cause. even with the minimum amount of probable cause required under the current law, trained agents would have IMO a much better chance of uncovering something, while keeping intrusive behavior at a minimum.

I'd also shift the priority from people to cargo and the actual airport infrastructure as well. To many holes there, IMO. There is no reason we can't have our bomb sniffing four legged friends on patrol throughout the airport facility.

The other change I'd make is to bolster FBI, Sate & Local law enforcement. Redirect the efforts from the Insane War on Drugs to Counter Terrorism. Because frankly if they get to the airport it's to late. The visible security needs to be there if for no other reason then to make people feel safe even if they aren't. The heavy lifting gets done out of sight, out of mind. We excel at that stuff and we should leverage our talents.

Remember the proper role of Government is to protect our Liberty not infringe upon it. Lose sight of that and we're just another country.

 

[700UW]

Guess you never been to Ben Gurion Airport, at TLV.

Your plane is escorted by an armored personnel carrier and you park away from the terminal and are bussed to the terminal.

Plus EL AL have security agents in the US who are packing heat, remember the LAX incident.

And in the terminal at TLV, there are soldiers with nice automatic weapons and even undercover police.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Guess you never been to Ben Gurion Airport, at TLV.

Your plane is escorted by an armored personnel carrier and you park away from the terminal and are bussed to the terminal.

Plus EL AL have security agents in the US who are packing heat, remember the LAX incident.

You're talking about an airline with fewer aircraft then Spirit operating in a a defacto war zone. Hardly Apples to Apples. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave and the price we pay is that we share in a little more risk.

I defy anyone to show me how the TSA makes us safer? They make us less free for sure! But safe? Nahhh, back to my guns and religion.

 

[700UW]

That is how all flights are dealt with there, not just EL AL, its the same security measures for US Airways, And any other carrier who flies in and out of TLV.

Show us how the TSA makes us unsafer then.

 

[tech2101]

Feel better now Savion? Here's the court case. All you had to do was open Google and type in the case and case number. Typical Liberal/Progressive, why do yourself what you can get others to do?

Here Ya Go Lazy Boy

So the Ninth upheld the appeal on the reasonableness test of the searches, therefore it is constitutional unless they appealed it to the SCOTUS and the law is overturned. Your opinion does not make it unconstitutional unless you have are a sitting Justice on the SCOTUS and you and a majority of your peers on that court agree.

From the ruling:

[7] The random, additional screening procedure in this case satisfies the Davis reasonableness test for airport searches. The procedure is geared towards detection and deterrence of airborne terrorism, and its very randomness furthers these goals. This was a limited search, confined in its intrusiveness (both in duration and scope) and in its attempt to discover weapons and explosives.3 Given the randomness, the limited nature of the intrusion, the myriad devices that can be used to bring planes down, and the absence of any indicia of improper motive, we hold that the random, more thorough screening involving scanning of Marquez’s person with the handheld magnetometer was reasonable. The district court properly denied Marquez’s motion to suppress the contraband found during TSA screening.
AFFIRMED.

 

[delldude]

Example dell.

Say what?

 

[delldude]

So the Ninth upheld the appeal on the reasonableness test of the searches, therefore it is constitutional unless they appealed it to the SCOTUS and the law is overturned. Your opinion does not make it unconstitutional unless you have are a sitting Justice on the SCOTUS and you and a majority of your peers on that court agree.

From the ruling:

The Constitutional question is how far the public lets the government go. Pat downs are a violation.

 

[jimntx]

No, they are not. And, Constitutional questions are not determined by what the general public seems to think at the moment. You may think patdowns are a violation, but that doesn't make it so. If everyone got to decide what is or is not Constitutional, we would not have a democracy, we would have anarchy. The Constitution would have no meaning at all. (I bet that shortly after 9/11, neither Sen. Paul nor you would have objections to patdowns--particularly for people of dark skin wearing turbans.)

 

[delldude]

No, they are not. And, Constitutional questions are not determined by what the general public seems to think at the moment. You may think patdowns are a violation, but that doesn't make it so. If everyone got to decide what is or is not Constitutional, we would not have a democracy, we would have anarchy. The Constitution would have no meaning at all. (I bet that shortly after 9/11, neither Sen. Paul nor you would have objections to patdowns--particularly for people of dark skin wearing turbans.)

Profiling works very well. Random pat downs? Do it to everyone or don't do it.(Equal protection?)

We do not have a democracy.

 

[delldude]

That is how all flights are dealt with there, not just EL AL, its the same security measures for US Airways, And any other carrier who flies in and out of TLV.

Show us how the TSA makes us unsafer then.

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer

The Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General said it will begin a probe into the Transportation Security Administration's hiring process, after dozens of security screeners on the job were found to have criminal records.

 

[jimntx]

Profiling works very well. Random pat downs? Do it to everyone or don't do it.(Equal protection?)

We do not have a democracy.

And, the more you post, I realize that what you want is not democracy, you want anarchy where you can do whatever you please, whenever you please. Itching to use that AK-47 (which you only bought for hunting, of course) on your neighbor who won't cut his grass, are we?

 

[delldude]

And, the more you post, I realize that what you want is not democracy, you want anarchy where you can do whatever you please, whenever you please. Itching to use that AK-47 (which you only bought for hunting, of course) on your neighbor who won't cut his grass, are we?

You should be glad we aren't neighbors. :unsure:

And do some checking, we do not have a democracy.