Ron Paul bashes TSA "police state" after Sen. Rand Paul refuses patdown
( Lynn Sweet, The Chicago Sun-Times, January 23, 2012)
WASHINGTON--GOP White House hopeful Rep. Ron Paul stepped up his criticism of the Transportation Security Administration after his son, Sen. Rand Paul was not allowed on an airplane Monday after he refused to be patted down after an alarm went off when he went through a screening machine.
"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," Paul said in a statement.
"That is why my 'Plan to Restore America,' in addition to cutting $1 trillion dollars in federal spending in one year, eliminates the TSA.
"We must restore the freedom and respect for liberty that once made America the greatest nation in human history. I am deeply committed to doing that as President of the United States."
-GOP White House hopeful Rep. Ron Paul stepped up his criticism of the Transportation Security Administration after his son, Sen. Rand Paul was not allowed on an airplane Monday after he refused to be patted down after an alarm went off when he went through a screening machine.
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
I think Paul makes a valid point. If the TSA (an executive department) could detain congressmen from attending congressional sessions, then the president could simply order all of his political opponents detained at airports while his supporters back in D.C. passed all of his favorite pieces of legislation. A congressman should be immune from that sort of detention while attending to official business.
But Joe, the other side of that equation is that a congressman exercising immunity from detention...(or a reasonable request to be patted down)...could bring down a bird.
Two sides to the story...and while I appreciate the niceties of the argument you offered, I think adjustments have to be made. The request for a pat down did not seem unreasonable...and the refusal to allow it did. At least, to me that was the case.
I don't see how Paul was going to be arrested unless he was trying to break the law.
The request for a pat down did not seem unreasonable...and the refusal to allow it did.
It wasn't a detention or an arrest. It was a request to comply with normal procedure. I understand how the executive branch could target Congress people but that clearly wasn't the case here. In this case it was the Congressman's decision to not comply that meant he was turned away from his flight. He wasn't arrested or detained.
Aren't arrests at airports ultimately made by local authorities?
It raises some interesting legal questions perhaps but I see it as a Congressman trying to play the "Do you know who I am?" card. Similar to Senator" widestance" Craig.
If a stranger is asking me to put my hands above my head, either there’s a robbery going on or I’m going through airport security.
If a stranger is asking me for my wallet, keys and cell phone, either there’s a robbery going on or I’m going through airport security.
If a stranger is asking me to remove my sweater and boots and begins lightly stroking my arm, either I’m on a great date with a socially awkward person or I’m going through airport security.
The Constitution trumps other regulations when there is a conflict or if the regulations are unreasonable. I see no conflict in treating congressmen the same way other travelers are treated. I don't see this as executive versus legislative.