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

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by havok

 

He wasn't arressted, he wasn't detained, and he wasn't questioned.

He had to follow security protocol or couldn't be allowed to board the plane. He is free to go catch a cab if he doesn't want to follow the rules.

He is free to leave the airport whenever he wants...he is just being a drama queen crying that he got "detained".

Actually no he's not. Refusing to go through the scanner or have a pat down and and wanting to leave IS grounds to be detained by the TSA of which we have seen before.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by PaxVeritas

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by NightGypsy

 

I don't have to agree with a law to be happy that is being applied evenly.

If we are subject to these rules and regulations...than so should government officials.

And if we "The People" can protest such rules.....so can a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.

You just debated yourself and WON.

Congrats, your logic just blew your own posts out of the water.

He can protest all he wants...don't fly.

But don't cry when you are expected to follow the exact same rules as every other American.

He's using his status to get the topic in the news.

Pretty smart if you ask me.

TSA is a joke, big smoke and mirror show. I'm glad this story is getting the attention it deserves.

The story is about how ridiculous this agency is, how American citizens capture more "terrorists" than the TSA has. Big waste of money, big step over the line.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't "crying" because he was expected to follow the same rules as every other American. If anything he was "crying" because this happens to him, or anyone to begin with.

You're pretty good at twisting the story though. good job.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

He was questioned.

You left out that part.

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

He wasn't questioned...he refused security protocol and wasn't allowed to proceed.

The only reason this is has become news is because Rand and Ron are drama queens are were using the word "DETAINED" when that never happened.

Rand Paul was turned away, wasn't allowed to proceed without going through security protocol. It was his CHOICE not to go through it. He bought a ticket for another flight and went through security again and went through fine.

Just drama trying to be created by the Paul's. And his supporters are eating it up.

Even IF this is some self created drama..... it is serving the purpose of drawing attention to the ridiculousness of these laws and the thugs that are the TSA. I'm not any fan of the Pauls..... but I will say that if this sheds more light on this matter, I'm just fine with it from here.

reply to post by dannotz


Yeah, should have read your post before I wrote mine up! I fully agree. I'm not even voting for Ron Paul, but I'm 100 % for the fact that they are using their status to bring attention to the TSA.

You know, my sister flew last month. Her first time since all of these measures were put in place at the airport. She called me after reaching her destination and said that the TSA agent grabbed and squeezed her breasts right there in the airport twice.

This type of sick insanity needs to end.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


I can't believe people are supporting the idea of an elected official being above the law. :shk:

I don't think anyone is supporting that. What they are supporting is his CHALLENGING the laws. Which we as Americans have a right to do when we don't agree with them.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
wow


crazy

Pardon me, but that was the most pathetic video I've seen in my life - has he just been released from a 5 year kidnapping ordeal or something?

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by Pervius

 

Edit:
The way I read the Sergeant at Arms description, it only applies to the capital building. I do not think his jurisdiction expands to an airport.

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

The Senate Sergeant at Arms is responsible for the Security of Senators, where ever they are. That position was created for force Senators to show up to do the nations work.

The Senate Sergeant at Arms has full authority to punish TSA for impeding the official work of a Senator.

This is almost like that time when Hulk Hogan, Hogan booted Kevin Nash his buddy in the NWO wolf pack... will these people give up the charade already. They are doing one of two things creating dramatic entertainment and/or sending a message. Silver note dollars were a good idea too btw.

(I was being sarcastic with the wwf comment btw)

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
So now it is coming out that he was never "detained"...he was just not allowed to pass security without going through their standard procedure.

Rand Paul = Drama Queen.

Ummmm..........OUTKAST...we all know that your a wannabe LEO...and that you love to starch your TSA uniform...However, If a person is held up from proceeding ie...stopped/accosted in the pursuit of their constitutional rights, by one of your gustapo granny feeling, little boy fondling buddies, then that is in fact being "DETAINED"........I know, I know......your Union dues card gives you "special status" and you are'nt required to abide by the Constitution...After all a fine upstanding member of the "Fourth Reich"....should get a pat on the shoulder and a "leg up" for body blocking somebody in a wheel chair....Hmmm?.......Keep up the good work.

I find it amazing that the one lone senator to systematically oppose the TSA is "DETAINED" , yet you willfully refuse to see how that might be a politically motivated act......EVERY person in this country should know who Rand Paul, is and what he looks like by now, so dont tell me that your "blues brothers" in their white shirts could'nt figure that one out.

YouSir.........................................are an

That's how the TSA gets you. They make you think that YOU have made the choice to walk in to the airport knowing you're gonna get felt up. They don't call it detainment, because they make you think it's all by your choosing, when the reality is..... we.... can't... fly..... unless we agree to their measures.

They can call it what they want.... but to me, it is a temporary detainment, especially if you ping their crazy machines and they won't let you LEAVE until you agree to being checked over.

Right now, the majority of Americans have been conditioned to believe that either.....

A. We have to do this for our protection

B. Even if I hate this, I have no choice if I want/need/must fly.

C. I don't have time to protest this.... my life is too busy, it's too much trouble, and no one cares anyway... and.. nothing will change.

There's a trend in the past year taking place that's starting to become noticeable. Whenever someone challenges TSA..... you have loads of people now saying "Oh shut up, just take it like a man. Don't fly if you don't like it. Deal with it. It's law, that's the way it is. Stop whining".

But..... take away the internet from these same people and they will lose their minds. I tell you if the internet shut down today, or if people were forced to register their social security numbers before getting into firefox, google, or any other browser, there would be mayhem.

There's something taking place in this country, and tptb are walking Americans through this in baby steps. It's been going on since 9/11.

Sit down and make a list of every single right you have lost since then. Then come back and whine about Rand Paul simply challenging TSA for what should be his rights to his own person.

For those of you complaining about Rand Paul and accusing him of making drama or crying about this.... you just wait my friends. Some day you'll be crying, and thinking back on the very few freedoms you have now. Cause what is planned for us ahead..... you won't be able to even be able to fart in the woods without someone knowing about it. This really is bigger than what you think it is. Seems small now.... but wait till they come up with the next thing. Some of you are truly conditioned to just fall in line with and justify their insane laws and actions.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Im not about to jump on your strawman, I will merely repeat my earlier sentiment.

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

If you don't agree with the law, change it, until then.. it is STILL THE LAW.

The TSA is nowhere near the "law of the land" and is merely an administrative agency created by Congress. The Constitution for the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land and the TSA is not - by any stretch of any interpretation - a Constitutionally mandated agency.

Congress certainly has the authority to create administrative agencies but this creation does not exist in a vacuum and those who are employed with the TSA do not have the protection of law if what they do constitutes a gross violation of a persons right.

Using the system to challenge the tyranny of government can be slow and arduous, particularly given the nature of tyranny, but if a Senator was unlawfully detained by the TSA then the chances of expediting the legal challenges to the dubious agency known as the TSA are now much better.

Congress has consistently, since Marbury v. Madison, seen legislation of theirs struck down as unconstitutional. If, as you say, any bogus piece of legislation that comes down the Congressional pike is "the law of the land" how is it that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review?

Legislation must conform with the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to legislate to begin with. If somehow the legislation authorizing TSA employees certain power is Constitutional, then there is the matter of application of the legislation. If, as applied, the actions are unconstitutional then the TSA employees grossly misapplying legislation are now inextricably bound to their own criminality, and if there is anyone who understands that in the Senate, it is Rand Paul.

Ignorantia juris non excusat!

edit on 23-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

The same as the IRS which is also an administrative agency created by Congress. And IRS agents carry weapons, which is against the law but challenge that in court in see how far you get.

reply to post by Freenrgy2

The same as the IRS which is also an administrative agency created by Congress. And IRS agents carry weapons, which is against the law but challenge that in court in see how far you get.

While the federal government is famously incompetent in virtually all areas of governance, they just happen to have a 97% conviction rate. Now, some would argue this is due to massive corruption, and to some degree corruption plays into it, but the more pragmatic answer as to how an infamously famous incompetent government can score a 97% conviction rate is that they only go after who they know they can successfully prosecute and obtain a conviction.

You challenge the IRS in court, genius. The smart ones will not have to challenge the IRS in court and will make their challenges of jurisdiction the very moment the IRS reaches out to them. The smart ones, those who know they are not subject to any applicable revenue laws, nor liable for any "income" tax will impress those IRS tax collectors to back off. Why would they risk losing in court when all they have to do is quietly back away.

Of course, you might feel compelled to argue this, but let's be honest, you have no clue as to what the tax code even say's, nor could you even tell anyone what a taxpayer is and how that taxpayer became liable for an income tax.

Cling to your useless and utterly unimpressive fear, and perhaps you are in massive company. Misery, after all, does love company, but how foolish to think you can scare someone who actually knows the law.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

It doesn't change the rules OTHERS live by because they are not above the law. Justice, if it ever were blind, is no longer, and very selective. (Surrealistic pillow)

"I have never personally believed in a "Justice" system, however I would certainly describe it as a "Judgement" system...............which brings us to"

True justice is when no crime exists. Given that there are so many individuals all to willing to harm others it is arguable that justice has never truly existed, and that we establish governments - among other reasons - to establish justice, but it is an ideal that remains a consummation devoutly to be wished. (Jean Paul Zodeaux)

I would also argue that point as well, and to further your comments, It is not....now....within the ability of humanity to step beyond their "nature". Until that day when evolution has seen fit, that we have left behind our "urges" and outgrown human proclivity then governments will remain extant and "we" the governed.

All law is simple, universal, true and absolute. I am at a point where this has become pedantry from me, if not dogma and that is problematic. I keep posting this assertion in hopes I can some how get through to people that law is not made, it is either self evident or eventually discovered, but humanity can have no hand in making law. They can only legislate.

This is the quintessential statement that is seldom elaborated upon, and not because you have not belaboured the point. Rather, because when you do speak to it, so few have chosen to understand your intent........that, and the nature of internet forums and threads in general...

Yet, even so, hordes of people, the world wide over vehemently argue the point with me. If you are one that would argue the point of law existing outside any government creation, then your claims of leaping into action are risky at best, and flat out dangerous at worst. It is imperative that People know the law. After all, ignorantia juris non excusat.

Yet......according to your previous statements, this "knowledge" of the law should be - though seldom recognized - innate within us all. However, I might also add that there is no singular "nature" that resides within, instead, one can see a veritable plethora. My natural instinct would dictate that my personal nature be independant and natural.....only to me. Try as I might I can not fully step beyond my nature, even though I would strive to somehow...............evolve.

Note also that this is not an attempt to circumvent your thought processes in this matter, but instead to perhaps expand the conversation.

Thank you
YouSir

If one looks up a YouTube of Rand Paul grilling a Homeland rep about TSA practices of patting down 6 yr olds and 9 yr olds instead of focusing on the high risk...The date of the video I believe is 6/22/2011. Additionally, he returned around 500,000 dollars to Treasury as his constituents in their district did NOT use all the money allocated...so he, with integrity returned 500000 dollars... This reflects poorly on any group unable to create a balanced budget...and other discrepancies are highlighted and indicts many who create 'false weights and measures'...thieving from the public... had he kept the money and bilked the taxpayers...had he if ored the egregious groping...he might of passed freely...Just sayin'. The fact that his father is so popular with the public and even the military, and this does not bode well for criminals who hold high positions and abuse their powers or principalities.

Take care and discern WELL.

reply to post by YouSir

Bear in mind that this discussion started with me stating that some people are exempt from the law, and/or can enjoy "immunity" from prosecution. JPZ countered that there is some serious misunderstanding related to immunity, and proceeded with a somewhat philosophical argument about "law", which is fine. I enjoy discussions like these.
I am not sure we disagreed too much, JPZ is rather "dry", and were this thread about universal law and justice instead of Senator Paul being detained by goons, I may have spent more time addressing his points.
Until, say George Bush goes to jail, I will maintain that some are "immune" from prosecution and "above" the limited reaches of the "law". Maybe that will satisfy JPZ?
Wouldn't count on it.

Originally posted by freedom12
Cynthia McKinney anyone?

Let's hope Rand handles this situation better than she handled her problem.

What's they objective of this move?

Another debate tonite in Florida, but I don't see how this helps anyone, except for Ron Paul.

He's sure to bring this up !

Well the Pauls are pro legalization of drugs.....

It could've been as simple as Randy wanted to light up once he got to his destination and he pulled the old safety pin your sack to your "sack region" trick.

Lets just say I know someone who has successfully done this many times. But the body scan thing makes it harder.

Or, he was just taking matters into his own crotch and doin a little guerilla style PR campaign for his pops.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

The same as the IRS which is also an administrative agency created by Congress. And IRS agents carry weapons, which is against the law but challenge that in court in see how far you get.

While the federal government is famously incompetent in virtually all areas of governance, they just happen to have a 97% conviction rate. Now, some would argue this is due to massive corruption, and to some degree corruption plays into it, but the more pragmatic answer as to how an infamously famous incompetent government can score a 97% conviction rate is that they only go after who they know they can successfully prosecute and obtain a conviction.

You challenge the IRS in court, genius. The smart ones will not have to challenge the IRS in court and will make their challenges of jurisdiction the very moment the IRS reaches out to them. The smart ones, those who know they are not subject to any applicable revenue laws, nor liable for any "income" tax will impress those IRS tax collectors to back off. Why would they risk losing in court when all they have to do is quietly back away.

Of course, you might feel compelled to argue this, but let's be honest, you have no clue as to what the tax code even say's, nor could you even tell anyone what a taxpayer is and how that taxpayer became liable for an income tax.

Cling to your useless and utterly unimpressive fear, and perhaps you are in massive company. Misery, after all, does love company, but how foolish to think you can scare someone who actually knows the law.

edit on 24-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

Then why did Irwin Schiff spend time in prison? He advocates the same thing you do and fully understood the tax code and the law.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

While the federal government is famously incompetent in virtually all areas of governance,

Lets not forget these are the people that brought you the $5,000 toilet seats!! How can the most powerful nation the world has ever known, not be competent enough to take a trip down to Home Depot and see that people buy toilet seats every day for $20 bucks?

Lets not forget about the whole ACORN debacle.

Your tax money hard at work, so glad we have the TSA to keep us safe. After my recent encounter with airport security, being treated like a criminal, forced to miss my flight, and humiliated over NOTHING. I think I'll be driving from now on.

Its no wonder the airline industries are all going belly up. Oh wait, they'll probably jst get bailed out too.

I think I am beginning to believe in Ron Paul.
he is standing up for the people.
putting himself on the line.

Originally posted by buddha
I think I am beginning to believe in Ron Paul.
he is standing up for the people.
putting himself on the line.

The story in the OP is referring to his son RAND Paul. This obviously was a way of bringing the TSA into focus and we shall see if anything comes of the increased scrutiny.