Rand Paul: “I Certainly Felt Like I Was Detained”

After the incident in Nashville this morning, Senator Rand Paul made it back to D.C. on a later flight and talked to The Daily Caller’s Matthew Boyle:

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul told The Daily Caller that being “detained” by the Transportation Security Administration at the Nashville airport Monday was a major ordeal that underscores flaws in TSA’s procedures that affect tens of millions of passengers every year.

“It was a big headache,” Paul said in a phone interview. “I missed my speech here. I was supposed to speak to the Right to Life March, probably the biggest audience I’ll get to speak to, and I missed it.”

The White House, through spokesman Jay Carney, defended the TSA’s actions during Monday’s press briefing by arguing that Paul wasn’t technically “detained.”

“Let’s be clear,” Carney said. “The passenger was not detained. He was escorted out of the area by local law-enforcement.”

But Sen. Paul told TheDC that he certainly felt like he was detained. “If you’re told you can’t leave, does that count as detention?” Paul asked.

“I tried to leave the cubicle to speak to one of the TSA people and I was barked at: ‘Do not leave the cubicle!’ So, that, to me sounds like I’m being asked not to leave the cubicle. It sounds a little bit like I’m being detained.”

“For an hour and a half, they said ‘absolutely, I would have to [accept a pat-down],'” Paul said. “And, because I used my cell phone, they told me I would have to do a full body pat down because you’re not allowed to use your cell phone when you’re being detained.”

“It’s like, well, I can’t call my attorney? I can’t call my office to tell them I’m going to miss a speech to 200,000 people?”

“In the end, after two hours of this quarreling,” Sen. Paul explained, “they did let me walk through the screener [machine] and it didn’t go off. So what the TSA is not telling you is the screeners are being used as random devices as well. The [mechanical] screeners will go off randomly, and the [agent] screeners don’t know that it’s a random call but it has nothing to do with what you’ve done.”

Interestingly enough, the test for Miranda purposes of whether or not someone is in custody essentially boils down to whether they felt free to leave. If the answer to that question is no, then the person is being subjected to a custodial interrogation and the Miranda Warning must be given before questioning can continue.  In that sense then, it seems that Paul was in fact detained under the facts as we know them regardless of how the TSA chooses to characterize it.

The TSA is denying Paul’s assertion that there are randomized alerts in the full body scanners, but Paul says he’s been told by two TSA officials that this is the case. Additionally, he notes the fact that he went through the same full body scanner twice and the alert went off once but did not go off again an hour later. It certainly does make one wonder if there is a randomizing process at play here, or if the machines themselves are giving off false positives, and more importantly false negatives.

Paul also made some of the same criticisms of current TSA procedures that we’ve heard from others:

Paul doesn’t think the Nashville TSA agents were singling him out because he has been critical of the agency.

“I don’t think so,” Paul said. “They’ve usually treated me pretty well in Nashville. But the problem is the rules that are coming out of Washington. We’ve been 10 years and we have no frequent flier program, we have no ability for people to go back through the screener, [and] one-size-fits-all, everybody-is-a-potential-terrorist rules waste a lot of time on people who are not terrorists.

“So, resources, I think, could be better devoted to looking at who’s flying and where they’ve been flying and knowing more about the passenger list rather than spending all this time doing these random screenings of elderly people, young people and frequent fliers.”

Paul has dueled with TSA administrator John Pistole during Senate hearings about why travelers are required to consent to mandatory full body pat downs if scanners beep when they walk through. Paul argues that passengers should be allowed to choose to go through the scanners again rather than being forced to undergo a physical pat-down.

“The TSA has got a lot of problems,” Paul told TheDC. “There are a lot of people who are insulted and their dignity is compromised by what the TSA does to them. Really all I’m asking for is when you go through the screener [machine], you ought to be allowed to choose to get a body pat-down or choose to go back through the screener.”

TSA procedures, he said, ultimately waste time and resources. “So, if you try to comply, if you take your shoes off, you take your glasses off, you take your wallet out, you take everything out of your pockets and try to comply, it still goes off randomly.”

“But then you’re made to think that, ‘Oh, there’s a problem. We have to look at this,'” Paul said. “But, they’re wasting time, I think, by doing this. Instead of targeting people who meet a risk profile for terrorism, what they’re doing is they’re just doing these random things. But, I think it’s a waste of time and it’s insulting to put people through a body pat down when they have not shown any risk.”

Makes sense to me, to be honest.

Photo via Politico

FILED UNDER: Congress, Quick Takes, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Rob in CT says:

    I missed my speech here. I was supposed to speak to the Right to Life March, probably the biggest audience I’ll get to speak to, and I missed it

    Freeeeeeeeeeedom! [/Braveheart] 😉

    I’m still of the opinion that if Rand Paul and the TSA get into it over security theatre, I could benefit (via reduction in said theatre), so I’m happy about this.

  2. Steve Verdon says:

    If you aren’t free to leave you are detained. Carney is a moron.

    But Sen. Paul told TheDC that he certainly felt like he was detained. “If you’re told you can’t leave, does that count as detention?” Paul asked.

    Yes. Always ask if you can leave, if the answer is yes, get up and leave. To stay and continue talking is always a mistake.

    Oh and hope and change you can believe in.

  3. PD Shaw says:

    Is it possible that Rand Paul was allowed to leave the airport (and consequently not take a flight), so in that sense he had an escape option that meant he was not “detained”?

    The “random” calls are interesting as well. Could the government argue that they are like random road checks that are somehow less intrusive because they are not targeted?

  4. Can’t say I’m surprised that you miss the rich irony in Rand Paul being upset about a full-body patdown while he was on his way to support the government’s right to violate women’s bodily rights.

  5. @Kathy Kattenburg:

    One issue has nothing to do with the other and this is not going to turn into a comment thread about Roe v. Wade. Please stay on topic per our comment policy.

  6. @Doug Mataconis:

    The two issues have everything to do with each other, but I certainly will respect your blog’s policy not to make such an analogy.

  7. Hey Norm says:

    @ Doug…
    You’re wrong…as per usual.
    Paul refused the pat-down because he felt it was too invasive.
    Yet he has no problem with the government invading the privacy of women.
    The irony, that he was headed for a anti-choice rally, is rich. The hypocrisy at once overwhelming and yet predictable. The idea that the two are not related is ridiculous.
    Of course it is your blog….you can take the ball and run home pouting if you want…you not wanting to see the poster boy of Libertarianism called for what he is doesn’t suprise me.

  8. Your comment is the reason I choose not to engage in discussions on this topic. It’s pointless.

    For the record, I disagree with Paul but he has every right to his opinion.

  9. @Hey Norm:

    Thank you. The fact that even one other person sees the connection here means everything in the world to me, even if Doug decides to close down the discussion.

  10. @Doug Mataconis:

    Rand Paul’s right to his opinion has not been questioned, and is not the point. It’s the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Paul insisting on his right to the integrity of his own body while denying that same right to women (in the context of a far more egregious invasiveness) that is the point. I can’t accept that you don’t already know that.

  11. Kathy,

    It’s only an inconsistency because you think it is. Like I said, I disagree with him but I don’t necessarily see a philosophical inconsistency.

  12. “In the end, after two hours of this quarreling,” Sen. Paul explained, “they did let me walk through the screener [machine] and it didn’t go off. So what the TSA is not telling you is the screeners are being used as random devices as well. The [mechanical] screeners will go off randomly, and the [agent] screeners don’t know that it’s a random call but it has nothing to do with what you’ve done.”

    That’s pure conjecture on his part. How do we know that he didn’t remove an item from his pocket the second time through?

    Is Senator Paul qualified to assess the technology now? As far as that subject is concerned, Senator Paul should be careful about asserting his opinion as a fact.

    But, there is one thing I don’t get from this story and that is the sense that Senator Paul felt “entitled” or “special” and that’s to his credit. There are plenty of people who go ballistic when they are asked for identification or when they are asked to submit to a routine search, and members of Congress are famous for the stock rhetorical question, “do you know who I am?”

    If there’s anything good to come out of this, I would say that an assessment of the whole security theater apparatus is long overdue.

  13. PD Shaw says:

    “I certainly will respect your blog’s policy not to make such an analogy”

    Well that was obviously a lie.

    FWIW, I believe OTB has banned “right to lifers” who can’t help but make similar analogies to Roe v. Wade when they would rather insult a liberal than deal with the issues.

  14. WR says:

    @Kathy Kattenburg: He’s not the only one who sees the connection, especially after Rand’s daddy, the great avatar of freedom, has endorsed a Texas law that forces doctors to shove a metal ultrasound probe inside a woman’s vagina if she requests an abortion — basically state-mandated rape.

    But for libertarians, freedom is something that exists exclusively for white males. If women or minorities — or, let’s face it, poor people — want some, they should write their own Constitution.

  15. DRS says:

    That’s the first photo of him I’ve seen where he really looks like his father. And Kathy, I agree with you too.

  16. @Doug Mataconis:

    It’s only an inconsistency because you think it is.

    Is that a metaphysical argument?

    Like I said, I disagree with him but I don’t necessarily see a philosophical inconsistency.

    You’ve said that twice now, that you disagree with him. The last line of your post was “Makes sense to me, to be honest.” So I don’t know where your disagreement lies.

    And that you “don’t necessarily see an inconsistency” doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Obvously, you don’t see the government having the authority to force a woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth to be an issue of bodily invasiveness, whereas you do see the requirement to have a full body scan to get on a plane to be an issue of bodily invasiveness. I understand you don’t see the inconsistency. You’re wrong.

  17. @WR:

    Yes, and imagine if a woman is pregnant in the first place because she was raped.

  18. Kathy,

    And obviously you don’t understand how someone can have a philosophical belief about when life begins and when rights attach to that life that make abortion unacceptable. It’s not a position I agree with, at least not until the point of viability outside the womb is reached at which point termination of a pregnancy for anything but medical need strikes me as unacceptable, but I can at least respect it as a different point of view without demonizing it.

  19. @Doug Mataconis:

    Once again you avoid the point, Doug. Respecting or demonizing Rand’s position on abortion is not the point under discussion in this specific argument: The consistency of his belief that a full body scan at an airport constitutes an invasion of his bodily privacy versus his belief that making abortion illegal is NOT an invasion of a woman’s bodily privacy. Regardless of your position on abortion, they are both issues of bodily privacy, and there simply is no way to rationally dispute that they are both issues of bodily privacy. At the very least, he owes us an explanation as to why a full body scan unacceptably invades his bodily privacy, whereas forcing a woman to grow another life inside her body for nine months, and/or being required to have a surgical tool physically inserted into her vagina to show her an ultrasound of the contents of her uterus before she can choose to have an abortion, does NOT constitute an invasion of HER bodily privacy. Or is it that Rand Paul believes he has the right to bodily privacy but no one else does?

  20. Ben says:

    As someone who is himself pro-choice, it annoys me when other pro-choice people make lazy strawman-esque arguments.

    Kathy/Norm,
    The two situations only have something in common if you believe that an unborn fetus is not a “person” with rights until the moment of birth. If you believe that personhood begins before that, then abortion does not begin and end with a discussion of privacy, or a woman’s control of her body, or however else you feel like obscuring the issue. People who believe that an unborn fetus is a person believe that its right to life trumps any possible privacy right on the part of the mother.

    You don’t need to always agree with everyone, but at least understand what your opposition’s argument ACTUALLY is.

  21. @Ben:

    I understand that would be Paul’s argument if Rand Paul were to grace us with actually telling us his argument. But it’s a specious argument.

    I could just as easily argue that the possibility Rand Paul might pose a danger to the plane and its passengers trumps any possible privacy right that Paul might assert.

    I don’t believe that is true in the case of full body scans and I don’t believe it’s true in the case of pregnancy.

  22. @Ben:

    You don’t need to always agree with everyone, but at least understand what your opposition’s argument ACTUALLY is.

    And by the way, and even more to the point, Rand Paul *did not make that argument.* He probably would make that argument if he were asked, but he wasn’t asked, and he doesn’t, obvously, feel the need to explain why it’s okay to invade the privacy of a woman’s body but not okay to invade the privacy of a plane passenger’s body.

    That is the entire point I have been making. That there IS an inconsistency, and that a whole lot of people are ignoring or denying that there is.

  23. Ben says:

    @Kathy Kattenburg:

    1.) That argument has been made for 40 years, I don’t know why you need Rand to make it for you again. It’s obviously what he believes, as that is the standard pro-life position.

    2.) The argument of where we should balance the competing interests between the safety of the plane and privacy rights of the passengers is exactly the conversation that Rand is trying to stoke here. Many people don’t think that that conversation has even really happened yet. The TSA just does whatever it wants, and doesn’t even bother to wait for there to even be a conversation.

    My main point, is that the analogy only works for someone who is already pro-choice. To a pro-life person, the abortion issue has nothing to do with privacy.

  24. An Interested Party says:

    …but I can at least respect it as a different point of view without demonizing it.

    Can you do the same for the point of view that the TSA is necessary to keep the citizens of our country safe?

  25. @Ben:

    My main point, is that the analogy only works for someone who is already pro-choice. To a pro-life person, the abortion issue has nothing to do with privacy.

    And that is the point I’ve been making, Ben. Or it’s another way of expressing the point I’ve been making.

    You, apparently — and you can certainly correct me if I’m mistaken — believe that, since Rand Paul, as an opponent of legal abortion, does not believe abortion has anything to do with privacy, I should accept his premise, and not point out the inconsistency. You seem to be saying there is no inconsistency because Rand Paul wouldn’t or doesn’t see any inconsistency. And that, in my view, is an absurd argument. Privacy IS one of the key issues surrounding abortion. Because pro-fetal advocates claim it isn’t does not change the fact that it is.

  26. Hey Norm says:

    “… To a pro-life person, the abortion issue has nothing to do with privacy…”

    Abortion is about privacy whether the anti-choicers admit it or not. And Paul’s position is hypocritical.

  27. Ben says:

    @Kathy Kattenburg:

    He doesn’t see any incongruity in it, and you obviously do. Neither side is going to get the other to accept their premise. However, I find it all a moot point. You and others seem to be arguing that since you see his stance on issue A as hypocritical (due to a view on issue B that you think is at odds with this one), that means that his stance on issue A is invalid. There is a phrase for that, and it is argumentum ad hominem tu quoque, and it is a logical fallacy.

  28. Ben says:

    @Hey Norm: Explain to me how it is a matter of privacy, assuming the pro-life view that personhood begins at conception (or at any earlier point than birth).

  29. Ben says:

    You know what, nevermind. We’ve derailed this thread too much already.

  30. @Ben:

    I honestly don’t know what you mean by calling my arguments and those of others here ad hominem. Ad hominem arguments are arguments that rely on personal insults to make their point. That’s not what I’ve been doing, so I don’t know where you’re coming from on that one.

    I also don’t know what you mean by saying it’s “all a moot point.” A moot point is a point that cannot make any difference to an outcome. The point that anti-choicers like Rand Paul *do* see a right to privacy in the Constitution when it’s their body being invaded is not a moot point. Abortion is obviously a divisive, polarized issue, but it’s not a moot point. The issue is not a moot point. This is how laws and policies are influenced and changed, Ben. It’s absolutely appropriate and relevant that Rand Paul does not believe the lives of plane passengers trump his right to privacy, but he does believe the life of a fertilized egg trumps a woman’s right to privacy. And if one believes in a woman’s right to make her own decisions for own bodily integrity and health, as I do, one cannot just let that drop. You may be nominally pro-choice, but I think it’s fairly obvious that abortion is not all that important an issue for you. You’ve made that clear. But it is for me. No issue I can think of is more important to me than women’s reproductive rights, which includes a lot of stuff besides abortion.

  31. Hey Norm says:

    First… almost no one is Anti-Life…the appropriate term is Anti-Choice.
    Second…life does not begin at conception. That is simply the Anti-Choicers forcing their views onto others. In a very invasive manner.

  32. @Ben:

    Explain to *me* how it’s a matter of personhood, given the pro-choice position that a fertilized egg, zygote, or fetus, is not a person.

  33. Ben says:

    @Kathy Kattenburg:

    Look up the definition of argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. It is a different fallacy than the garden variety ad hominem. And it applies to exactly what you are doing here.

  34. Joseph Froton says:

    @Rob in CT: I am going to say what is obvious. Senator Ron Paul WAS detained quite purposefully by those in power threatened by him. Naturally, Sen. Paul responded appropriately by saying he did not think that he wa being harrassed by the STA as he wouldbe certainly called “a paranoid” by the press, etc. Of the hundreds of thousands passing through any one airport in a day, I honestly doubt that a US Senator that accepts such scanners that he/she must pass through to enter any number of government offices regularly would be more suspect of posing a potential threat to security! In fact, I would think that he would on the list of highy unlikely list! I have set off such scanners at the Boston airport and upon passing through was simply scanned upon exiting with a hand scanner and then went on my way. The STA has an opportunity to make Paul “eat his words” of which he ddidn’t and kept to his beliefs. Additionally, since the STA staff told Paul that he would be in a “time out” for and hour and 1/2 like a badly behaving kindrgartener was not simply to “punish” him for his disapproval, but those taking orders from superiors meant for Senator Paul to not make his scheduled speaking engagement! Of this, I have no doubt! I could care less if anyone calls me a “paranoid” since the fact speak volumes of truth.

  35. Hey Norm says:

    @ Froton…
    Lots of making stuff up there. opinions based on BS are BS

  36. @Ben:

    From Wikipedia: “Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: “You also”) refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument.”

    Yep. That’s what I’ve been arguing. What’s inappropriate or incorrect about it?

  37. Ben says:

    @Kathy Kattenburg: It’s a logical fallacy. It might be a valid attack on Rand Paul, but it is not a valid attack on his argument about the issue at hand, i.e. TSA, their “enhanced pat downs”, the fact that he was detained for refusing to undergo said pat-downs, and whether their scanners are configured to alert randomly to give them an excuse to more thoroughly pat more people down.

  38. @Ben:

    It wasn’t intended to be an argument about TSA’s “enhanced body scans.” It was intended to be an argument about the irony inherent in Rand Paul’s outrage, on grounds of bodily privacy, at being selected for a full body scan while he was on his way to speak at a so-called March for Life to express his support for violating the bodily privacy of women.

  39. Just nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Doug Mataconis: While I agree with you that Rand and Roe are not related to each other, it’s still ironic. Sorry, Doug.

  40. WR says:

    @Kathy Kattenburg: “Yes, and imagine if a woman is pregnant in the first place because she was raped. ”

    According to conservatives, it was her fault because she was a slut. According to libertarians, she’s completely free to be raped, and that’s the glory of America.

  41. Jenos Idanian says:

    Yet more sterling examples of liberal tolerance. “Ain’t it awesome when people I don’t like are the victims of illegal harassment?”

  42. Dodd says:

    In that sense then, it seems that Paul was in fact detained under the facts as we know them regardless of how the TSA chooses to characterize it.

    Of course he was. Uniformed agents of the federal government kept him in an airport and unable to travel for 2 hours (where 2 minutes would be enough). The problem isn’t that he’s a Senator being treated as an Average Joe would be. It’s that we’re all treated that way. Worse, it’s for no discernible purpose.

  43. Richard Gardner says:

    I imagine the Congressional Testimony if they spoke freely:

    Senator Paul: I was detained on my way to Washington DC in violation of the US Constitution. They said I couldn’t leave for 1.5 hours. Your Department violated a clause of the Constitution that has never before been violated. I missed a Senate vote in direct violation of the US Constitution. Explain to me why you should not be fired or impeached.

    Secretary Napolitano: It’s just a flesh wound, don’t worry about it.

    Senator Paul: Explain to me how you are above the US Constitution

    Secretary Napolitano: Because you annoy me. And we’re kabuki theater.

  44. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Richard Gardner: Well put, but one more line would make it complete:

    Napolitano: Plus, liberals hate you and think you deserve whatever happens to you. And since they’re our base, we know that it’s actually good for our re-election.

  45. An Interested Party says:

    Oh please, it’s quite disingenuous to try to pin the blame for all of this on liberals…perhaps if so many people, including conservatives, weren’t so scared $hitless after 9/11, we wouldn’t have this monstrosity known as the TSA…

  46. Jenos Idanian says:

    @An Interested Party: Just paraphrasing the comments expressed above, AIP. You saying I am mischaracterizing them?

  47. Rob in CT says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    As usual, you’re so fired up to score points against liberals, you can’t think straight.

    Yes, you are mischaracterizing the comments. The comments are pointing out irony inherent in Paul’s positions on: TSA scans/pat downs on the one hand, and abortion on the other. The comments are not supporting the TSA. They’re mocking Paul a bit. There’s a difference.

    I’d wager that most of us completely agree that the security state has gone too far. And many of us are frustrated that, having voted for a guy we thought would improve matters, things haven’t improved. Heck, it’s almost enough to make Paul the Father appealing, baggage and all. Now, tell me how electing Mitt Romney (or Newt Gingrich) is going to improve matters in this area…

  48. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Rob in CT: Let me turn that around on you, sport. You self-identify as an Obama supporter. Since you voted for him, Obama’s declared he can summarily execute American citizens, summarily detain without charges American citizens, waged a war without Congressional consultation or approval, declared that he can declare when Congress is or is not in session, and added roughly 60% to the federal deficit.

    If you vote for him again this November, what does that say about you? If you reward all the things he’s done that’s “frustrated” you, do you honestly think it’ll get any better?

  49. Rob in CT says:

    Yes, he has, and that seriously sucks.

    Which is why I will most likely throw Gary Johnson a vote (assuming he gets the Libertarian nom).

  50. Rob in CT says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    I can’t help but notice, btw, that you didn’t answer my question. You just “turned that around” on me. But hey look, no answer from you. Shocker.

  51. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Rob in CT: Guarantee it? No such possibility. But if either will be elected, they’ll be beholden to voters who want those things changed, including disillusioned Obama voters. And like in 2008, there are a lot of people who will go along with promises of change versus more of the same.

    In brief, Obama’s spent three years what he will do. Romney and Gingrich have denounced a lot of them. Just playing the odds, it’s a lot more likely that voting for Romney or Gingrich will do more to undo Obama’s abuses than voting for Obama again.

    But there are no guarantees. Look back at Obama’s campaign promises.

  52. Jenos Idanian says:

    But back to the topic at hand: It appears that Paul’s treatment met the legal definition of “detained” — prevented from leaving freely. So he was detained. Further, the Constitution is absolutely clear about the free travel of members of Congress, and that was also clearly violated if one accepts that he was “detained” in the legal sense.

    And our administration, headed up by a “brilliant” Constitutional scholar, sides with the TSA and doesn’t care about the Constitutional issues it raises. How unsurprisingly typical.

  53. Rob in CT says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Ludicrous. Romney and Gingrich have no problem at all with the national security state. They’re all for it: they just want to run it.

    Paul, for all his faults, is the true believer here. If he captured the GOP nom, wow I’d have some thinking to do (despite my vehementy disagreement with him on domestic policy, and my disgust with him over other matters).

    Again, on this matter: Go Rand Paul. Bravo, senator. Fight the good fight.

  54. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Rob in CT:

    Ludicrous. Romney and Gingrich have no problem at all with the national security state. They’re all for it: they just want to run it.

    Generally, in the vaguest sense, I’ll accept that. But on the particulars… I seriously doubt either of them would go along with Obama’s policies. Especially the arbitrary detention and summary execution of American citizens, and the waging of undeclared wars without even a courtesy “hey, guess what I’m doing” to Congress. That takes a very, very special kind of president — a delightful blend of ignorance and arrogance.

  55. Rob in CT says:

    What makes you think that? The content of their characters? LOL.

    What seems rather clear is that it’s hard to roll back these things, because Presidents don’t come into office and say “hmm, let me give up this power.” I wish it weren’t so – and I hoped that Obama would so that it wasn’t so – but that hope is dashed. I see absolutely no reason to believe that the GOP would seek to pull back on these things (unless you had President Paul, which would require a very different GOP).

    Now, one could dream up a scenario where the Dems, now in opposition, go back to cynically attacking these policies and, somehow, succeed in getting the GOP President to agree to roll back some of this stuff. I don’t see that as likely.

  56. Rob in CT says:

    Would show, not would so. Bah, sorry about the typo.

  57. Bob Gee says:

    Mataconis is WAY off-base when attempting to liken Paul’s detention to a Miranda-like situtation – just about what you’d expect from an attorney. Miranda is all about the requirement to advise an arrestee of their right to an attorney prior to the beginning of custodial questioning. Being detained is NOT being arrested (see: Terry v. Ohio).
    One suspects that Paul may well have orchestrated the entire incident – perhaps to gain the press he eventually received, and/or to avoid having to speak in front the group he was scheduled to address (for ‘whatever’ reason).
    I have a total knee replacement and must go through this same procedure EACH AND EVERY TIME I fly anywhere. What makes HIM so special that he believes he is immune from the same requirements as everyone else flying that day. Why isn’t the press asking him if he was scheduled to fly First Class or Cattle class, with the Hoi-Polloi that day? THAT would have been far more interesting.

  58. Dodd says:

    What makes HIM so special that he believes he is immune from the same requirements as everyone else flying that day. Why isn’t the press asking him if he was scheduled to fly First Class or Cattle class, with the Hoi-Polloi that day? THAT would have been far more interesting.

    Even leaving aside the Constitutional provision applicable to a sitting Senator but not you, he doesn’t. His whole complaint was that they detained him for 2 hours instead of just letting him walk through the scanner again–which, when he finally did, did not go off, showing that if he’d been allowed to do as he asked to begin with would have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble.

    Paul’s been very consistent and vocal about this stuff. He’s been very clear that he thinks this nonsense as applied to the overwhelming majority of citizens is wrong. It just happens to be the case that, as a sitting Senator, he can make noise about it and be heard where we cannot. And I’d bet you dollars to doughnuts Paul would agree that you should be able to bring a doctor’s note or have access to some official documentation showing your own special circumstance to ameliorate the inconvenience. Or just not be subjected to pointless security theater in the first place.

    Your utterly unsupported, farcical conjecture about him causing it says more about you than Paul.

  59. An Interested Party says:

    Just paraphrasing the comments expressed above, AIP. You saying I am mischaracterizing them?

    Those comments hardly express the views of all, or even a significant majority of liberals, much less Janet Napolitano…

    Romney and Gingrich have denounced a lot of them. Just playing the odds, it’s a lot more likely that voting for Romney or Gingrich will do more to undo Obama’s abuses than voting for Obama again.

    Bull$hit…you have no proof that Gingrich or Romney would undo any of these measures (most of them having their origin in the Bush Administration)…indeed, the bellicose words of Gingrich and Romney seem to indicate that they would double down on all these things you want to lay at the feet of the President…

  60. Habbit says:

    I just want to say that I’m glad the topic was able to reassert itself after that silly woman came out of left field and tried to turn it into some feminazi-pandering rhetoric.

  61. @Habbit:
    I just want to say that I’m glad the topic was able to reassert itself after that silly woman came out of left field and tried to turn it into some feminazi-pandering rhetoric.

    Thank you, Habbit!

  62. Habbit says:

    Geezums, four minutes after my post… You watch these threads like a hawk, huh? Go have a kid and do something useful with your time. 🙂

  63. @Habbit:

    Geezums, four minutes after my post… You watch these threads like a hawk, huh? Go have a kid and do something useful with your time. 🙂

    Habbit, you are a prince among men.

  64. Habbit says:

    King.

  65. @Habbit:

    Prince. Don’t push your luck, bubbie.

  66. Steve Verdon says:

    Shorter Kathy:

    Two wrongs do make a right!

    The consistency of his belief that a full body scan at an airport constitutes an invasion of his bodily privacy versus his belief that making abortion illegal is NOT an invasion of a woman’s bodily privacy.

    Is that true? I don’t think so. Paul was objecting to the pat-down not the scan. So you got that wrong. Second of all, is it indeed the case that he does not see preventing as not being an invasion of a woman’s “bodily privacy”? Maybe he does, but also believes that the rights of the child outweigh those of the mother.

    I to disagree with Paul’s position on abortion, but I can see how somebody could hold the positions he does and remain logically consistent.

    Oh, and lest you interpret that as tacit agreement with Paul it isn’t. Somebody can be logically correct but still arrive at the wrong answer.

    Oh and yes, another bit of rich irony in this thread, Kathy, is that you are using a logical fallacy as the basis of your comments, ad hominem tu quoque.

  67. Steve Verdon says:

    @An Interested Party:

    So why are you defending the TSA? Oh….yeah you disagree with Paul so any chance to attack him. How intellectually dishonest of you. Bravo.

  68. An Interested Party says:

    Steve, sweetie, I’m not defending TSA…I asked Doug that question to see if he could respect something as repulsive as the point of view that the TSA is necessary to keep the citizens of our country safe without demonizing such a view…doesn’t mean I agree with that view…if you will read very, very closely, you will see that I called TSA a monstrosity…hmm, that doesn’t look like “defending”…

  69. Habbit says:

    Kathy, push my luck? If I were King I’d make sure you experienced some sort of “post-birth abortion” (since we can’t go back to when you were born and make the world a better place), so you are in fact the lucky one! 🙂

    An Interested Party, good to see you again after you gracefully bowed (read: stopped responding) out of our last disagreement… and again I see you still have not learned to argue the point… which is that your sole reason for opine on this particular topic is that Rand Paul identifies with the Republican Party.