Rand Paul detained by TSA in Nashville Airport.

[mav]

I'm not feeling soory at all. My money sez Rand was looking for that fight.

I wouldn't bet against you.

I'm not feeling sorry either. Actually, I am glad it happened to him. Perhaps some of the other members can get their head out of their butt long enough to do something about all this crap.

[Pain103]

If he doesn't like it he can always drive. That's what they would tell anybody else.

[Warbird]

I still don't see what all the fuss is about...I think we all know and have known for a LONG TIME that the TSA is out of control (not to mention inefficient, ineffective and and a few other things I could say)...this is but one of many, many, many examples of the idiocy that IS the TSA.

Moreover, I'm not going to spend one moment feeling sorry when some member of Congress (either house) gets caught up in the nonsense laws and rules and federal bureaucracy the rest of us have to contend with every damn day.

For one, Rand Paul was not in the senate when the rules in place were put there. Now that is if you believe that all of the rules followed by the TSA are currently codified by law. In fact they are not. Most of their rules are general in nature. Meaning specifics are put in place by regulation doled out by the appointed leaders of the department while in power. Secondly, he has been an outspoken critic of these rules since entering the senate. He wasn't taking this on because he thought he deserved special privilege. He was taking this on because he thinks the rules in place are not good ones for ANY American.

Lastly I will say that Paul never used the trump card or even mentioned it. The Constitution prohibits members of Congress from being detained on their way to Washington, D.C. It is spelled out very specifically. Yes he was going to do a speech that morning, but he was also going back for session that afternoon. Now that would have been seen as seeking privilege, though it would have been his right.

[RobertNashville]

For one, Rand Paul was not in the senate when the rules in place were put there.

I didn't say he was...my point was that I don't and I'm not going to feel sorry for any member of Congress that gets caught up in the rules and regulations that the rest of us normal people have to live under, whether or not the particular member had anything to do with enacting the legislation/rules/regulations.

Now that is if you believe that all of the rules followed by the TSA are currently codified by law. In fact they are not. Most of their rules are general in nature. Meaning specifics are put in place by regulation doled out by the appointed leaders of the department while in power.

So??? I didn't see a need to go into detail about the precise evolution of the TSA or its rules or its policies or how those rules and policies are carried out/interpreted by individual TSA goons (supervisors or peons)...Congress created it; the rules followed then the policies then the interpretation and actual administration of them...that's usually how it goes; that process doesn't make the rules/policies/interpretations any less enforceable.

Secondly, he has been an outspoken critic of these rules since entering the senate.He wasn't taking this on because he thought he deserved special privilege. He was taking this on because he thinks the rules in place are not good ones for ANY American.

I know he's been a critic but other than the irony of him having a problem with the TSA I don't see why that makes any difference. His actual motives are known only to him...I wouldn't be surprised if he did this to give his daddy something to sink his teeth into - from what I've read, RP IS using this incidence as a fundraising tool so maybe that was the real motive???

Lastly I will say that Paul never used the trump card or even mentioned it. The Constitution prohibits members of Congress from being detained on their way to Washington, D.C. It is spelled out very specifically. Yes he was going to do a speech that morning, but he was also going back for session that afternoon. Now that would have been seen as seeking privilege, though it would have been his right.

I applaud him for not seeking to use his special privilege (although I don't think politicians should have special privileges but I guess that's another topic). That said, it doesn't change the fact that I think this whole incident is just the proverbial tempest in a teapot and that the story has gotten far more coverage than it deserves which is really all I was saying above.

Edited January 25, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest mikedwood]

I think Rand Paul is one of the good guys and the TSA is way out of control.

I can't believe in 2012 just to travel by air that people have to strip and get searched. 4th amendment out the freakin window. It's just the begining. The terrorists have won. Now it's coming to train stations, malls and random road searches. And you know what? The white tailed deer will kill more Americans this year than terrorists.

[RobertNashville]

I think Rand Paul is one of the good guys and the TSA is way out of control.

I can't believe in 2012 just to travel by air that people have to strip and get searched. 4th amendment out the freakin window. It's just the begining. The terrorists have won. Now it's coming to train stations, malls and random road searches. And you know what? The white tailed deer will kill more Americans this year than terrorists.

The TSA is out of control but I don't think we needed this incident with Mr. Paul to show that.

As for the fourth amendment; we've had the TSA for what, eight year or so? Has anybody sued them for violation of the fourth? If so, what's been the outcome?

Anyone can call anything unconstitutional but it we have a proscribed method to address such thinks; until someone uses that method nothing is going to change.

[Guest mikedwood]

The TSA is out of control but I don't think we needed this incident with Mr. Paul to show that.

As for the fourth amendment; we've had the TSA for what, eight year or so? Has anybody sued them for violation of the fourth? If so, what's been the outcome?

Anyone can call anything unconstitutional but it we have a proscribed method to address such thinks; until someone uses that method nothing is going to change.

The incident with Senator Rand Paul was just the latest we have heard about. There have been many more.

Can't really give it the true unconstiutional test, but can't get it in court because it is a "matter of national security" so it gets no day in court. Sooo.

Plus interestingly enough to me the TSA isn't police and they aren't military, they aren't sworn in they are just????????

Holy $%^ a court has ruled that they are legal. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/07/15/federal-court-rules-that-tsa-naked-scans-are-constitutional/

That's crazy! Shread the Bill of Rights.

Edited January 27, 2012 by mikedwood

[TMF]

Article in The Tennessean regarding the release of the video from TSA:

Nashville airport video doesn't show 'irate' Sen. Rand Paul | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

A security video of U.S. Sen. Rand Paul at a Nashville International Airport checkpoint doesn’t show him being “irate,” as police asserted.

An incident report describes the police response as encountering “a passenger being irate.” But videos released by the Metro Airport Authority late Wednesday show Paul entering the security line at 7:57 a.m. and then alternately sitting and standing in a glass cubicle while being watched by authorities. Paul appears to make a few phone calls as well.