Senator Rand Paul detained at US airport

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telegraph

The younger Mr Paul, who like his father is a fierce advocate of civil liberties, was reportedly held at Nashville International Airport by agents from the Transport Security Administration (TSA), an agency he has repeatedly criticised for encroaching on Americans' freedoms.

A spokeswoman for the Kentucky Senator said he was being held "indefinitely" after he set off an alarm in an image scanner used at the airport's security check point.

The 49-year-old reportedly told agents that there was a fault in the machine and refused to submit to a physical search.

His father's campaign tweeted: "My son [@]@SenRandPaul[/@] being detained by TSA for refusing full body pat-down after anomaly in body scanner in Nashville. More details coming."

In a separate Facebook post post, the campaign said that the senator had asked to be scanned a second time but that agents refused and insisted on a full pat-down.

Supporters of the Republican hopeful, whose campaign is centred around personal liberty, erupted in fury on Twitter and other social media sites.

There was no immediate comment from the TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security - the federal department created to defend the US from terrorism in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

In a Congressional hearing last year, the senator said the agency carried out needlessly "invasive" searches on young children.

---

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?

If he's set off an alarm on the scanner then clearly there's an issue and he needs to be searched.

That's like saying a member of the taliban should refuse a pat-down for explosives because it's an infringement of his rights despite the fact he's already set the alarms off and they can see plastic explosives molded around his body.

I have to agree with chippie on this one. This is in my view making a mountain out of a molehill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

If he's set off an alarm on the scanner then clearly there's an issue and he needs to be searched.

That's like saying a member of the taliban should refuse a pat-down for explosives because it's an infringement of his rights despite the fact he's already set the alarms off and they can see plastic explosives molded around his body.

---

Yes but he offered to go through the scanner again, I would have seen no harm in that if he was cleared. Could have even done it a few more times to make sure. He offered himself, but was refused that. Also, they even searched a 6 year old girl patting her down, as if she would be considered as a terrorist.

Now I have nothing against this thing of patting down and have been myself through the numerous times I travel every couple of months, but I assume this was A. a fully body scan we're talking about which can detect issues, which is what happens in US airports unlike some other airports worldwide and B. an issue that some people, including him violates the rights of a person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

If he's set off an alarm on the scanner then clearly there's an issue and he needs to be searched.

That's like saying a member of the taliban should refuse a pat-down for explosives because it's an infringement of his rights despite the fact he's already set the alarms off and they can see plastic explosives molded around his body.

---

Couldn't have put it better myself, + Rep.

A PAT DOWN? OH GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I mean not wanting a cavity search fair enough, but rubbing his shoulders to make sure he hasn't got knives all over him is really not that awful

Do they really think a senator is a threat to national security? Why couldn't they just scan him again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

If he's set off an alarm on the scanner then clearly there's an issue and he needs to be searched.

That's like saying a member of the taliban should refuse a pat-down for explosives because it's an infringement of his rights despite the fact he's already set the alarms off and they can see plastic explosives molded around his body.

---

Very well said. If he has nothing to hide, then why refuse to be searched? But then again, he asked for a second scan. So, I don't see why not scan him again and if he's cleared, then there'll be no need for a full body pat-down. And seriously, the security is just too strictesp. to foreigners.And the way they treat foreigners is just terrible. Not like the possibility that each foreigner is a terrorist is very high. It fluctuates, like one in a million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

If he's set off an alarm on the scanner then clearly there's an issue and he needs to be searched.

That's like saying a member of the taliban should refuse a pat-down for explosives because it's an infringement of his rights despite the fact he's already set the alarms off and they can see plastic explosives molded around his body.

---

So where was this issue/explosive device that he had on him? whats that? there was no device and it was a malfunction!?

The fact you are bringing up the Taliban (which isn't even Al-Qaeda) concerning a US Senator at an airport just shows how paranoid you lot really are of the fairytales you've been fed.

“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.” - James Madison

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzk7UjhGDtA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So where was this issue/explosive device that he had on him? whats that? there was no device and it was a malfunction!?

---

Oh sorry, let's make an amendment stating that every-time we suspect a malfunction we let them try again even if we suspect explosives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The fact you are bringing up the Taliban (which isn't even Al-Qaeda) concerning a US Senator at an airport just shows how paranoid you lot really are of the fairytales you've been fed.

---

I used a random extreme example for dramatic effect and suddenly you're a qualified psychologist and you've identified that I've been brainwashed by the governments into believing that I should be scared of terrorists? I think I might have legitimate reason for being scared of terrorists to be perfectly honest. I don't see how a US senator should be exempt from a search either, you're always one for telling off politicians when they're exempt from something everyone else isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Oh sorry, let's make an amendment stating that every-time we suspect a malfunction we let them try again even if we suspect explosives.

---

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 used a random extreme example for dramatic effect and suddenly you're a qualified psychologist and you've identified that I've been brainwashed by the governments into believing that I should be scared of terrorists? I think I might have legitimate reason for being scared of terrorists to be perfectly honest. I don't see how a US senator should be exempt from a search either, you're always one for telling off politicians when they're exempt from something everyone else isn't.

---

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 -: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.

---

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 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

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…

---

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.

It also takes a matter of seconds for a completely non invasive pat-down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

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:-

or they have purposely set the machines so that they go off randomly

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

at an airport just shows how paranoid you lot really are of the fairytales you've been fed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I'm fed up of hypocrites (see internet regulation thread)

---

It's just as sweet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

It's just as sweet.

---

Oh thats it! you got me! :rolleyes:

Please see this - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ul_112889.html

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.

---

The TSA offically denies it [the charge], but insiders from the TSA say otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

It's just as sweet.

---

Hahahaha! love this so much...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

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'

---

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.

"I didn't stab him, you must have seen it wrong. Let me do it again and then we'll know for sure"

Extreme example obv but the idea that anyone can just say "nah that's wrong" when they're flagged for a security breach is flat out stupid. Also you've confused the actual ideology of individual liberty (being allowed to do as you please when it affects no-one else) with anarchy (no-one can stop me no matter who or what I may affect) when you claim that this is a matter of liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

"I didn't stab him, you must have seen it wrong. Let me do it again and then we'll know for sure"

Extreme example obv but the idea that anyone can just say "nah that's wrong" when they're flagged for a security breach is flat out stupid. Also you've confused the actual ideology of individual liberty (being allowed to do as you please when it affects no-one else) with anarchy (no-one can stop me no matter who or what I may affect) when you claim that this is a matter of liberty.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Please see this - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ul_112889.html

---

Procedure is procedure and human error is what costs lives. More lives are lost by pilots disobeying inflight computers and ATC due to their "Better judgement and discretion" than those who follow procedure to the letter and ignore discretion so that risk is reduced. By ALWAYS doing a pat down you assure that nothing is ever missed.

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.

---

What's the use of walking back through a malfunctioning scanner when you can simply have a 10 second pat down search?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Procedure is procedure and human error is what costs lives. More lives are lost by pilots disobeying inflight computers and ATC due to their "Better judgement and discretion" than those who follow procedure to the letter and ignore discretion so that risk is reduced. By ALWAYS doing a pat down you assure that nothing is ever missed.

---

Why don't we pat everyone down then even if the scanner doesn't go off is what you are arguing right? why not have everybody strip off before flying and carry ID cards aswell then?

...because of course, we don't want to miss anything!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

What's the use of walking back through a malfunctioning scanner when you can simply have a 10 second pat down search?

---

You might prefer a pat down, those of us who prefer to be treated innocent until proven guilty prefer the scanner.

I ask again, whats the problem with the scanner request?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Why don't we pat everyone down then even if the scanner doesn't go off is what you are arguing right? why not have everybody strip off before flying and carry ID cards aswell then?

---

Well there isn't the time for it so instead just pat down those who set of the scanner and random pat downs of any other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I ask again, whats the problem with the scanner request?

---

Human Error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

You might prefer a pat down, those of us who prefer to be treated innocent until proven guilty prefer the scanner.

---

Patdown reveals evidence of guilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Why don't we pat everyone down then even if the scanner doesn't go off is what you are arguing right? why not have everybody strip off before flying and carry ID cards aswell then? because of course, we don't want to miss anything!



You might prefer a pat down, those of us who prefer to be treated innocent until proven guilty prefer the scanner.

I ask again, whats the problem with the scanner request?

---

He was innocent until the scanner went off which then proved him guilty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Well there isn't the time for it so instead just pat down those who set of the scanner and random pat downs of any other people.

---

But surely human lives are worth an extra ten minutes so we can fight the terrorist threat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Human Error.

---

A machine will not do human error, either the machines are faulty and are a security risk in themselves or they are on a random setting in which case the TSA are telling lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

He was innocent until the scanner went off which then proved him guilty

---

Er wrong actually, because he was found to have nothing on him. So for the hundredth time, either the machines are faulty (a security risk) or they are on a random setting (which isnt related to security).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

But surely human lives are worth an extra ten minutes so we can fight the terrorist threat?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

A machine will not do human error, either the machines are faulty and are a security risk in themselves or they are on a random setting in which case the TSA are telling lies.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

He was innocent until the scanner went off which then proved him guilty

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Er wrong actually, because he was found to have nothing on him. So for the hundredth time, either the machines are faulty (a security risk) or they are on a random setting (which isnt related to security).

---

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 abide by their regulations.

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.