Sen. Paul on TSA detention: 'Have the terrorists won?'

Want to bet he'll be introducing a bill to get rid of the TSA...me neither!

Waaaaah!

who would have been turning dogs and firehoses on people.

But he's right. The TSA (Theatrical Security Antics) is out of control, its security measures at the gate are farcical, we've been conned into giving up essential liberty not even (as Franklin warned) for temporary safety but for the appearance of temporary safety, and the terrorists have indeed won. Every time an American takes off his/her shoes as a precondition of boarding an airplane, Osama looks up from hell and chuckles.

Rand Paul may well be the broken clock that's right twice a day. He's batshit crazy on everything else, but when it comes to the TSA, he's completely right. I can't believe those Keystone Kops didn't know who the hell he was when they detained him, it was sure to bring extremely negative publicity down on their fool heads.

And that asshat Richard Reid chuckles, as well.

we can bring all our soldiers home, stop the drone strikes, but Rand Paul has to get felt up wherever he goes. I can live with that.

....this has been the scene at airports for quite some time now.
Either:
A) He thinks he is "above" such treatment or should be exempt..... or
B) He's completely clueless as to what life in the real world is like.

Neither option looks good for him.....

Now its a major scandal when His Highness is faced with the kind of things the average citizen deals with.

Paul has been ranting about the TSA for years and was especially vocal after the abuse by the TSA of the six year old girl who was subjected to a humiliating search a couple of years ago. We can attack people with facts, and there are enough of those when it comes to Rand Paul, but the fact is he did not wait until it happened to him. And if pointing out facts suddenly has become forbidden here, that would be a sad state of affairs.

A better way to attack him is, not on his objections to the TSA practices, but on his solutions.

I'd say he's right. He should have been cavity searched.



Fuck Rand Paul.

No love here for the TSA, but damn... if a guy named Mohammed was in line in front of him, and set off the scanner, methinks Mr Paul would have raised hell if they did NOT patted him down.

Democrats. When Bush first introduced these invasive, anti-Constitutional practices under the pretext of stopping terrorists, most Democrats were outraged and the ACLU among other civil rights organizations have been fighting, successfully until late 2009, ever since.

Paul and other Libertarians and some moderate Republicans have joined Democrats in their opposition these egregious violations of people's rights.

So just because someone we don't like or support on other issues is making a case against something most Democrats have always agreed on, shouldn't change people's minds about the issue itself, imo.

This is one of those bi-partisan issues where across the political spectrum, people have joined forces to protest the continuing destruction of rights.

Is the propriety of TSA practice now dependent on who is criticizing the practice?

This is partisanship to the point of intellectual dysfunction... partisanship practiced for the emotional pleasure of limbic excitation.

Just curious.

People with whom one disagrees politically, even if we add socially, philosophically and personally, are not cartoonish foils who are always wrong and always deserve the worst, to be met with derision. That attitude has led to the sickest events in human history. It is the sine qua non of all horrific human acts - the idea that "the other" deserves misfortune and scorn simply because they are not "we". It's easy to say this is a small piddling example - and it in fact is - but the attitudes and the psychosis behind the attitudes are the same as far far worse examples; and it is indeed sickness to accept those attitudes.

Most of these are just making fun of Rand.

I don't see anyone championing the TSA.

Hell the republicans brought all this shit on us. If he has a problem with it maybe he should complain to his peers!

if not before, we as a nation have become infatuated with authoritarianism.

You can't win a war against an emotion; the "War on Terror" anymore than the so called "War on Drugs" can be won, both will go on forever and along with increased technology, the sphere of privacy around the people will continue to shrink as we trade some measure of liberty for temporary safety, until we lose it all.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin.

Thanks for the thread, The Straight Story.

And now I wish that EVERY SINGLE member of Congress and the Senate have to go through something like this. Maybe then they'll do something about this egregious process.

I used to love travelling by plane. Now it makes me sick to my stomach for days leading up to a trip through the airport.

I think Paul is confusing dignity with Ego or perhaps Entitlement...or maybe both.

He made a stand and thought he'd get his own petuland way. Out of touch with what the rest of the world is being subjected to. Rather that changing the law, he just doesn't want the law to apply to him.

He has joined Democrats and the ACLU for years in opposition to these Bush era policies. So I am not surprised that he is making a big deal over it. Other members of Congress, going back to the Bush years, one of them a woman airc, also made such a big deal over the earlier implementation of intrusive practices using 'terror' as an excuse, to the point of refusing to fly. She was a Democrat.

This issue was a major issue for Democrats during the Bush years. I hope we are not going to start backing away from issues like this just because in this case, it is a Republican speaking out against them. That would be a real shame.

We're seeing it already: the general disapproval of Rand Paul is being used and extended by some in order to mock the idea of opposing TSA.

How convenient for certain neoliberals.....just like when those who share Ron Paul's opposition to American empire and the war on drugs were accused of being "Paulbots" who MUST therefore also support his more odious positions.

TSA is an abomination no matter who is being groped. Shame on anyone who uses Rand Paul's involvement in this incident as an excuse to defend authoritarian security theater.

Watch for this tactic. We will undoubtedly be seeing it again:
The faux freakout over Ron Paul (and now Rand Paul)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154246

What am I not seeing?

"What am I not seeing?"

...if you reject Rand Paul and his lame publicity stunt, it means you approve of the TSA "groping" people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=213555

People mock Rand... others come in and say STOP DEFENDING THE TSA!

Both in this thread and this one, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002213137

Rand Paul addressed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and gave a scathing speech opposing invasive TSA searches in July of 2011. Video at link:

http://dailybail.com/home/congressional-video-rand-paul-reminds-the-tsa-of-the-4th-ame.html

And, really, it wouldn't even matter if he *hadn't* taken a clear stand against TSA abuses in the past. Mocking anyone for opposing authoritarian security theater only sends the message that you condone authoritarian security theater.

Rand Paul, Supposed Defender Of Civil Liberties, Calls For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/

Moron: Rand Paul’s ironic incident
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002207091

as you did in the other thread, I will simply repost my response to you here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002213137#post18

A tired tactic. What you just posted has nothing to do with TSA.

My point about the importance of not defending the TSA stands, and non-sequiturs about Rand Paul do not change that. This particular strategy for defending the indefensible has already been dissected here:

The faux freakout over Ron Paul (and now Rand Paul)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154246

We *all* know that Rand Paul and Ron Paul both take ridiculous and indefensible stances on some issues. What you posted here has nothing to do with TSA. Just because Rand Paul has some odious positions does not therefore mean that he is wrong when he opposes TSA groping.

Goodbye, Prosense. You go ahead and post whatever further irrelevancies you like. I think my point is clear.

you can re-read my response to that lame argument: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=213555

these naked scanners, by Democrats? Do you support the violations the ACLU and most Democrats have opposed for years?

"Do you support the violations the ACLU and most Democrats have opposed for years?"

...what the hell does that have to do with the fact that Rand Paul is a fucking kook trying to drum up some publicity?

getting publicity for an issue Dems have been fighting for for years now'?

...know Rand Paul is ethically challenged, but I do not support entrapment or reducing serious issues to publicity stunts.

I mean, not only is he a big hypocrite on privacy, but it's also the second time in two days that this happened.



Yeah, eliminate the TSA as a government agency and replace it with private security firms. Does Halliburton or Xe (or whatever the name) do private security?

Rand is a kook!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002207091

but I do not support entrapment or reducing serious issues to publicity stunts.

You probably did not support any of those who refused to accept the TSA's 'enhanced patdowns', engaging in civil disobedience to make a point, quite successfully most of the time as far as raising the issue in the public domain.

I do support Civil Disobedience.

And Randy is definitely broken.

But he's right about the TSA.

They're mocking him for being a huge drama llama about it. Is that really not as obvious as it seems to me?

Sorry, you didn't call the replies sick, you said they were defending the TSA. That was someone else who is saying crazy things.

No, calling him a whiner is not defending the TSA.

with the other one.

You didn't say the comments were "mostly sick"... you seem to be claiming that calling Rand a whiner is somehow a defense of TSA groping.

first introduced by the Bush administration, 'whiners'. In fact since at least six years ago, we generally viewed people who used this 'refusal' tactic as heroes. Such as the 'don't touch my stuff' protester.

Can we not just focus on issues anymore? And when someone, even a Republican, manages to stand up for OUR issues, should we always shoot ourselves in the foot for partisan reasons? To me this is wrong and is the reason why we will never as a people accomplish much of what we say we want. And the only ones who benefit from this are those who continue to take away our rights.

Throughout the Bush years, the ACLU along with most Democrats, opposed the use of these practices and called them gross violations of civil rights using 'terror' as an excuse. As far as I am concerned, not only is that still true, the situation has gotten worse.

He's being called a whiner because of the way he's acting, not because people are suddenly fond of TSA fondling.


"the scanner and TSA also wanted my dignity. I refused,"

by those who support the destruction of our rights, or did when Bush was president. 'Whining Lieberals' airc.

He is repeating there what many others have said. Like the parents of the six year old girl who was humiliated and 'touched' at the airport, by the family of the elderly, sick grandmother who also felt their dignity as well as their rights was under assault.

My Sil, eg, did not know about those machines or the 'enhanced patdowns' and she was humiliated on her way back from NY last summer after being subjected to the 'enhanced patdown' and ended up in tears and will not fly again until they are gone. I felt so bad for her.

There have been so many of these cases, I know I posted several OPS on the humiliation of passengers under these new 'techniques' last year.

Frankly at this point anyone who can get attention for this is fine with me. We've been fighting for so long, and actually did have some success until after Giuliani and Chertoff and Cheney et al used the underwear bomber to roll back all that work done by the ACLU.

I really do not think we can be dramatic enough when it comes to the creeping and escalatinng destruction of our dignity and human and civil rights. Women especially have been singled out many times for these 'patdowns'.

If you have some examples of the melodrama, that'd be great.

I don't wish to engage in a meta thread about why it's fair to refer to posts in this thread as "sick" or claim that anyone here is "defending TSA groping".

states have introduced bi-partisan bills in an attempt to curb the abuses brought about by these practices.

When I posted on mixed boards eg, when Bush first introduced his 'airport security' policies and one of the first women, a Congresswoman airc, refused to fly anymore after being, what she called humiliated at the airport and chose to drive for seven or eight hours to DC, rightwingers did call her a 'whining liberal'.

but I'll be damned if I'll stand by while people demonize those who insult either this twit or is racist POS father.

I've never seen a case where personal attacks advance any issue. Which is why when something or someone gets attention for an important issue, I view it as an opportunity to raise that issue again as it's hard to stay focused on all the issues that need to be focused on all the time.

No. it's not being over melodramatic.

Hope you're enjoying your stay.

like father, like son.

He would be just FINE with it if it were State instituted, I have NO doubt.

Hypocritical whiner.

While I'm no fan of the "security" at the airports, people have been complaining for 2 years now, where the fuck was Rand Paul then?

If Rand Paul is so upset then he can start writing legislation that stops the revolving door between Politics and the private sector.

The reason those scanners are in place is Michael Chertoff played the "you are all going to die without the invaluable aid of Rapidscan Body Scanners" card, on the hill, on FAUX news and in every interview he gave following the capture of the dreaded "underwear bomber". Neglecting to mention that he stood to make a fortune off of said scanners.

Rand Paul, you, are part of the problem. Jerk.