Senator Rand Paul detained at US airport

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

If there's a high chance of getting caught on scanners / random checks (In fact most people going through american security tend to get some form of random security check, either bag or pat down) it's all-most as much as a deterrent as everyone getting a pat-down at a fraction of the cost.

---

A terrorist wanting to take his own life will not care about the risk of being caught, if there's a potential loophole then he will take his chances and could very well suceed on a 50/50 basis. Of course i'm only using your own logic to show how ridiculous and full to the brim of paranoia it is. You do not treat people like criminals based on a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% chance you'll one day catch a terrorist.

Just as you don't search all asians and arabs on the streets on the basis that you might one day catch one with an explosive device, or do you? I am guessing you agree with racial profiling, am I correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

The person deciding whether to pat down or let them go through again does however, don't ask me how it would be exploited I don't spend my day doing that. However any security expert will tell you that it's not worth taking that sort of risk.

---

You know aswell as I do that the TSA are telling lies and thats its on a random setting which isn't security based what-so-ever, yet you are too proud to accept that.

Besides, random profiling is grossly wrong - it presumes people guilty when they are innocent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

The scanner provided reasonable evidence for guilt which gives the TSA a good enough reason for what is actually an unintrusive pat down.

---

Which is true, yet to confirm this they could have sent him through the scanner saving all that time and effort rather than arguing with him and then detaining him. As I said before, its obvious the machines are on a random setting and the TSA wants to save face - so you are basically advocating being treated as though he is guilty in order to stop the TSA being exposed for what is it.

If you sell out on your dignity that quickly, then shame on you - but dont expect the rest of us to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Exactly, the machine was faulty but it still indicated he needed to be searched, there would be no point in making someone walk through a broken scanner twice (It would just go off again so he would eventually have to be searched regardless), and if it is company policy to search those who set off the alarms I’d rather security abided by their regulations.

---

So everybody was searched that day at that airport you are telling me?

I am sure there were other machines, if it were faulty - they could have sent him through another working one. I personally don't believe the machine was fautly, its very clear to me that the machines are done on a random basis which is totally wrong because thats not security related at all - thats bordering on the verge of officaldom theatre and control.

If someone wanted to pat me down, I wouldn't mind. It's fully clothed and it's a better alternative than the 'rubber glove search.' If the scanner is picking people at random AND detecting terror threats -The fact it went off doesn't mean that the scanner only picks at random. It could mean that it detects said terrorists and picks at random. Itisn't evidence that it'san 'OR' situation that you're makingit out to be-I would personallyrather have a machine that goes off at random than a human picking at random as the latter isnot immunetoprejudice and negative labels affecting theirjudgements.

Despite that most people know that airport security isover the top, the 'better safe than sorry' motto would definitely calm me down during a flight. You can't help thinking 'what if?'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

You know aswell as I do that the TSA are telling lies and thats its on a random setting which isn't security based what-so-ever, yet you are too proud to accept that.

As I said before, its obvious the machines are on a random setting and the TSA wants to save face - so you are basically advocating being treated as though he is guilty in order to stop the TSA being exposed for what is it.

its very clear to me that the machines are done on a random basis which is totally wrong because thats not security related at all - thats bordering on the verge of officaldom theatre and control.

---

Wait, which side of this argument is the paranoid one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

As for anarchy vs liberty, no i'm not confusing the two at all.

---

Yes, yes you are. A simple NOPE NOT TRUE is not an argument Dan, please tell me at what point security matters on public transport become an individual liberty case on the basis that only the individual is affected and you might have a single point in this entire thread, but until then your denial has about as much weight as, for example, setting off security scanners and not accepting that something's wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

A terrorist wanting to take his own life will not care about the risk of being caught, if there's a potential loophole then he will take his chances and could very well suceed on a 50/50 basis. Of course i'm only using your own logic to show how ridiculous and full to the brim of paranoia it is. You do not treat people like criminals based on a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% chance you'll one day catch a terrorist.

---

A terrorist will normally want to succeed. I appreciate airport security only as a deterrent than an actual method to catch terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Racial profiling, agree with that aswell do you? (out of interest)

---

Discrimination isn't nice but it saves lives. Yes, the very organised terrorists will *brainwash* Caucasian Americans as the bomber but the more common flight bomb threats in recent years have all been perpetrated by people of an ethnic origin, generally Islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

You know aswell as I do that the TSA are telling lies and thats its on a random setting which isn't security based what-so-ever, yet you are too proud to accept that.

---

"and full to the brim of paranoia it is"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Besides, random profiling is grossly wrong - it presumes people guilty when they are innocent.

---

Guilty and innocent are just words, it determines you as neither, it's the TSA worker who may make unofficial judgement but it's the system which makes the final ruling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Which is true, yet to confirm this they could have sent him through the scanner saving all that time and effort rather than arguing with him and then detaining him.

---

Ten second pat-down is not a big ask, being generally uncooperative after you've set off a scanner will certainly justify a detainment under security grounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

As I said before, its obvious the machines are on a random setting and the TSA wants to save face

---

Please enlighten me with this obviousness, as a non-paranoid person it seems obvious to me that the TSA does not require an expensive machine to justify random checks since many countries managed before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

- so you are basically advocating being treated as though he is guilty

---

I am advocating him as being treated as everyone else who goes through airports, with suspicion if they SET OFF ALARMS AND REFUSE A PATDOWN FOR SECURITY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If you sell out on your dignity that quickly, then shame on you - but dont expect the rest of us to.

---

I will not give in to your sensationalist propaganda alone and I'm even half tempted to disagree with you on principle alone at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I am sure there were other machines, if it were faulty - they could have sent him through another working one. I personally don't believe the machine was fautly, its very clear to me that the machines are done on a random basis which is totally wrong because thats not security related at all - thats bordering on the verge of officaldom theatre and control.

---

I'm not going to reply after I post this response as it's clear you can't reason with anyone and have to always be right...

Why would they send him through another scanner when all this could be resolved with a quick search? It seems like you are just arguing for the sake of it, as any rational person understands, if you set off an alarm, you will be searched by security. I walked out of Tesco the other day, my plastic bag set off an alarm, I didn't protest and blast it as an infringement of my basic rights, I let the security guard search my bag, because after all, it did set off the alarm, which, regardless of whether it’s correct or not, indicates to security that something isn’t right and I need to be searched, as far as the security guard is aware, I could have stolen something from the store, and in this instance, Rand Paul could have had something on him which is prohibited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I'm not going to reply after I post this response as it's clear you can't reason with anyone and have to always be right...

---

He tossed reason out of the window a little ways back and has start resorting to pointless and baseless accusations just because some people he likes set off some security scanners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

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…

---

I think you're only adding to the conclusive evidence that Americans are still unbelievably paranoid about terrorism :P It's a debate about what terrorists and those behind it are hoping to achieve, and by being paranoid by terrorism suggests that terrorists have won a.k.a. they no longer live in a free country. IF he did have explosives on him, he probably would of detonated then and there the moment they demanded he is patted down or when he is carted away. The simple matter of the event is he never did.

That said, I always think it's wise to have security checks at airports, but I find the punishment questionable for people who do not want their civil liberties eroded away and are proven to be safe, as it only makes you question the possibilities of a terrorist entering an airport. It's a strong debate about morals and rights.

It just reflects how sad a world we live in where we live by fear and in some ways are driven by it.

It's really nice to know that TSA is doing this at airports but they're not doing it at the border of mexico where all the drug cartels slip in...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

If someone wanted to pat me down, I wouldn't mind. It's fully clothed and it's a better alternative than the 'rubber glove search.' If the scanner is picking people at random AND detecting terror threats -The fact it went off doesn't mean that the scanner only picks at random. It could mean that it detects said terrorists and picks at random. Itisn't evidence that it'san 'OR' situation that you're makingit out to be-I would personallyrather have a machine that goes off at random than a human picking at random as the latter isnot immunetoprejudice and negative labels affecting theirjudgements.

Despite that most people know that airport security isover the top, the 'better safe than sorry' motto would definitely calm me down during a flight. You can't help thinking 'what if?'

---

Why don't we just strip people down before they board planes to avoid 'what if?' how about scanners at supermarkets? how about internal border zones before you leave one city to visit another? this has gotten completely out of control and its not even driven by a desire for safety, it is again government removing our civil liberties whilst it has the chance via fear.

Besides, although i'm against labels aswell - surely being labelled is better safe than sorry to quote yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Wait, which side of this argument is the paranoid one?

---

Certainly not mine, TSA insiders have stated the machine goes off at random whilst the TSA denies it. Go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Yes, yes you are. A simple NOPE NOT TRUE is not an argument Dan, please tell me at what point security matters on public transport become an individual liberty case on the basis that only the individual is affected and you might have a single point in this entire thread, but until then your denial has about as much weight as, for example, setting off security scanners and not accepting that something's wrong

---

Was something wrong? no. Therefore, the TSA are either purposely setting the machines at random which is a) a lie to the American people & b) a gross abuse of the notion of innocent until proven guilty. The argument you put forward is void, its not as though he had anything on him - so again, either the machines are faulty which doesn't say much for airport security or the setting is on random (see points a & b).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

A terrorist will normally want to succeed. I appreciate airport security only as a deterrent than an actual method to catch terrorists.

---

This will not deter a terrorist, just as guns on an American battleship didn't deter kamikaze pilots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Discrimination isn't nice but it saves lives. Yes, the very organised terrorists will *brainwash* Caucasian Americans as the bomber but the more common flight bomb threats in recent years have all been perpetrated by people of an ethnic origin, generally Islam.

---

Well at least your consistent, but it shows how much you think of our ancient civil liberties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

"and full to the brim of paranoia it is"

---

So the machine Rand Paul went through was faulty right? so whats wrong with allowing him through a working one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Guilty and innocent are just words, it determines you as neither, it's the TSA worker who may make unofficial judgement but it's the system which makes the final ruling.

---

I think you'll find guilty and innocent mean a heck of a lot (see Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution) and if you don't think we ought to make the judgement between guilty and innocent, then what can I say other than thats just really really sad. As Gomme commented, whats the point in fighting terrorists if you are going to chuck all of our civil liberties down the pan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Ten second pat-down is not a big ask, being generally uncooperative after you've set off a scanner will certainly justify a detainment under security grounds.

---

He's not being uncooperative, he's simply asking to walk through the scanner again because it was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Please enlighten me with this obviousness, as a non-paranoid person it seems obvious to me that the TSA does not require an expensive machine to justify random checks since many countries managed before.

---

Oh but its better to be safe than sorry yeah! strange how quickly you change from one to the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

I am advocating him as being treated as everyone else who goes through airports, with suspicion if they SET OFF ALARMS AND REFUSE A PATDOWN FOR SECURITY.

---

And I am advocating that should the alarm go off again after his simple, common sense request to go through the scanner again is fulfilled, that yes he ought to be patted down. I can't understand whats so hard or difficult to just do that rather than spend an hour or so detaining somebody who rightly in my eyes feels very strongly about his civil liberties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

I will not give in to your sensationalist propaganda alone and I'm even half tempted to disagree with you on principle alone at this point.

---

Thank you for being honest that you believe in corpus juris 'justice' (if you can call it that). Personally I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I'm not going to reply after I post this response as it's clear you can't reason with anyone and have to always be right...

Why would they send him through another scanner when all this could be resolved with a quick search? It seems like you are just arguing for the sake of it, as any rational person understands, if you set off an alarm, you will be searched by security. I walked out of Tesco the other day, my plastic bag set off an alarm, I didn't protest and blast it as an infringement of my basic rights, I let the security guard search my bag, because after all, it did set off the alarm, which, regardless of whether it’s correct or not, indicates to security that something isn’t right and I need to be searched, as far as the security guard is aware, I could have stolen something from the store, and in this instance, Rand Paul could have had something on him which is prohibited.

---

I won't reply to you in full either, but you can reply to this (after saying I was delusion/mad) should you wish to show that you yourself are not beyond reason whereas apparently I am even though I always give a reply. It'd be nice to see some humility from you when you reply, maybe even an apology for being wrong. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Rand Paul could have had something on him which is prohibited.

---

Which he didn't, so I ask again - why did the machine go off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

This will not deter a terrorist, just as guns on an American battleship didn't deter kamikaze pilots.

---

That's like saying the threat of Jail doesn't prevent murders, firstly it does, secondly not all murders (Obviously). Same here, there are far fewer terrorist attacks than there would be otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Well at least your consistent, but it shows how much you think of our ancient civil liberties.

---

The UK doesn't technically have ancient civil liberties, they only date back to 1998. I'd hardly call the American ones ancient either...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So the machine Rand Paul went through was faulty right? so whats wrong with allowing him through a working one.

---

Congestion, you're asking them to hold up the whole flow of people just because one person refuses a speedy pat-down which is already very suspicious? It's pretty time consuming to go to a different machine (They tend to have these in lanes), tell everyone in that lane to back up because this one guy is throwing a hissy-fit and then waste another thirty seconds getting him back to the right lane etc. They also tend not to have spare security officers laying around to do this so they also have to shut down the lane you've just left otherwise it's not covered by security properly and the guy who's thrown off alarms must be escorted there because he hasn't passed security checks not to mention all the legal issues you'd run into doing that in the first place. And all for these so called "Civil Liberties" which are somehow violated by an un-intrusive pat-down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I think you'll find guilty and innocent mean a heck of a lot (see Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution) and if you don't think we ought to make the judgement between guilty and innocent, then what can I say other than thats just really really sad. As Gomme commented, whats the point in fighting terrorists if you are going to chuck all of our civil liberties down the pan?

---

The belief that you can have a black and then a white is foolish, the shades of grey CANNOT be denied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

He's not being uncooperative, he's simply asking to walk through the scanner again because it was wrong.

---

Think about it this way, assuming the machines tend to be accurate (We cannot assume otherwise as that is speculation) that means there is a high probability that the scanner will simply go off again and that a pat-down will be required regardless, so on average more time would be spent with allowing a VERY time intensive rescan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Oh but its better to be safe than sorry yeah! strange how quickly you change from one to the other.

---

I don't understand what you're trying to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

who rightly in my eyes feels very strongly about his civil liberties.

---

You're saying that those who feel strongly about civil liberties ought to be given more slack than others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Thank you for being honest that you believe in corpus juris 'justice' (if you can call it that). Personally I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

---

A pat-down is suspicion of guilt not guilt, in fact it's barely that - A strip search is suspicion of guilt a JAIL SENTENCE is guilt.