Printable View
The scanner detects explosives, therefore if you do have explosives and it goes off twice - then thats a reason for a search (see video for very simple explanation).Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippiewill
I'm not making exceptions for him, i'm saying how common sense (asking to go through twice because its a suspected malfunction as it was) is being overridden by baseless paranoia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippiewill
If he did have explosives on him, making him walk through the scanner again could potentially give him time to detonate any potential explosives so searching him gets you in a position close enough to restrain him should he attempt to detonate any potential explosives/use any weapons he might have. Also if the machine is malfunctioning, there isn’t any point in using it again as it will most likely have the same results which means a search will be necessary either way…Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
This is insane its so ridiculous, if somebody is going to press a trigger they will do it - some TSA goons aren't going to stop them in a matter of seconds. But as I said at the beginning, this scenario is so ridiculous and unrealistic that its not even worth talking of sacrificing our civil liberties for. How about we take terrorism and airport security into perpective, with a dose of common sense and decency added in the mix?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
I mean whats next, body scanners and body pat-downs before you go the local supermarket? its gotten completely out of control.
Then let him use it again and you can prove him wrong, whats to lose? it talks a matter of seconds to walk through the scanner again.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
It also takes a matter of seconds for a completely non invasive pat-down
Which he isn't comfortable with, nor are old women taking their diapers off or parents having their children groped under the pathetic guise of terrorism. All they had to do was allow him through the scanner again, but no it shows their mentality - instead they detain him like the thuggish goons they are. Give somebody a uniform, and they'll often abuse the powers that come with that uniform given the chance (see Police brutality).Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
I'm not a criminal, nor is Rand Paul - we deserve to be treated like innocent citizens/subjects like our constitutions order, not like criminals in a prison being patted down for weapons.
Because if you LOOK like a respectable citizen it should be assumed that you are one, right? Unfortunately not everyone is has the best sentiments at heart, which is why precautions are taken in just about all walks of life. Personally I'd rather be inconvenienced for 10 seconds and know that I'm safe than get rid of airport screenings. Yes of course flight terrorism is extremely rare, but if there was nothing to stop people taking dangerous items on board then I'm pretty sure more people would be up for trying it - just like how crime rates are rife in certain areas because there's nothing to stop people from acting out, which if I recall correctly you abhor.
Which, if anything comes up on the scanner and that person requests to go through the scanner again - then allow them to. That is all Rand Paul asked for because he correctly said the machine was malfunctioning or they have purposely set the machines so that they go off randomly, had the machine gone off again then a body search may have been justified - the idea that a government goon has a right to body search me is a gross infringement of my civil liberties and the idea of me as an individual. The fact is that the TSA has a power agenda hence why they'd rather go through hours and hours of detaining Rand Paul as opposed to simply allowing him to walk through the body scanner again.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
I'm fed up of hypocrites (see internet regulation thread) using liberty to exempt themselves from government meddling, but for other issues which they aren't concerned about - oh hey, shutup and let government do what it wants!
'Government can't touch my drugs but it can touch up old women at airports'
Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
It's just as sweet.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Oh thats it! you got me! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippiewill
Please see this - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ul_112889.html
The TSA offically denies it [the charge], but insiders from the TSA say otherwise.Quote:
SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: You know, I have been flying pretty frequently for the past year since I was elected, and really have not had any trouble with the TSA.
Most of the local people have been friendly, if not outright supportive. But, today, I went through the scanner, and it went off, and I just requested that I either show them my leg, which I did, or that I get to go back through the scanner again. But they wouldn't let me go through the scanner. They insisted on a pat-down search.
And I just didn't think that that was appropriate. I thought that, really, when I interviewed Director Pistole of the TSA a couple of months ago, he talked about that we were going to let people go back through the screener so they didn't have to get pat-downs.
But the other thing I learned today is, the screener is not going off because it detects something. The screener is part of a random pat-down process, where people are getting randomly pat-down, but they think the screener is going off because it detected something. And I didn't realize that until today, because the screener goes off one time, and they finally let me go through it an hour later, and then the screener doesn't go off. That's because I must have been part of a random pat-down, but wasn't told that initially.
BLITZER: Because we checked, because you had mentioned that earlier.
We went to the TSA and we asked them, are there now random alerts that simply go off without any evidence that there's a problem? And they issued a statement saying no, because we said, can the TSA trigger the machine to indicate there's an alarm? No. And then the other question was, do the machines have alarms that randomly go off to indicate that there is an object on a person when there is no object on a person? The TSA insists the answer is no.
Who says that there's this random alert?
PAUL: Here's the interesting thing. Two people from the TSA, two separate people -- and I don't want to name their names right at this point. But two separate people told me that there are random bells and whistles going off in the screening process that the local screeners are not aware of, but are part of random pat-downs.
They admit that there are random pat-downs, but I believe the random pat-downs are coming from the machine. Otherwise, we have got machines that just aren't very good, because why are they setting off a signal one time and then not setting off the signal the next time?
So it tells me that either the machines are inadequate or they're not telling us the whole story. But my understanding from two different TSA agents is that, yes, there are random bells going off in the screening machines that don't indicate something on your body, but indicate you have been selected for a random pat-down.
Hahahaha! love this so much...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippiewill
The search was justified as soon as he set off the alarms. Public safety is the priority of security at airports, not Rand Paul’s pride, whether it was due to a fault or not, the alarm indicated that he had something on him which is why the search was deemed necessary. It’s not as if the security guard pulled out gloves ready for a body cavity search.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-