TSA Critic, Senator Rand Paul, Prevented By TSA From Getting On His Flight To DC

from the he-might-be-a-terrorist dept

Senator Rand Paul has frequently criticized the TSA and its security theater at airports both for being intrusive and (more importantly) for not being effective. He's made the point repeatedly that it's a mistake to simply assume everyone may be a terrorist. So it's interesting to note that Paul himself was unable to board his flight to DC today after the TSA refused to let him through security. Apparently the scanner machine spotted something, and Paul refused a pat down. There was some dispute over whether or not he was "detained." The TSA denies "detention," which actually is an important issue, since you cannot detain elected officials on their way to Congress, according to Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They 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; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
While the TSA says this wasn't a detention, it does raise questions over whether or not Senator Paul was "questioned in any other Place" while "going to..." his "respective" House. The White House put out a statement that kinda misses the point:
"I think it is absolutely essential that we take the necessary actions to ensure that air travel is safe, and I believe that’s what TSA is tasked with doing."
Sure, it's essential. But does anyone think that patting down a US Senator has anything to do with ensuring that air travel is safe?

Filed Under: detention, privacy, rand paul, tsa


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Jasep, 24 Jan 2012 @ 9:07am

    Re: Just another publicity stunt

    First off, Ron Paul is not a Freemason, and to my knowledge, neither is his son, Rand. Second of all, Freemasonry is a fraternal organization, not a religion, and not a organization bent on World domination, and certainly not elitist, and you should be wearing a tin foil hat to spout otherwise.


    Freemasons were among those who founded the United States. Numerous politicians have been Freemasons. But no Presidents have been Freemasons since Gerald Ford.


    There are no "secret agendas" that are revealed at "higher" levels of Freemasonry. I should know, I am a Freemason, was the head of my lodge (called the "Worhipful Master," a reference to being full of worship, and the master of the Lodge), received the 32nd Degree in the Scottish Rite, and am a Shriner. About the most special privledge you could get by joining Freemasonry is to catch a break on a minor traffic ticket from a cop who also happens to be a Mason. That's about it... Oh,... and there's absolutely no devil worship, either. That's propaganda from tin-foil hat types who try to sell you anti-masonic "educational" materials.


    The "secrets" of Freemasonryare nothing more than private signs of recognition.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.