TSA detains Senator for refusing pat-down

[ECSNorway]

Proving that some animals are not more equal than others, the TSA briefly detained Senator Rand Paul (R-KY, son of presidential candidate Ron Paul) after he set off a body-scanner at an airport and then refused to submit to a pat-down search.
The senator was denied entry to the airport secure zone and missed a flight to DC.
He was able to re-book on a later flight and at that point cleared security without problems.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71818.html
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Wiregeek]

http://jalopnik.com/58784...and-paul-detained-by-tsa

Amusingly relevant, if not, unfortunately, conclusive.

http://dailycaller.com/20...to-end-random-pat-downs/

Rand Paul has stood against the TSA for a while now - not surprising that he'd be treated poorly by them.

The Jalopnik article indicates that his use of the x-ray scanner tripped an alarm, and when he requested a second run through vs. a pat-down, he was denied, and later escorted from the screening area by local PD..
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[robkelk]

I'm surprised they were allowed to make him miss his flight. (In Canada, it's a criminal offense to detain a Member of Parliament who is performing his duties, and "returning to the capital" sure looks like something that's covered in that category...)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[CattyNebulart]

The Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.

- Art. I, Sec. 6, Cl. 1 of the United States Constitution

... So no the TSA shouldn't be allowed to do that, but they argue that it is fine since he was not arrested, just detained.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[ordnance11]

List of exemptions

Members of Congress: Congressional leaders traveling with a
security detail (the speaker of the House, the House minority leader,
the Senate majority leader, etc.) are allowed to bypass security
checkpoints when flying on commercial jets, according to the TSA. All
other members of Congress are expected to stand in line and wait.

So the TSA was within their SOP to hold him until the matter was resolved. There had been cases..especially at LAX when a passenger set off the alarm at the security checkpoint and was inside the terminal on their way to the boarding gate. The terminal had to be shut down, causing shambolic chaos. So it would be case of dammed if you do or dammed if you don't for the TSA.
Edit just found something interesting...TSA is rolling out a pilot program called precheck...
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/participation.shtm
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

Personally, I think they should just do away with the patdowns altogether. They don't do anything.

Seriously, how many people terrorists have been detained this way since body scans and pat downs were implemented? There was only that one incident with the underwear bomber. Granted, body scans and patdowns weren't mandatory then, but I don't see it as a real deterrent either, otherwise SOMETHING would have happened by now. Isn't part of the terrorists schtick is that they want the public to KNOW that they are ACTIVELY TRYING?

[Jinx999]

IMHO, the real change has been that it used to be believed that the safest thing for passengers to do during a hijack was to sit tight and not try to be a hero. That's no longer the case.

[ECSNorway]

I'm surprised they were allowed to make him miss his flight. (In Canada, it's a criminal offense to detain a Member of Parliament who is performing his duties, and "returning to the capital" sure looks like something that's covered in that category...)

They're not allowed to arrest him, as someone else has pointed out, but a brief detention and a denial of entry to the security zone is well within what's permitted in the USA. As far as I can tell they only held him for a couple of hours, probably for reasons that an honest supervisor would list as "he annoyed me". At which point someone may well have reminded him of the rules, and whatever caused security to react to him the first time didn't happen when he went to board the later flight, so...
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[ECSNorway]

IMHO, the real change has been that it used to be believed that the safest thing for passengers to do during a hijack was to sit tight and not try to be a hero. That's no longer the case.

It's always been the policy of some countries (Russia, FrEx) to assume that the hostage is dead as of the moment of the hijack, and that any that are rescued alive are a bonus. While the US govt is not adopting this view, it seems to be starting to become the popular assumption anyway.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[ordnance11]

Considering that most terrorists nowadays consider it their mission to kill as many infidels before going to paradise or killing them off if they don't get a ransom, you might as well take a few of them before you go down yourself.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[CattyNebulart]

It's helpful to consider the idea behind Article 1, Section 6, and that is to prevent the government from say barricading all roads into DC and turning people around while several troublesome congress critters are out of the city and then arranging some important votes. That sort of thing happens in less established democracies, as well as in good old England during the bad old days (hence the rule).

Also it is a concern that the machine didn't go of the second time, as I understand it the senator has a medical implant made of metal that should set these detectors of, so this essentially means the machine he went through the second time wasn't working. The fact that some are ridiculing him for calling for an investigation into this is worrisome.

Personally, I think they should just do away with the patdowns altogether. They don't do anything.

Agreed. Personally the suggestion from the Paul's to get rid of the TSA is almost enough to make me vote for them if I could. I strongly disagree with their economic policies, but civil liberties are more important anyway. (and even there I don't fully agree with them)
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Black Aeronaut]

Also it is a concern that the machine didn't go of the second time, as I understand it the senator has a medical implant made of metal that should set these detectors of, so this essentially means the machine he went through the second time wasn't working. The fact that some are ridiculing him for calling for an investigation into this is worrisome.

I call it operator error... or perhaps even BOFH-ism.  The pictures these scanners paint is a pretty vivid one, hence the controversy over them.  (I certainly wouldn't want the job.  About two-thirds of these people are the sort I wouldn't want to see naked after a meal, gender not withstanding.)  Seriously, as clear a picture as these things paint, the operator would have been able to tell that it was some sort of implant.  Pretty sure they go through some sort of training.  ("This is what a medical implant looks like... and this is something else that is suspect...")  If not, then that's a huge and glaring oversight that needs to be corrected immediately, no matter whether one is in favor of the TSA or not.

Personally, I think they should just do away with the patdowns altogether. They don't do anything.

Agreed.
Personally the suggestion from the Paul's to get rid of the TSA is
almost enough to make me vote for them if I could. I strongly disagree
with their economic policies, but civil liberties are more important
anyway. (and even there I don't fully agree with them)

I
wouldn't vote for him on that point alone.  These days, the Senate and
the House are wielding so much power that I think that more scrutiny
must be focused on who we elect as our representatives rather than our
President.  (Not that HE shouldn't be scrutinized any less than he is
now.)

[Wiregeek]

http://www.washingtontime...ions-undermine-security/

Rand Paul speaks.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Black Aeronaut]

And quite eloquently so.

You know, I never really minded some of the basic stuff the TSA checks. They X-ray your carry-on, shoes, and electronic devices to see if they are hiding any detonators. No sharp and pointy objects are permitted. No containers of liquids beyond a certain size. (I'm glaring at you, Underwear Bomber.) They run you through a metal detector. And then that's it. You slip your shoes back on, stuff your laptop back into your bag, your loose change into your pockets, and you hit the tarmac.

Honestly, I was never really troubled much by those measures. They're reasonable, and are deterrent enough that only someone that's truly determined to cause mayhem will even try it.

But then they start with all this business with body scanners and patting down kids. Utterly disgusting and totally ineffective. Or rather no more effective than the measures from before. And I'm pretty sure that this whole thing was just to get the government to buy these stupid body scanners. Who makes them, anyhow? Can't be very many manufacturers in the market.

[CattyNebulart]

You know, I never really minded some of the basic stuff the TSA checks. They X-ray your carry-on, shoes, and electronic devices to see if they are hiding any detonators. No sharp and pointy objects are permitted. No containers of liquids beyond a certain size. (I'm glaring at you, Underwear Bomber.) They run you through a metal detector. And then that's it. You slip your shoes back on, stuff your laptop back into your bag, your loose change into your pockets, and you hit the tarmac.

The radiation from the x-ray machine will fry laptops within a few months for frequent fliers, and there is some indications that the scanners are more dangerous from a radiological perspective than the flight.

The no liquid/sharp things is a major problem for those with medical conditions (eg diabetics), and if you got a metal implant 30-40 years ago chances are you don't have TSA acceptable documentation for it since it was not the norm back then and those people can't fly, ever.

It is worth noting that Israeli-air gives people real knives on the flight, because they are more interested in real security than theatre. (Terrorist will always be vastly outnumbered, and after 9-11 most passengers will attack if given a chance.)

Honestly, I was never really troubled much by those measures. They're reasonable, and are deterrent enough that only someone that's truly determined to cause mayhem will even try it.

Reasonable would mean that they are defensible from a cost benefit analysis, and they are not. Replacing the security checks with blood-pressure screening would save many more lives, and the hassle is causing people to avoid travelling into the US, and people within the US are less likely to fly costing the tourism industry billions.

Reasonable wouldn't mean that normal travellers be detained for hours having to give details of their live story and trip as well as all the people encountered each time they travel to a distinctively hostile officer. (happened to me the last time I entered the US, and the times before that where similar. I now only travel to/within the US if I absolutely have to. Of course after that I got expedited through security so I wouldn't, miss my flight... schizophrenic much?)

If terrorist really wanted to cause mayhem they would bomb the long lines for the security scanners.

But then they start with all this business with body scanners and patting down kids. Utterly disgusting and totally ineffective. Or rather no more effective than the measures from before. And I'm pretty sure that this whole thing was just to get the government to buy these stupid body scanners. Who makes them, anyhow? Can't be very many manufacturers in the market.

The scanners are a pretty blatant from of corruption it's basicly a former TSA chief that is selling them.

tl;dr; The scanners and procedures are not a hassle if you are a normal with male without medical conditions and your name doesn't happen to sound similar to one one the tens of thousands of people on watchlists.

By the way fun fact, if your name is on the no-fly list and you are under 13 you may still fly at the airline's discretion.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Bob Schroeck]

and the hassle is causing people to avoid travelling into the US, and people within the US are less likely to fly costing the tourism industry billions.

Just as anecdotal evidence, I'll note that this is certainly true in our case. Ever since the TSA went past taking off your shoes, we've forgone flying. The last two times we went to Florida, we took a train, and we've taken all our other vacations at driveable locations.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Rod.H]

I'll just note that if the security at Australian airports start acting like the TSA more people would drive....that's if a small lynch mob don't get to the offending screeners first. It would also effect my job too, 'cos I'd probably start refusing to do any which I'd have to fly to get there.

Heck I know some of small feeder airports down here that have the equipment, don't have the staff to use them, yet still let you get on a plane (Dash-8 to 737 sized) which then flies to a major airport -the main destination for most the passengers- were you get screened on arrival just after you've left the tarmac.

I'll also note that I've long decided that if I've to ever visit the US, I'm entering via either Canada or Mexico mainly in order to avoid LAX.

--Rod.H

[khagler]

I'll also note that I've long decided that if I've to ever visit the US, I'm entering via either Canada or Mexico mainly in order to avoid LAX.

As someone who lives in LA, I'll note that not only do I avoid US airports, if I ever were forced to fly for some reason I'd take a bus to Tijuana and use the airport there.

[robkelk]

Ah, the joys of private flight (and having a close relative with a pilot's licence) - the last five times I've flown, I didn't have to go through any sort of pre-flight check-in at all, and I got to sit in the co-pilot's seat. That's the only way to fly nowadays...

When that isn't an option, I take the train.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Dartz]

I've been pulled over before at London's Gatwick for 'extra attention'.

My laptop set off an alarm (Kerosene, from my shed).... which scared the bejaysus out of me because I just wasn't used to flying. (I've been to London twice and that's it). In fairness to the guy, he was pretty decent about it and tried to be pleasant and reassuring, but I still hated going through the whole rigmarole. Maybe next time I'll go in runners and a cheapo tracksuit with no metal zips in it, or without a belt.

Are there belts with polymer buckles?
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[CattyNebulart]

Are there belts with polymer buckles?

Yes there are but they tend to be el cheepo and mainly aimed at kids. I think I still have the belt that came with some of my toy cars from when I was 7 or so...

Of course you can just print your own.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Logan Darklighter]

CattyNebulart wrote:

Reasonable would mean that they are defensible from a cost benefit analysis, and they are not. Replacing the security checks with blood-pressure screening would save many more lives, and the hassle is causing people to avoid travelling into the US, and people within the US are less likely to fly costing the tourism industry billions.

Wait-a-minute - hang on a sec. I agree with most everything else you said, but you lost me here. Replacing security checks with blood pressure screening? 

Bwah Huh?

[Glidergun]

It wouldn't do anything for stopping terrorism, but it would get some people to go to the doctor about a problem they would otherwise be unaware of. There are so few incidents of terrorism and so many incidents of heart problems that even though it wouldn't do much for any individual person, overall it would prevent more deaths.

[Werehawk]

Catty is making an observation that the benefits of all the security theater involved in TSA security checks is very low and the money wasted in security checks would be far more effectively spent elsewhere and probably save more lives to boot.
Or more simply stated the probability of given individual dying from a heart attack in a flight is far higher than that of becoming a victim of a terror attack...
--Werehawk--
My mom's brief take on upcoming Guatemalan Elections "In last throes of preelection activities. Much loudspeaker vote pleading."

[Logan Darklighter]

Ah. Okay then. Perhaps chalk it up to me forcing myself to stay awake up to the 24 hour mark because I couldn't get to bloody sleep last night or the night before at the proper time so I'm doing the unpleasant business of YANKING my sleep schedule around by the scruff of the metaphorical neck and slamming it into place and saying "STAY!". 

Other than that... 

I'm just... bemused? Yes, yes. That's the word... bemused. ...  By the utterly cock-eyed turn this conversation has taken. (not helped by my ever so slight tendency to ramble when I've been awake this bloody long.) 

Fortunately though, it's now 11:30 PM therefore I can relax and collapse now. Good night all.