Senator Paul detained by the TSA

[Panzersharkcat]

From Politico.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was blocked from boarding a flight Monday by the Transportation Security Administration in Nashville, Tenn., after refusing a full body pat-down, POLITICO has confirmed.

“I spoke with him five minutes ago and he was being detained indefinitely,” Paul spokesperson Moira Bagley said. “The image scan went off; he refused patdown.”

Paul’s father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), tweeted out news of the incident, saying that there had been an “anomaly” with a body scanner.

“My son @SenRandPaul being detained by TSA for refusing full body pat-down after anomaly in body scanner in Nashville. More details coming,” wrote the authenticated Twitter account of presidential candidate Ron Paul.

The TSA disputed this characterization of the incident.

The Kentucky senator triggered an alarm during routine airport screening and declined to finish the process, said a TSA official, but was “not detained at any point.” A targeted pat-down is usually used to address the alarm.

“Passengers, as in this case, who refuse to comply with security procedures are denied access to the secure gate area. He was escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement,” the official said.

Shortly before noon, the TSA said Paul had been re-booked on another flight and went through the screening process again without incident.

After he was first stopped, Paul told The AP in a telephone interview that he asked for another scan after setting the scanner off but refused a pat-down, after which he was “detained” at a small cubicle and missed his flight to Washington.

Paul, a Republican, was traveling to Washington, when he was detained. He noted earlier on his Twitter that he was planning to speak at the March for Life.

“Today I’ll speak to the March for Life in DC. A nation cannot long endure w/o respect for the right to Life. Our Liberty depends on it,” tweeted Rand Paul at 9:49 A.M.

The TSA first released a statement to POLITICO without referring to the specific incident.

“When an irregularity is found during the TSA screening process, it must be resolved prior to allowing a passenger to proceed to the secure area of the airport. Passengers who refuse to complete the screening process cannot be granted access to the secure area in order to ensure the safety of others traveling,” said TSA Spokesperson Jonella Culmer.

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign released a strongly worded statement Monday afternoon, blistering the TSA for its practices.

“The police state in this country is growing out of control. One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities. The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe,” it said.

The incident was first disclosed by the senator’s spokesperson on Twitter.

“Just got a call from @senrandpaul. He’s currently being detained by TSA in Nashville,” read her tweet just minutes later, at 9:59 A.M.

Like his father, Rand Paul has libertarian leanings and has been a fierce critic of TSA’s pat-downs of passengers at airports, which he views as government overreach. The senator grilled TSA Administrator John Pistole last year after a 6-year-old girl from Paul’s hometown, was patted down by airport security.

“I guess this little girl would be part of the random pat-downs, this little girl from Bowling Green, Kentucky, one of my constituents,” Paul said, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. “They’re still quite unhappy with you guys as well as myself and a lot of other Americans who think you’ve gone overboard, you’re missing the boat on terrorism because you’re doing these invasive searches on six-year-old girls.”

[UnderAGreySky]

I can't really see what the airport guys did wrong. If the metal detector had beeped instead of the body scanner, they would have patted him down, right? And if he had refused, he'd have been detained?

That said, anything that leads to the scaling back of TSA power is good to me, as much as I dislike either Paul. Hope this incident has some effect.

[Rogue 9]

I can't really see what the airport guys did wrong. If the metal detector had beeped instead of the body scanner, they would have patted him down, right? And if he had refused, he'd have been detained?

I haven't flown since the body scanners were introduced, but the last time I did, procedure for tripping the metal detectors was to make sure you'd emptied your pockets and have another go.

[Block]

I can't really see what the airport guys did wrong. If the metal detector had beeped instead of the body scanner, they would have patted him down, right? And if he had refused, he'd have been detained?

I haven't flown since the body scanners were introduced, but the last time I did, procedure for tripping the metal detectors was to make sure you'd emptied your pockets and have another go.

Yeah, they'll let you go through two or three times then divert you for a pat-down or body scan.

[Skgoa]

I have set off metal detectors in Zurich and Hamburg so often... I never had a pat-down. Most of the time I wold get a "dust-off" with that magnetic wand thingy and be on my way.

And the problem I see with the TSA's behaviour here is that he is a federal legislator. He should not be subjected to any rules on what he can carry on board. Both to strengthen his immunity (iirc US elected officials have immunity that would have to be taken away by the body they are a member of, too. don't they?) and because he was almost certainly the probable victim of an attack, not the attack. Does the President get a pat-down every time he enters Marine One? No, that would be stupid and ridiculous. Then why do it to a senator?

Having said that, I guess it's for the best of all americans that politicians understand what the common people have to put up with.

[Block]

Elected officials are subject to the same laws as everyone else in the US. The President doesn't get searched when boarding Marine or Air Force One because they're private planes, if it was a public company that owned those two, then yeah he might get searched since the laws that established the TSA are about interstate commerce.

[Simon_Jester]

In the US, we have enough problems with the elite not knowing or caring what nonsense their laws make people go through without giving officials immunity to the laws in question.

So I don't think congressmen should be immune- have a private, more relaxed legal code for legislators than for citizens is a good way to turn the legislator-class into an aristocracy.

[Coop D'etat]

Having recently been through airports in Canada, Germany, the United States and Cuba, it was astonishing to me how much more onerous, annoying and time consuming dealing with American airport security was compared to elsewhere, including that bodyscaning machine. Although I understand the reasons why this is, the fact that dealing with security and border control in a communist dictatorship was much easier than in the Land of the Free(TM) was a source of great amusement to me.

[Sidewinder]

Like his father, Rand Paul has libertarian leanings and has been a fierce critic of TSA’s pat-downs of passengers at airports, which he views as government overreach. The senator grilled TSA Administrator John Pistole last year after a 6-year-old girl from Paul’s hometown, was patted down by airport security.

“I guess this little girl would be part of the random pat-downs, this little girl from Bowling Green, Kentucky, one of my constituents,” Paul said, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. “They’re still quite unhappy with you guys as well as myself and a lot of other Americans who think you’ve gone overboard, you’re missing the boat on terrorism because you’re doing these invasive searches on six-year-old girls.”

Considering people have USED CHILDREN TO CARRY SUICIDE BOMBS (see LiveLeak, truTV, and US News & World Report), such caution is understandable.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, Sidewinder, I don't think it is.

There have been roughly six billion passengers on US airlines since 9/11 (obviously, most people have boarded planes more than once in that time). Roughly thirty of them were actual terrorists who were trying to attack the plane- and nearly all of those were the 9/11 hijackers themselves. None of them were little girls. It's possible that in the future, one of them might be a little girl, but think about the statistics.

Six billion passengers, all but thirty (or less) of whom were harmless. The odds of a random passenger actually being a threat to the security of the plane is about one in two hundred million. Out of God knows how many little girls boarding airplanes in the US, zero of them have been terrorists- but we can be generous and assume that same one in two hundred million risk applies to them.

The question we need to ask is: what is justified by a 0.0000005% chance that someone is a terrorist who might be able to damage or blow up or hijack a plane, assuming the passengers don't neutralize them?

For comparison, imagine that we knew there were two terrorists located somewhere in America. We could find the terrorists if only we could take a naked picture of them. Would it be right to force all Americans to have nude photographs of them taken, in order to find those two people? Because the odds of finding one of the two terrorists out of three hundred million people in America are about the same as the odds of finding a terrorist about to board a plane, assuming we count the 9/11 hijackers themselves even though the odds of an attack like that being repeated are practically zero.

There may be other places where children with suicide bombs are a serious, probable threat that justifies intrusive scanning and searching of children. But American airlines aren't those places.

[Skgoa]

Simon, you are giving the TSA's premis to much credit. Pat-downs are bullshit. Nude scanners are bullshit, too. X-raying mobile phones is bullshit, limiting liquids that can be taken through the security checkpoint is bullshit, etc., - it's done to make it seem like there is an elaborate defensive effort. But there is not, because none of these meassures actually achieve anything but giving people the vague feeling that they are working.

Having recently been through airports in Canada, Germany, the United States and Cuba, it was astonishing to me how much more onerous, annoying and time consuming dealing with American airport security was compared to elsewhere, including that bodyscaning machine. Although I understand the reasons why this is, the fact that dealing with security and border control in a communist dictatorship was much easier than in the Land of the Free(TM) was a source of great amusement to me.

But it's exactly what one would expect: the US has to put up a much more elaborate hoax to make people feel safe - Cuba's government can just tell its citizens that the state does everything necessary and there would be no (easy) way to dispute that.

Annecdote: it was always very amusing to me that the metal detectors in Hamburg would go of no matter what I wore (I guess the nuts my jeans were enough), while I never had any trouble in Athens. And for quite a while after 9/11 I had to take my shoes off in Hamburg, but nowhere else. They even once had us rumage through my luggage because they thought a ball pen might be a tiny rocket. (I didn't ask what I would have wanted to achieve with a tiny rocket in my checked-in luggage. )

This is a live demonstration that aired on german TV of how easy it is to smuggle a pretty big thermite bomb through nude scanners:


And this anecdote of Adam Savage says it all:

[The Yosemite Bear]

must have detected his secret lol-bertopian plasmid powers...

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, you are giving the TSA's premis to much credit.

Am I? Skgoa, I'm not saying the TSA's measures are helpful. I'm saying that we need to weigh the measures, whatever they're worth, against the actual chance that there are any terrorists there to be caught. Is it worth violating the privacy of two hundred million people to have, say, a 1% chance of catching one terrorist? Or even a 10% chance? Hell, you could make a case that it's not worth it to have a 100% chance of catching the guy.

[UnderAGreySky]

There have been roughly six billion passengers on US airlines since 9/11 (obviously, most people have boarded planes more than once in that time). Roughly thirty of them were actual terrorists who were trying to attack the plane- and nearly all of those were the 9/11 hijackers themselves. None of them were little girls. It's possible that in the future, one of them might be a little girl, but think about the statistics.

Six billion passengers, all but thirty (or less) of whom were harmless. The odds of a random passenger actually being a threat to the security of the plane is about one in two hundred million. Out of God knows how many little girls boarding airplanes in the US, zero of them have been terrorists- but we can be generous and assume that same one in two hundred million risk applies to them.

That's one way of looking at the odds.

Another way would be to say "The odds of a bad guy being on this flight is one in two-three hundred". It's not mathematically incorrect correct, but it is the way decisions are made.

Personally, I don't have a real problem with waving the wand over children if the detector beeps or such. If a pat-down is deemed absolutely necessary then it has to be done with multiple independent adults - other passengers including the guardian - present and on full video.

(edited)

[PeZook]

All of this begs the one question: Why is it necessary to indefinitely detain the person who refuses a full body pat down?

Seriously. Why? Can't they just escort him out of the airport?

Also, don't you need to be charged within 24 hours of an arrest in the States?

[UnderAGreySky]

Wonder if it was a case of "We can't let you go past. Uh... you're a senator? Um... we can't exactly throw you out either. So, uh... sorry to go all Chris Hansen on you, but why don't you have a seat over there? That's my cubicle and I can give you a pen and some paper to doodle on while you sit."

Since there has been no mention of anger, shouting or shoving/physical altercation, it probably was a civil affair and the worst thing that can be made out of it was "indefinite" detention. Which doesn't stand either - however early he might have been at the airport, he was still re-booked for a flight before noon. So not even half a day.

[Simon_Jester]

Six billion passengers, all but thirty (or less) of whom were harmless. The odds of a random passenger actually being a threat to the security of the plane is about one in two hundred million. Out of God knows how many little girls boarding airplanes in the US, zero of them have been terrorists- but we can be generous and assume that same one in two hundred million risk applies to them.

That's one way of looking at the odds.

Another way would be to say "The odds of a bad guy being on this flight is one in two-three hundred". It's not mathematically incorrect correct, but it is the way decisions are made.

If you did the math that way, the odds of there being one terrorist on a given plane are less than one in a million. And that's after performing the deeply fake and stupid exercise of pretending that each 9/11 hijacker was on a different plane; if you don't do that it goes to more like, what, one in three to five million?

It doesn't look a lot better when you do the math that way- what are you justified in doing to a crowd of people on the one-in-a-million chance that one of them might be a terrorist, and the one-in-who-knows chance that your screening would actually catch him if he was? If we ran security screenings that way, I bet things would look a lot more like pre-9/11 methods than post-9/11 methods.

Instead, we run security in a way that would only make sense if there were armies of terrorists, hundreds of them, trying to board our planes every year. Which is foolish.

The failure to do this math, or to care about it, is a rather damning indictment of the whole idea of a 'war on terror.' In a war, you don't joke around. You use your resources rationally, because what matters is defeating the enemy quickly and efficiently. Bush and Obama have not been waging "war" on terror, not to any real standard of generalship; they have been fooling around.

[Akhlut]

Let's not forget that Israel, Canada, Germany, France, the UK, Spain, Russia, India, and Denmark, just to list off a number of other countries that are just as liable to have Muslim extremist terrorists attempting to blow up commercial airlines, don't go through all this bullshit and haven't had any attempted terrorist attacks occur on an airplane either. In spite of Russia and India have active Islamic terrorist cells within the nation. So, why not look at these other nations and see what they're doing and try to adapt that to our airports?

Why not get bomb dogs and bomb-sniffing machines out there? They'll work a lot better than the naked-scanners, which can be defeated by making a pancake-shaped lump of C4 (which was found essentially right after they debuted, whoops). There are ways to make us safer which are less intrusive and don't rely on feeling-up children.

[UnderAGreySky]

Simon, I know that it's all security theatre - it's just that some paranoid people look at it as "what if one of these two hundred is a terrorist???".

[Simon_Jester]

I'm well aware of this- what annoys me is that the whole damn government seems to think that way.

If this is wartime, I expect there to be some paranoid idiot corporal-equivalents who see enemy spies in their Cheerios every morning. But they shouldn't be running the war effort; that needs to be done by people who can do math.