Senator Paul is being detained at the Nashville Airport by the TSA

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

.....

TSA is the law of the land, and the Senator is not above it.

........

While I am reticent to encourage repetition. And I certainly do not hold for inequality in the application of law enforcement (are TSA agents "law enforcement" officers?).

How is it so that the TSA establishes law? Where in has it been legislated that TSA policy is the law of the land? Or am I missing something?

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act is what you will want to read.

Rand Paul Just spoke with wolf blitzer regarding the TSA and their invasive safety procedures

Interesting development....

I flew across country and back a few days ago and had to change planes several times in each direction. A total of 5 trips through the TSA circus. I gotta tell 'ya:

This is the worst bunch of spineless buffoons I've ever seen! And it's just getting worse and worse every time I fly! On four of the flights, it was during relatively quiet airport times, and there had to be 30-40 of these idiots all standing around grabbing-ass and goofing off. Realistically, I'd say not more than 2 or 3 of the few dozen monkeys at each 'checkpoint' were paying even the slightest attention to what was going on around them!

And the few that were paying attention were so stupid and inarticulate I actually became more scared of potential terrorists from the experience than had I never seen it with my own eyes. THIS is the best we can do?? How many checkpoints in how many airports across the country are we throwing millions of our tax dollars at - for what!?!? So a couple of melon-heads can grope a toddlers panties or yank granny goodrich from her wheelchair.

Oh please God - make it stop...!

reply to post by Furbs


Sure, show us in "law" where it says that a positive hit on the scanner automatically requires a full pat down, or what constitutes a reasonable cause to pat someone down. Or, show us in the law where the naked body scanners are even mentioned, since they were not in existence when the law was enacted in 2001.

What you refer to has nothing to do with what happened in the airport. The law simply establishes the Agency, and gives it some broad missions to accomplish.

Here's the Full Text

Sections 109 and 110 are what you are looking for, but there isn't anything there of much use.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Furbs

 

That is not a "strawman." What an overused rebuttal.

What I did was point back to the very mission and mandate for that agency. I am also in a government mandated field for government regulations, law enforcement, and disciplinary actions. When we run into a gray area, as a supervisor, you know what I go back to? I go back to our MISSION! The gray areas are not so gray when you remember why you are doing what you are doing. Common Sense becomes very enlightening at that point.

As for changing the law, the guy they were harassing is the very guy most vocal in trying to change said law.

Kind of ironic, but then again, I highly doubt any of them knew he was who he was, so I don't see any big conspiracy, but changing the law is not such a simple solution. Also, the law is not specific in regards to how they operate. Their internal processes and procedures are not laid out by law, and none of us have any say over how they choose to execute the mission mandated by the law that empowers them. It would be very difficult to entirely repeal their mandate, and as long as they are mandated, they can create their own rules and procedures, and none of us have any say in that.

Your initial reply to me was classic strawman.

I stated that the TSA was the lawful. You said they were not. You can't refute that the TSA aren't legally mandated so you decided to build a strawman argument about other issues (mission statements and whatnot) not relating to what I stated. I'm not interested in discussing them, and as such, will not engage in their discussion.

As this argument need not go on, I will not be replying to you regarding the strawman of your argument.

TSA is lawfully mandated. This is a verifiable fact. If you are in the business of arguing against facts, please continue, but I will not be responding.

This sadly does not surprise me at all. I was on a flight this morning returning from Florida from vacation when I saw a member of the TSA pull two elderly people aside and give them a through pat down. Glad to know they are stopping the people who are dangerous and a threat... The world is changing before your eyes, whether you see it or not, it is up to us to do something about it.

Does anyone know of TSA employment statistics by race?
I would like to know more about their hiring practices.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
Does anyone know of TSA employment statistics by race?
I would like to know more about their hiring practices.

Ummm...why?

Why are you bring race into this at all???

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Furbs

 

Sure, show us in "law" where it says that a positive hit on the scanner automatically requires a full pat down, or what constitutes a reasonable cause to pat someone down. Or, show us in the law where the naked body scanners are even mentioned, since they were not in existence when the law was enacted in 2001.

What you refer to has nothing to do with what happened in the airport. The law simply establishes the Agency, and gives it some broad missions to accomplish.

Here's the Full Text

Sections 109 and 110 are what you are looking for, but there isn't anything there of much use.

edit on 23-1-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

Title 49: U.S.C. Chapter 499 subsection 1: 44901 is a GREAT place to start.

If you are going to argue the law, at least understand it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Why? Have YOU flown lately? I think it's a legitimate question.

Nobama has millions of jobs he created - remember!? Well - I think I know where ~1/2 million of those great jobs are...

p.s. check out the statistics in D.C. You might find a correlation. It's not bias or prejudice. Just the facts, m'am...

reply to post by conar


The video with the interview by Rand Paul raises a great topic that has been avoided by the TSA and the media. The pat-down searches are random and without cause. The scanning machines are programmed to go off randomly without even detecting anything. TSA has denied this until now.

This is the equivalent of the Federal Gov't randomly knocking on doors and randomly searching your home for anything illegal.

Our society is getting closer to the prophetic novels like '1984' and 'Brave New World' every day.

reply to post by Furbs


I never said they were not "lawful." You implied that we want the Senator to be "above the law." Well, there is no law that says the Senator must be pulled aside and patted down. There is barely even enough in the act to state that he needs to be screened at all, and there are many exceptions made in that aspect.

In fact, the TSA is not the "law of the land," the Constitution is the reigning law of the land, and it states the Senator cannot be detained.

In fact, the bill states one must be screened, "by 1 or more of the following."

In order to be "above the law," one must first break a law, and then not be held accountable. The Senator didn't break any laws, yet he was turned away anyway? The only people that turned out to be "above the law" are the TSA screeners, who violated the Constitution, and took it upon themselves to create policies and procedures which violate the very notion of liberty in this country, and in this case specifically violate the Constitution in regards to a sitting Senator while in Session!

Reading the bill that you link to by the way, TSA is not considered to be law enforcement. The Secretary is authorized to appoint one law enforcement officer, and the Air Marshall program is expanded, but the screeners are not considered law enforcement officers, and in fact, they are expected to be part of a privately contracted screening agency. So, they are definitetly not "the law." Read it yourself.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
Does anyone know of TSA employment statistics by race?
I would like to know more about their hiring practices.

Ummm...why?

Why are you bring race into this at all???

because we've been raised on the idea that some races are evil, greedy bastards and everyone else is a victim. of course to believe that you have to ignore the people of that evil race, that has had the same treatment as the other "victims" and some political parties are more than happy to do so...on a regular basis, because it ensures votes. racism is RAMPANT in our political process, in our job hiring practices, on our tvs, in our songs, in our comedy acts, etc etc.

surprised you'd even ask that question. clearly denying ignorance is not your strong suit

Originally posted by Outrageo
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Why? Have YOU flown lately? I think it's a legitimate question.

Nobama has millions of jobs he created - remember!? Well - I think I know where ~1/2 million of those great jobs are...

p.s. check out the statistics in D.C. You might find a correlation. It's not bias or prejudice. Just the facts, m'am...

Please...elaborate.

Just what exactly are you trying to imply???

reply to post by Furbs


Here, from your link. TSA screeners are not law enforcement, they are under the supervision of law enforcement, and there is nothing in the law to define exactly how they complete their jobs. The screeners are not law enforcement in any way. The Marshalls are law enforcement.

44901. Screening passengers and property
(a) In General.—The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall provide for the screening of all passengers and property, including United States mail, cargo, carry-on and checked baggage, and other articles, that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air transportation. In the case of flights and flight segments originating in the United States, the screening shall take place before boarding and shall be carried out by a Federal Government employee (as defined in section 2105 of title 5, United States Code), except as otherwise provided in section 44919 or 44920 and except for identifying passengers and baggage for screening under the CAPPS and known shipper programs and conducting positive bag-match programs.

(b) Supervision of Screening.—All screening of passengers and property at airports in the United States where screening is required under this section shall be supervised by uniformed Federal personnel of the Transportation Security Administration who shall have the power to order the dismissal of any individual performing such screening.

(c) Checked Baggage.—A system must be in operation to screen all checked baggage at all airports in the United States as soon as practicable but not later than the 60th day following the date of enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.

(d) Explosive Detection Systems.—

(1) In general.—The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall take all necessary action to ensure that—

(A) explosive detection systems are deployed as soon as possible to ensure that all United States airports described in section 44903(c) have sufficient explosive detection systems to screen all checked baggage no later than December 31, 2002, and that as soon as such systems are in place at an airport, all checked baggage at the airport is screened by those systems; and

(B) all systems deployed under subparagraph (A) are fully utilized; and

(C) if explosive detection equipment at an airport is unavailable, all checked baggage is screened by an alternative means

If I were a lawyer, I could also pick apart the way the penalty portion is written, because as I read it, one could easily jump the line, skip the scanners, and unless they are carrying some forbidden item, they have not met the letter of the law which reads,

"
(a) Prohibition. - A person may not knowingly and willfully
enter, in violation of security requirements prescribed under
section 44901, 44903(b) or (c), or 44906 of this title, an aircraft
or an airport area that serves an air carrier or foreign air
carrier.

By the letter of that law, jumping the fence and running to my plane is not a statutory violation unless I am carrying some forbidden item.

reply to post by Vitchilo


He propubly a terrorist to the plans and ideas of TPTB.

reply to post by getreadyalready


In the end...it doesn't matter if they are "law enforcement". Rand wasn't arressted, he wasn't detained, he wasn't questioned. He refused to follow the regulations and so he couldn't pass security. End of story.

This was sensationalism and manufactured drama by the Paul's...and it is making them look more extreme and fringe then they already are viewed as.

I applaud the TSA for this, Paul is not above the law and needs to abide by the rules. Good to see the officers are not intimidated by high profile individuals.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Honestly, I've never grown to be a Rand fan yet, and I might never be. Something about him stinks to me. But, I hate the TSA much more than I hate Rand.

I love the good Dr though, and he definitely has my vote, but that vote doesn't automatically transfer to Rand.

Personally, I hate the TSA, not because they are so intrusive, although that is part of it, but I mostly hate them because they are so ineffective. There are far, far too many ways to circumvent security, so why even bother with all the intrusions? The answer is to keep up appearances, and keep the general public pacified at the illusion of action.

Click here for more information.