Senator Rand Paul detained at US airport

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

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.

---

Evidence for this is..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

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

---

I'm sorry to be patronising, but wow I can't believe you've just said this, and you're wanting to debate civil liberties with me? I'd suggest you take some time to look at our constitution and the easy-to-find documents which gurantee our freedom, then we can have a proper, thoughtful discussion on whether or not we ought to be treated guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

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.

---

If the machine is broken, then naturally it [the lane] would have to be closed down and people diverted to another machine which would be far faster and easier than keeping open the broken machine, and then groping every passenger who passes through when the machine (predictably) goes off every single time due to a fault.

So i'm afraid the congestion or time argument is a non-argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

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

---

Ah yes right, I mean you've made no comment on the value of a constitution you didn't know existed and still don't know exists, along with rights you appear to think arrived in 1998 from Anthony Blair's Human Rights Act so a nice vague comment (like this one) is very well fitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

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.

---

But we can assume otherwise because the machine was wrong, now for what reasons it was wrong we've debated (personally I think they are on a random setting, something which the TSA denies) but it was wrong in the case with Senator Rand Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

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

---

Damn right I am, if your fine with a 'non-intrusive pat down' then by all means have yourself patted down even if you yourself know you are innocent and are only being used to make an example of. Meanwhile, those of us who care about our civil liberties like Senator Rand Paul and who know the machine thats just gone off is wrong and I am right can ask to go through the scanner again.

And if we're wrong, then we'll be red faced - if not (as is the case) then the TSA will be red faced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

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.

---

And we do innocent until proven guilty here, not guilty until proven innocent. A pat down assumes and says that I have something on my person that I do not, as is the case with Senator Rand Paul. Indeed, I can't even believe we're debating this still as it was proven that Rand Paul was right and the TSA was wrong hence why they decided to detain him instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Evidence for this is..

---

Look at countries with no punishment system, now look at their murder rate, no look at our country and OUR murder rate. Well done, you just learnt something a two year old knew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I'd suggest you take some time to look at our constitution

---

I'd love to, problem.. WE DO NOT HAVE ONE. So drop the high and mighty attitude.

All we have is a whole load of laws, many of them irrelavent and most of them never enforced e.g. celebration of Christmas disallowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If the machine is broken, then naturally it [the lane] would have to be closed down and people diverted to another machine which would be far faster and easier than keeping open the broken machine, and then groping every passenger who passes through when the machine (predictably) goes off every single time due to a fault.

---

Well if it does start going off more than once in a row then I'm sure they will, but they can (As you put it) *grope* the first person (As I've said it's a pat-down not a strip search, the Police only need reasonable suspicion for one of those).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So i'm afraid the congestion or time argument is a non-argument.

---

isso

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

But we can assume otherwise because the machine was wrong, now for what reasons it was wrong we've debated (personally I think they are on a random setting, something which the TSA denies) but it was wrong in the case with Senator Rand Paul.

---

I believe the machine is set on random because a couple of people I know set it off out of the THOUSANDS of people who go through the same machine in a day and do not. But because these people who I can be certain could never be terrorists it's obviously random.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

And we do innocent until proven guilty here, not guilty until proven innocent. A pat down assumes and says that I have something on my person that I do not, as is the case with Senator Rand Paul. Indeed, I can't even believe we're debating this still as it was proven that Rand Paul was right and the TSA was wrong hence why they decided to detain him instead.

---

As I have iterated PATDOWN != Guilt, Alarms give suspicion of guilt, and in order to verify this suspicion they do a patdown. Now, if these so called "randomised" scanners when set off were used as assumption of guilt then they'd cart you straight to Guantanamo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

As I have iterated PATDOWN != Guilt, Alarms give suspicion of guilt, and in order to verify this suspicion they do a patdown. Now, if these so called "randomised" scanners when set off were used as assumption of guilt then they'd cart you straight to Guantanamo.

---

This is an interesting way to look at how guilt can be assumed, but one problem with modern day hypothetical systems is exactly that - they are based on assumptions, and this one in particular is built on fear itself. An innocent man completely destroys the assumption of guilt, making the build up completely pointless and self-destructive, because nothing is learnt from it. Undertaker does have an interesting argument - we imprison people based on extreme paranoia - that everyone can be and should be assumed to be a terrorist until proven innocent, which goes against the original American doctrine that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

It's one of the many woes of modern day living, we fear people who are not ourselves, because anyone who is not you is evil and can not be trusted.

K before I write, don't expect a reply because you won't get one but whatever.

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?

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.

---

What is wrong with you, really? What ******* good is walking through a scanner going to do? As you say, if it detects it one time, chances are it will detect it again. Even if he doesn't have anything dangerous or whatever, the scanner should go off again (since whatever was setting it off will still be there).

You always claim this how human rights and whatever, but would you argue that case if you had lost family members due to a concealed object? Not necessarily an airport, it could be anywhere. Also, hey why should they have detectors in supermarkets to check people don't steal things? I mean for god sake, the huge majority won't steal something, and then sometimes they go off even when you have paid for things - it is an outrage!!! It isn't but it makes sense to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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).



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.

---

Why not cut out the need to do the scanner twice (check my above post for a very simply explanation on why this isn't really necessary). Why not just accept that the safety of people must come first? Mind you, Ron Paul is that prat that effectively blamed the Americans for 9/11, so I wouldn't be surprised if his son is just as idiotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...S-airport.html

Ron Paul's son, Rand, detained at US airport

Senator Rand Paul, the son of the libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul, was detained by guards at a Tennessee airport on Monday after apparently refusing to submit to a full body pat-down.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...d_2099142b.jpg
Senator Rand Paul (left) apparently refused to submit to a full body search at a US airport

About time somebody stood upto the government on this, its a gross abuse of power. Jesse Ventura tried taking the TSA to court a while back but failed due to a legal loophole - but either way we ought to fight back rather than be treated like sheep and groped at the airport under the guise of 'the terrorists are everywhere!!'. Standing for what you believe runs strong in the Paul family.

Thoughts?

---

May I ask if David Cameron did such a thing and got away with it you would be going mental too? I bet you would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Jesus Christ - he offered to go through the scanner again to make sure, they refused, why is this? see above.



He offered to go through the scanner again, a very simple request which would have proven whether Rand Paul was correct or the TSA - the TSA refused, because it was obvious he was not a security threat either because as he states; the machines are not very good or the machines are being set off randomly which is nothing to do with security at all and is a violation of somebodies rights as they are being searched purely on a random basis.

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

---

What if he happens to have a certain kind of metal cuff links? Hey that might have set it off. And why was it obvious he wasn't a security threat? How do you intend we pick out who a more likely terrorist suspect is? Go by the medias stereotype? Sounds like that is what you are doing right now, "Mr. I will use the media in everyone of my arguments for paranoia". I mean it isn't unheard of for people to use things such as babies to carry bombs for them, but hey lets just go by your idea? Unless you are half cast, with a beard then it is against your human rights to be patted down. Good one.

----

Sorry Dan, but you do come out with some crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Look at countries with no punishment system, now look at their murder rate, no look at our country and OUR murder rate. Well done, you just learnt something a two year old knew.

---

Punishment system for what? what on earth are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

I'd love to, problem.. WE DO NOT HAVE ONE. So drop the high and mighty attitude.

All we have is a whole load of laws, many of them irrelavent and most of them never enforced e.g. celebration of Christmas disallowed.

---

Well done, you've just explained how our constitution works and what it is without even realising it. See also: the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta and other important documents which are our constitution, then come back to me and start talking about constitutional issues instead of pretending we don't have one when we do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Well if it does start going off more than once in a row then I'm sure they will, but they can (As you put it) *grope* the first person (As I've said it's a pat-down not a strip search, the Police only need reasonable suspicion for one of those).

---

Rand Paul wasn't guilty, therefore why did he require a pat down? because of a random machine? thats not the correct grounds to search somebody under, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

I believe the machine is set on random because a couple of people I know set it off out of the THOUSANDS of people who go through the same machine in a day and do not. But because these people who I can be certain could never be terrorists it's obviously random.

As I have iterated PATDOWN != Guilt, Alarms give suspicion of guilt, and in order to verify this suspicion they do a patdown. Now, if these so called "randomised" scanners when set off were used as assumption of guilt then they'd cart you straight to Guantanamo.

---

So its set on random, therefore we go back to this - if it is random and is being set off without any real evidence for patting somebody down (as you claim Rand Paul was suspected due to the alarm going off) then why should he be patted down when he is clearly not of guilt nor is a suspect.

It is a very simple concept, something you keep wanting to avoid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

K before I write, don't expect a reply because you won't get one but whatever.

---

Charming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

What is wrong with you, really? What ******* good is walking through a scanner going to do? As you say, if it detects it one time, chances are it will detect it again. Even if he doesn't have anything dangerous or whatever, the scanner should go off again (since whatever was setting it off will still be there).

---

I was about to ask the same of you - as it has been established he had nothing on him therefore the scanner had no reason to go off, it was either random (in which he asked for another scan to vertify this, but was refused) or was faulty. I really do not understand whats so hard to understand about this, its not as if he demanded another scan and then it turned out he did have something on him.

He was right, the TSA were wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

You always claim this how human rights and whatever, but would you argue that case if you had lost family members due to a concealed object? Not necessarily an airport, it could be anywhere. Also, hey why should they have detectors in supermarkets to check people don't steal things? I mean for god sake, the huge majority won't steal something, and then sometimes they go off even when you have paid for things - it is an outrage!!! It isn't but it makes sense to do so.

---

What if i've lost family members in a car accident? ought cars be only allowed to travel at 10mph? ought cars to be banned? the paranoia from you lot concerning terrorism is incredible, whats even more ridiculous is that the actual threats to this countrys national security (IRA terrorists, vast in numbers) were let out over a decade ago because of a 'peace agreement' which if you read about you'd no doubt support.

If you're really concerned about terrorism and security, you'd bang on about this day in and day out - but I doubt you even are aware of the circumstances around this, or what i'm even talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

Why not cut out the need to do the scanner twice (check my above post for a very simply explanation on why this isn't really necessary). Why not just accept that the safety of people must come first? Mind you, Ron Paul is that prat that effectively blamed the Americans for 9/11, so I wouldn't be surprised if his son is just as idiotic.

---

What safety? there was no issue of safety with Rand Paul. The machine and TSA were wrong, and he was right. Where is the safety concern and threat to national security there? all I see is a red faced TSA wanting to save face because either they are lying about the machines being on a random setting or the machines are faulty which doesn't bode well for national security now, does it?

As for Ron Paul - no, the man behind the attacks said it; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver as did CIA officals (see blowback).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

May I ask if David Cameron did such a thing and got away with it you would be going mental too? I bet you would.

---

I would praise Mr. Cameron for standing up for his civil liberties and would be looking forward to his government restoring our civil liberties, that, however, is a mere fairytale and won't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

What if he happens to have a certain kind of metal cuff links? Hey that might have set it off. And why was it obvious he wasn't a security threat? How do you intend we pick out who a more likely terrorist suspect is? Go by the medias stereotype? Sounds like that is what you are doing right now, "Mr. I will use the media in everyone of my arguments for paranoia". I mean it isn't unheard of for people to use things such as babies to carry bombs for them, but hey lets just go by your idea?

---

How was it obvious? it wasn't obvious, hence why he asked to go through the scanner again to prove he wasn't. Its not as if he's standing there refusing to go through either the scanner or have a pat down, he simply requested to go through the scanner a second time - why was he refused? see above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

Unless you are half cast, with a beard then it is against your human rights to be patted down. Good one.

---

I spoke out against racial profiling earlier in the thread, racial profiling is of course something your warped logic leads to in time (because all the brown skinned people are terrorists right, give me a break).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

Sorry Dan, but you do come out with some crap.

---

..having read your posts in spam i'd seriously contest that notion.

Basically he sounds like a spoilt brat or has a big ego to me. Why on earth did he make a fuss about something that everyone is subjected to - was a good avenue for publicity, though. He has made a huge fuss about nothing under the guise of 'liberty'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Basically he sounds like a spoilt brat or has a big ego to me. Why on earth did he make a fuss about something that everyone is subjected to - was a good avenue for publicity, though. He has made a huge fuss about nothing under the guise of 'liberty'.

---

Ah, so speaks the one who supports holding people for weeks without being charged with a crime or under 'terrorism' - all in the name of our safety, of course!

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin