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
    hegemon13, 24 Jan 2012 @ 6:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Once the common ground was dealt with, they would, of course, have to go their separate ways though."

    Sure, but that's okay. That's why coalitions are so much more effective than compromise. Compromise means nobody involved gets what they want. For the people, compromise usually means symbolic, ineffective legislation that doesn't work.

    Coalition means that people can put aside unrelated differences and work together to achieve the things they agree on. It means that all involved can passionately support the results, even when they disagree on other things.

    Compromise is a nasty symptom of collectivism, the our-team-against-their-team mentality that dominates our partisan duopoly. Coalition is a positive symptom of individualism, something we value highly as a society. Individualism is what allows people of differing political persuasion, moral codes, race, gender, you-name-it to be fast friends, despite their differences. We see it all the time in everyday life. We rarely see it in politics, except for a few exceptions (Frank, the Pauls, Kucinich, Nader, Wyden, to name a few). If we elected politicians as individuals, completely ignoring their "team," we'd see a lot more cooperation through coalition.

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: Copying Is Not Theft
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.