Monday, January 23, 2012

Passengers who Refuse Screening are Denied Access to the Secure Area

Earlier today, Senator Rand Paul raised some questions about the screening process after going through one of TSA’s millimeter wave body scanners that use automated target recognition (ATR) technology. The ATR software displays the same generic image for all passengers to further protect passenger's privacy.

The benefit of automated target recognition is that when a passenger alarms, the officer can look at the generic image to see where the alarm is and then do a targeted pat down to clear the area. For example, if the alarm shows that something might be in your cargo pocket, the officer will pat down the area around your pocket to determine what caused the alarm. 

When a passenger or bag alarms in screening technology at a TSA checkpoint, the alarm has to be resolved before the passenger can enter the secure area past the checkpoint. Passengers who refuse to complete the screening process can’t be granted access to the secure area. TSA notifies law enforcement when this happens, and law enforcement officers can escort them out of the checkpoint. This isn’t done to punish the passenger– it’s done to ensure that every person who gets on a plane is screened appropriately. 

If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.

210 comments:

1 – 200 of 210   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

It's no wonder the Paul's are Libertarians! They still remember what the Founding Father's constitutional ideals were. It's too bad TSA has forgotten those ideals, and instead chose to persecute Rand Paul for his correct beliefs about personal rights and freedom that every American is entitled to.

Alex Sterling said...

How does it work if a woman is 4-foot-11 and a guy is 6-foot-5? Do they show the exact same "gingerbread man" image? How does the machine know how to account for how tall someone is? I don't know about anyone else, but this kind of technology is scary!

If the computer can automagically tell how tall you are, what else can it tell about you? How much you weight? What color your skin is (racial profiling anyone)? What your fingerprint is???

Pedro Velazquez said...

I don't get it. This Senator can't recognize that terrorists are trying to hit us again. Him and his father want to do away with the TSA. They propose that we go back to pre-9/11 days? Or that we don't have any screening of passengers? I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

I want to know where an Executive branch agency (the TSA) has the Constitutional authority to in ANY WAY restrict the travel os a sitting meber of the Legislative branch while they are in session?!?!

Anonymous said...

Please post the surveillance tapes from the checkpoint, so that we can see for ourselves what happened!

Anonymous said...

Does the passenger have the right to summon a law enforcement authority to consider escorting a TSA agent from the location if the passenger believes the TSA agent has broken TSA rules, for example, by requiring a strip search?

Laura Monteros said...

It's my understanding that Ron Paul did not refuse a second screening. He just refused a patdown.

Don't U.S. Senators have Secret Service agents assigned to them? Isn't that enough? And even if Rand Paul did not have SS protection, how is it possible that a TSA employee could possibly consider him a threat?

It's almost enough to make one a Libertarian.

Anonymous, Too said...

...And as a rather frequent traveler into and out of all Washington DC airports and fellow US citizen I would like to remind Anonymous, and others who seem to think that TSA derives any pleasure of giving travelers a hard time, that this is THE ONLY line of protection we all have against anything like 9/11, whether sitting or standing members of anything. A member of the Legislative should be either the first to set an example in the way of lawfulness and cooperativeness, or else perhaps use means otherwise at their sole disposal to change the laws and procedures.
Should a Congress person perhaps enjoy special clearance privileges? Well perhaps, but this is another argument altogether.

TrackerNeil said...

Wow...I never thought I'd ever sympathize with Rand Paul. The TSA makes anything possible!

Anonymous said...

Translation: people who refuse to consent to an illegal, unconstitutional search are escorted from airports by law enforcement officials.

Jim Huggins said...

So, a U.S. Senator has a problem at a TSA checkpoint, and TSA posts a commentary the same day. Meanwhile, an ordinary woman has a problem with her cupcakes at a TSA checkpoint, and it takes a month for TSA to respond --- even after it becomes a popular story, it still takes a couple of weeks.

It'd be nice if every passenger's concerns were treated with as much dignity and respect as Senator Rand's.

Anonymous said...

Can you please explain how the TSA detaining a sitting member of the US Senate meshes with the following from the US Constitution?

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.

Anonymous said...

I believe it was reported the good senator did not refuse screening he refused a full pat-down instead of the isolated area that was "shown" to the agents and then denied the request to pass back through the scanner.

Of course the TSA will never admit to any wrong doing even when caught in the act.

Ergo, the inappropriate screenings of the elderly women recently and even admitted to by the higher up TSA reps. Not however mentioned on this blog.

We can however read about every "good catch" in the relative recent history.

TSA: The single most hated and reviled agency in the United States, a fact I'm sure the IRS is glad of.

Anonymous said...

Did you fine him $10k too?

CCEMTP-FpC said...

Senator was also unlawfully detained for 30 mins and that's kidnapping plain and simple. Yet more crimes committed by TSA against travelers.


Pedro wake up nothing TSA does nothing to keep us safe, it's all smoke mirrors and lies. There will never be another take over of a commercial Airliner as the cockpit doors were hardened (done voluntarily by airlines), and anyone getting out of line will be subdued by Passengers, not Tsa , nor fam, but passengers. So this 8+ billIon dollar a year disgrace could be eliminated easily as tsa wouldn't have stopped the events of 9/11/01 either

I'll bet a months wages, the video never sees the light of day either because the tape was destroyed or the "equipment malfunctioned".

(screen cap saved

Anonymous said...

To the Anonymous, Too said... so you want the congress people who are elected to just passively walk through while EVERYONE'S constitutional rights are violated. There is a little thing called the 4th amendment which says the government needs reason to search you. Last I checked getting on a plane wasn't grounds to get felt up, and they have no warrant.

Mark Clyde Brant said...

Since everyone is so concerned with our safety, could you please get the cigarette smoke out of my lungs and make folks smoke at home? Oh, and no parking lots for bars would be a big help. And please get police to gas, mace, tase, beat up, etc. only violent perps, not just anyone they don't like. And please stop murdering folks in other countries so they don't seek revenge. And keep up the good work at the airport. Thanks TSA!

Anonymous said...

This is exactly why I hate government and unions! Look at Blogger Bob's response.

Can you see this "I will hide my common sense behind the Rules Book and give a copy-paste answer because that way no one can blame me" ????

TSA, Blogger Bob, stop posting pictures of knives and grenades and start addressing the issues that are infuriating the public, your boss!!!!!

Keith said...

My problem is not with TSA. It is the culture that we live in that does not allow any profiling of any sort. Political Correctness gone amok. As for the targeted pat downs, Sen Paul said he showed them the area that was causing the alarm and that they still wanted to pat him down. For some strange reason, my neck area always sets the darn thing off. The TSA agent feels around my neck and nothing else. Not sure what the full story is. I do fly out of Nashville all of the time. They use the scanners on everyone. I am flying out tomorrow. I am sure I will get a neck rub out of it!

Anonymous said...

Bob,
Please cite the law or rule which says that it is permissible for TSA agents to physically touch passengers as a condition of air travel. Not even law enforcement officers have the right to touch anyone except in well-defined circumstances such as an arrest.

Outside of the law enforcement arrest example, touch usually IS assault, especially in the manner done by the TSA.

Can you blame Rand Paul, as well as thousands of other passengers, for not wanting to be assaulted?

Anonymous said...

1- the TSA operates outside of the rule of law. You detained a Senator on his way in violation of our Constitution.

2- Either your machines work or they don't. The request to be rescreened rather then being groped is completely reasonable. That is if your machines actually work.

Damocles said...

God, I hate you guys so much. I can't wait until the TSA is abolished.

Creeping fascism? Check.

Anonymous said...

"They propose that we go back to pre-9/11 days? Or that we don't have any screening of passengers? I don't get it."

No, we know who the threat is, and it's not sitting Senators.

Anonymous said...

"I want to know where an Executive branch agency (the TSA) has the Constitutional authority to in ANY WAY restrict the travel os a sitting meber of the Legislative branch while they are in session?!?!"

Well, it certainly doesn't have the authority to detain the Senator as it did. Sen Paul should have walked into the "sterile" area after making sure that LE was aware he could not be arrested.

Bottom line: TSA policies will be changed to allow sitting members of Congress to travel unimpeded. You heard it here first. The only question is if it will do so on its own or if this will be done statutorily.

Anonymous said...

"A member of the Legislative should be either the first to set an example in the way of lawfulness and cooperativeness, or else perhaps use means otherwise at their sole disposal to change the laws and procedures."

Nonsense. The members of "the Legislative" have sworn to uphold the Constitution, not play security theater with the TSA.

Members of Congress will soon be allowed to forego screening.

Anonymous said...

"...it’s done to ensure that every person who gets on a plane is screened appropriately. "

Yet literally dozens of people with access to the aircraft - baggage handlers and mechanics, among others - are not typically screened. The security theater of the TSA needs to come to an end before another $100B is wasted.

Anonymous said...

Again what about my rights as an american citizen?? I have the right to be able to jump on a plane and know that im safe. If you don't want to be screened than drive or swim to your destination. There are numerous signs as you enter a TSA screening location that says all Person's and their property are Subject to screening and are required to complete the screening process. You'd think this Senator would lead by example, I sure wish I were there when he was causing all this uproar...i'd be the first one to tell him off. He should be arrested and fined by the TSA.

Anonymous said...

"It'd be nice if every passenger's concerns were treated with as much dignity and respect as Senator Rand's."

Oh, it's not because the TSA wants to treat Sen Paul with respect and diginity; this is the TSA trying to get in front of a hugely damaging PR disaster.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, Too said...
"...And as a rather frequent traveler into and out of all Washington DC airports and fellow US citizen I would like to remind Anonymous, and others who seem to think that TSA derives any pleasure of giving travelers a hard time, that this is THE ONLY line of protection we all have against anything like 9/11, whether sitting or standing members of anything."

I'm sure that the CIA, FBI, NSA and all branches of the military would take issue with your belief that they are doing nothing whatsoever to combat terrorism. What nonsense.

Gadfly said...

Just checking... Article 1, Section 6 of the US Constitution does not apply at the TSA checkpoint? If it doesn't, what other parts of the US Constitution are also considered to be null and void at the TSA checkpoint?

Anonymous said...

Question for Bob; If your scanner alarmed on Senator Paul's leg and Senator Paul then physically pulled his pants leg up to show his bare leg why was a pat down required. You said only the effected area would be patted down. Isn't a visual inspection of the area better than a pat down. This appears to be just another bunch of TSA BS as I see it. Please explain the procedure when a passenger alarms during the sanning process. Does the identified area get a pat down or does the passenger get a full body pat down?

Anonymous said...

Wow, this is the most professional post that has been written on this blog. It is not full of the snark and condescending attitude of most posts. Could the TSA be afraid of upsetting a U.S. Senator who is not afraid to tell the truth about "thousands standing around"?

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous, Too
The TSA is not the only thing protecting us from terrorists plots. They are a money sink focusing on a single terrorist scenario, more as a 'See? We're doing something!' line item than actual good security. The millions spent on those body scanners would probably be better spent on law enforcement agencies that can focus on terrorists planning attacks using all airplanes (not just commercial ones), or cars, or poisoning food supplies, etc. Sure, there is a need for some airport security, but the amount we spend on the TSA for the security payoff is definitely not worth it.

Anonymous said...

Dear Bob-

Please read the Constitution - Article 1 Section 6:

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.

rjk113 said...

Once the proof comes out that these tsa guys were just being jerks, I am sure this post will disappear. Just like the ones where blogger bob told us the old lady's were lying. Hey bob, where did those "articles" of yours disappear to??

Anonymous said...

Actually, Bob, you're wrong on several counts. First and most serious, the TSA violated the Constitution, Article 1, Section 6, that is often called the Speech and Debate Clause:

...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 from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

You may not be aware that "arrest" in this context does not mean formal arrest as it has become understood in the 20th and 21st centuries but merely the impeding of Senator Paul clearly violates this provision.

Second, the assertion that the safety of the traveling public justifies this behavior is, on its face, laughable. The TSA could have notified the passengers on the airplane, the crew of the airplane, or the entire population of the "sterile area" that a Senator was traveling and had not been screened. Any and all of those people could have left the area, refused to fly on board the aircraft (either passengers or crew); the Constitution does not compel anyone to provide the Senator transportation, it merely prevents impeding the Senator. The TSA, again, clearly violated the Constitution citing regulatory reasons.

The TSA's position on this is untenable. Changes will have to be made to prevent TSA leadership from being fired, fined or incarcerated.

Anonymous said...

So, Bob, do you think you all are exempt from the Constitutional prohibition against detaining Senators and Congressmen on their way to a session?

Anonymous said...

Rand Paul was on his way to a pro-life rally, not the Senate. He even admitted that. Nice spin on it though!

Anonymous said...

I first heard this on a normally conservative LA talk show. They actually side with Paul and usually bash the TSA. When will everyone realize that it is the Liberals, Lawyers and of the ACLU that set the standards that TSA uses. TSA does not want to "wand" the 90 year old lady, but they have to treat everyone the same, fearing a law suit.

Anonymous said...

No, they aren't. As we've seen multiple times, passengers who refuse screening are denied access to the secure area AND they are detained until further investigation can take place. The problem here, as Blogger Bob knows, is that if the TSA concedes that they DETAINED Senator Paul, they have violated the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. Of course, the TSA makes it standard practice to violate the 4th Amendment, so it's unlikely that they would be offended by allegations that they violated Article I.

Anonymous said...

I'm a rather close watcher of this blog since I have a personal interest in how the TSA treats people with disabilities. So I'd like to know what your false-positive rate is with those mm-wave machines.

Back in December I was stopped because of not one, not two... no, FOUR alarms showing on the mm-wave screen (yes, I turned around to look at it.) This despite the fact that I had removed EVERYTHING from my pockets and held my boarding pass and ID in my RAISED HANDS while I was being irradiated. Then I was told that one of the alarms was at my head, ostensibly because I failed to remove my hat.

NOBODY told me that removing my hat should be part of the process. After all, I was wearing other clothing and I had put my coat through the regular X-ray. I didn't really want to go through the mm-wave machine and knowing that I did everything right and yet it STILL alarmed really pissed me off.

So when I got through the machine and was told that I had to be patted down, after the TSO told me that my hat had alarmed, I took off my hat and put it on top of my stuff. Then I was told NOT to touch my own stuff, even though it was quickly backing up the x-ray machine.

The only saving grace in this whole fiasco was that the TSO did ask me if I have any sensitive areas before she touched me, and she talked her way through the whole thing... possibly because I told her I have lightning fast reflexes and that if she didn't tell me when she was touching my back, there was a possibility that I would hit her with my elbow. (I am a disabled person with dyskinesia and hyperreflexia, two movement disorders).

So, what is it then? What is your false positive rate? What will I have to do next time so I don't alarm again? Perhaps I need to file a FOIA request.

Anonymous said...

OK TSA: you've posted your version of events. Post the surveillance tapes *right here* and let us judge for ourselves whether you comported yourselves professionally (or even 'legally'...), or whether you detained a US Senator from making his way to a Congressional vote.

Put up or shut up.

Anonymous said...

BBob..Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution...you should probably read it.

Also, I thought it was against TSA rules to get a 2nd machine screening after an "alarm" w/o a "pat down"?

Anonymous said...

TSA stands for Terrorist Supporting Agency, pure and simple. They promote fear and support the removal of our freedoms. I hope everyone in the TSA with any power to make policy gets detained indefinately for their crimes against America.

I hope Ron Paul shuts you down, as that will save me money in having to pay taxes for your worthless service.

Anonymous said...

Bob said:

"When a passenger or bag alarms in screening technology at a TSA checkpoint, the alarm has to be resolved before the passenger can enter the secure area past the checkpoint."
----------------------------------
The question is "How are these alarms resolved"

Paul said he lifted his pant leg up to show there was nothing on his leg.

Apparently a visual inspection of a bare leg is not enough for the supposedly highly trained and professional TSO's.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous too said the following:

"...that this is THE ONLY line of protection we all have against anything like 9/11..."


Incorrect, the first line of defense against terrorism is the American citizen, the second line of defense is the American Constitution, the third line of defense is the US Intelligence agencies, the fourth line of defense is the US military and the fifth line of defense is the TSA.

As a line of defense, the TSA is a failure for the following reasons: One-It circumvents the Consitution, essentially accomplishing the goal of the terrorist organizations themselves.
Two-Its procedures endanger the traveling public, the new scanners are ineffective (as proven in Europe) and emit dangerous radiation (as proven by the scientific community) and present targets of opportunity for terrorists (as proven by Isreali airport security, and Russian Security)
Three - inconsistent policies and practices have ensured thousands of security breaches across the US (as proven by the GAO).
Four-The TSA has become a bloated, ineffective beauracracy, consuming more US funding than more legitimate agencies, such as NASA.

Pre-September 11 security measures have proven to be very effective. New technologies and procedures need to be worked out publically and legally before implementation, but the TSA would rather circumvent the law on this issue.

Anonymous said...

"When a passenger or bag alarms in screening technology at a TSA checkpoint, the alarm has to be resolved before the passenger can enter the secure area past the checkpoint. Passengers who refuse to complete the screening process can’t be granted access to the secure area. "

As shocking as it may seem to the TSA, Bob, the Constitution takes precedence over TSA rules.

Not even the finest security theater outranks the Constitution, despite TSA assurances to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

You illegally detained a U.S. Senator while he was on his way to Washington for a session and a vote. I cannot even begin to explain everything wrong about what your agency did, and I have a feeling you will be raked over the coals for it.

Anonymous said...

In all seriousness, Its not senators, 6 year old girls, or 85 year old women who are the threat. The TSA looks so stupid.

Anonymous said...

http://www.14news.com/story/1799771/congressman-hostettler-cited-for-carrying-gun-in-airport?redirected=true

Anonymous said...

Why are you using a screening technology that returns nothing but false positives, has yet to detect anything dangerous that WTMD would not detect, and guarantees that millions of innocent Americans guilty of nothing more than having survived cancer or requiring ostomy bags are subject to an invasive groping by your poorly trained, unprofessional screeners every single time they fly?

Anonymous said...

Senator Paul has a Constitutional right to free passage. The TSA yet again shows its true colors.

DJ said...

So, based on news reports, let me make sure I understand this correctly:
- Passenger alarms AIT.
- Passenger refuses pat down, asks for re-scan
- Re-scan not permitted by TSA.
- Passenger escorted away from checkpoint.
- Passenger returns to checkpoint.
- Passenger is scanned without incident.
- Passenger flies, without being patted down.

Is that about right?

Passenger 1, TSA 0

Excellent.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Bob,

Thank you for posting the rules, as what Senator Rand did was perfectly legal. It is just unfortunate that the only way to escape an abusive TSA agent is to leave the airport and miss your flight.

I have read a fair number of articles about this story, and the facts have been all but destroyed. It is unclear whether the TSO involved was insisting on patting down the area that alarmed as the rules you posted would imply, or whether that TSO insisted on a complete patdown that is the result of refusing a WBI scan. I will also point out that while you have stated the rules, you have not stated whether the TSO involved followed those rules. There is a good chance that you do not know, so it is nice to see you show some restraint. Perhaps you learned a lesson when you insisted the screening of the three senior citizens was performed according to SOP, before it was proven that the SOP was not followed.

Not Scared of Terrorists

RB said...

Senator Pauls account of his detention by TSA is certainly different than posted by TSA's Blogger Bob.

I have one question for TSA which does not favor either sides story.

The United States Constitution, Section 6 states the following:

"Section. 6.

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."

My question for TSA and I think this questions is especially deserving of an answer is:

Does TSA screening rules trump Section 6 of the United States Constitution?

Now that is a very simple question so I can fathom no reason that it will not be answered promptly.

Anonymous said...

I am RELIEVED that this happened to Senator Rand. Good for the TSA - you finally have done something that will benefit us. You picked on someone with the power to begin to enact CHANGE. Whatever legislation he introduces, everyone needs to call their congressional reps and urge them to support it. I'm not against security, I'm against the current setup of the TSA.

Anonymous said...

MIA and DFW airports have a frequent traveler program where I don't have to take off my shoes, etc and walk right through. That's the way it should be.

Anonymous said...

The issue isn't' about searching individuals. It's about not wanting to offend anyone so we search everyone. Is this the best course of action to take? NO! Learn something from the Israelis.

Scan everyone and develop the profile of those people you need to screen more in depth. A US Senator is in no way a threat to anyone on a plane. (They are more of a threat in DC) Old ladies in wheel chairs, babies, the feeble and weak aren't likely a threat. Like the TSA said, a child set off a device over seas. True.. but this child was also from a country with terrorist ties and also was a Muslim and therefore one could reasonably say that this child should have gone through additional screening. When was the last time a US Citizen, who is 84 years old from Phoenix was a threat?

Anonymous said...

Senator Paul could have staged this incident to grab another 15 minutes of fame, get his dad's name prominently in the news, and bash TSA too.

Wintermute said...

Umm... Does not the Constitution override the TSA rulebook? It's bad enough the TSA tramples over the 4th amendment rights of everyday citizens, but then this? Congress can ignore our rights, but when their own are stepped on, I bet something gets done about it.

"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."

Even if he wasn't detained (in the same sense that items are not "confiscated" during the screening process, even though for all intents and purposes they most definitely are), does not a pat-down, or any screening for that matter, equate to questioning?

Anonymous said...

Having dealing with his father in the past, I can assure you that Rand came to the airport looking for a fight. The Pauls are a family of bullies, who will do anything to get on the news.

Also, ignore all the negative comments, anytime you mention a Paul on the internet, it brings out all their followers, who are incapible of using reason.

Going back to an honor system to fly on a plane is a horrible idea, but one the Pauls support.

Anonymous said...

He's a a U.S. Senator!!!!

Is it the TSA's Official stance that Congressmen/women are (potential) terrorists??

Anonymous said...

So, a Senator can't get on a plane, but the cargo handlers/mechanics/'secure area' workers can get full access to the whole airport after a 'possible' random screening?

The TSA has it's priorities all messed up!

Anonymous said...

Just do what I do. When I have a "pat down" i just keep saying out loud that it tickles and giggle!

Anonymous said...

I thought in prior incidents like this the passenger MUST COMPLETE the screening process once started. How can he be escorted away from the "sterile" area without completing the process?

mikeef said...

Yeah, ya see, he wasn't detained. He just wasn't allowed to leave. Somehow, in some TSO's mind, that doesn't equal detention.

Somehow, I'm not surprised that the TSO violated the Constitution. When has it ever stopped them before?

R.P. said...

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.

chanceg said...

You go Blogger Bob! Stay firm TSA, you guys/gals do a great, difficult, and what's got to be a tedious job. Rand Paul can deal with it just like the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Just read another interview with Senator Paul.

It appears there is more to the story than Blogger Bob lets on.

Random false positives (for pat-downs), threats (of more serious consequences), and definitely being detained regardless of Bobs (aka TSA's) definition.

I'll take the Senators word over the TSA's any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Keep up the fine work, the IRS appreciates it.

Anonymous said...

If the scanner showed an anomaly on the Senator's knee, why did the TSA insist on a full body patdown? The Senator pulled up his pants leg and showed the screener that nothing was there. Why wasn't that good enough for the TSA? There was nothing there that should alarm the scanner and that was proven again after the Senator was allowed through after rescheduling his flight. It seems like common sense wasn't used after the Senator showed that there was nothing there where the scanner alarmed.

It also seems like these machines generate a lot of false positives. I believe Germany stopped using them after determining they had a greater than 50% false positive rate.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait until November 2012! Hopefully Americans will elect more patriots like Rand Paul who believe that government employees should NOT be inappropriately touching 99.9% of law-abiding Americans at US airports.

Anonymous said...

The constitution forbids you to block a representative or senator in their official travel. Your screeners should go to prison. so should you.

Anonymous said...

TSA: Your heavy handed tactics and complete disregard for our 4th ammendment protections are exactly why the American people loathe the agency.

Anonymous said...

The federal government is dangerously big and powerful. I'm much more afraid of the government than I am of terrorist.

If this is how the government treats its members of congress now, I'm scared to death of how they're going to treat a little person like me in the near future!

Wake up people! The police state in gaining beaucoup traction and they do not care about you or your rights (it's for your protection after all)!

Anonymous said...

TSA does not have police powers. What are they doing detaining him? I think he should sue for false imprisonment. I know many, many patriotic people who would contribute to the legal fees.

TSA has been a miserable failure. Just another one of the major mistakes made by GWB and aggravated by BHO.

Anonymous said...

Quoted:
" Anonymous said...
Can you please explain how the TSA detaining a sitting member of the US Senate meshes with the following from the US Constitution?"
--------------
Big difference between "detained" and "not allowed to pass through the checkpoint".

Sommer Gentry said...

This is yet another example of the TSA's blatant law-breaking. The TSA detained a sitting Senator in a plastic cubicle in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. It doesn't get any clearer than this, Bob. The TSA may not detain a Senator to prevent him from traveling to Washington.

Also, when will the public notice and comment period for the body scanner program be held? Because the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the TSA to conduct a public notice and comment period back in July 2011. Would you do us the honor of listing the other laws that the TSA sticks out its proverbial tongue at?

Anonymous said...

"If the computer can automagically tell how tall you are, what else can it tell about you? How much you weight? What color your skin is (racial profiling anyone)? What your fingerprint is???

January 23, 2012 7:34 PM"
----------------
Puuhhllleeesssee!

Anonymous said...

I am pretty sure that no one is allowed to detain or impede a representative or senator on their way to the capital. That doesn't go out the window. And secondly what is the actual risk involved? Is TSA concerned that allowing a US Senator on the plane is a security risk? If so I hope that we get pat downs every time he enters or exits the capital. This is basically ridiculous and goes to show how ineffectively security measures are being enacted at our nations airports.

stuart said...

As a frequent flyer, I say "Congrats to the TSA!" For those of you who didn't read the news, people have bought things on airplanes and killed people. Anyone not wanting to be searched does not have to fly. Problem solved! I just reread the constitution and it doesn't say one is allowed to fly on airplanes without being searched! Keep it up TSA - Thank you for protecting me.

Anonymous said...

It is not a "right" but a "privilege" to fly as a passenger. The TSA provides security for the airlines. The airlines are private companies and they have the right to not allow passengers to fly who have not been properly screened. If we get rid of the TSA, no private company would be willing to take the risk of ensuring the security of flying passengers.

Anonymous said...

I really wish we could provide two planes for each flight, one with screening and one which anyone is free to board freely without any screening.

I know which one I'd pick, and which one a terrorist would pick.

Anonymous said...

Waiting for Blogger Bob to type the PR spin he will be handed....appologizing to Sen. Paul but explaining he was at fault....sitting....and....waiting....

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Again what about my rights as an american citizen?? I have the right to be able to jump on a plane and know that im safe. If you don't want to be screened than drive or swim to your destination. There are numerous signs as you enter a TSA screening location that says all Person's and their property are Subject to screening and are required to complete the screening process. You'd think this Senator would lead by example, I sure wish I were there when he was causing all this uproar...i'd be the first one to tell him off. He should be arrested and fined by the TSA.

January 23, 2012 9:59 PM

...............
Please point out to us the Right to Safety. I'm sure you can find it in our Constitution.

Anonymous said...

"So I'd like to know what your false-positive rate is with those mm-wave machines."

Close enough to 100% that the difference is negligible. Right, Curtis?

kimm said...

Anonymous said...
Again what about my rights as an american citizen?? I have the right to be able to jump on a plane and know that im safe. If you don't want to be screened than drive or swim to your destination.


Then Anonymous, I suggest that if you are so scared to fly, you had also better stay out of the grocery store....no security or pat downs there. Stay away from restaurants, malls and movie theatres as well. No scanners or pat downs there either.

Better stay off the sidewalk too, as the pedestrians haven't been screened.

I feel sorry for those of you who are so scared of your own shadows, that you're willing to give up all for security theatre. That is not living.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Again what about my rights as an american citizen?? I have the right to be able to jump on a plane and know that im safe."

Really? Where does it say that in the constitution.

There is no "right to safety", that's nonsense.

JoJo said...

Anonymous said...
Again what about my rights as an american citizen?? I have the right to be able to jump on a plane and know that im safe. If you don't want to be screened than drive or swim to your destination. There are numerous signs as you enter a TSA screening location that says all Person's and their property are Subject to screening and are required to complete the screening process. You'd think this Senator would lead by example, I sure wish I were there when he was causing all this uproar...i'd be the first one to tell him off. He should be arrested and fined by the TSA.

Where can you point out anywhere in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights that guarantees you have the right to travel safely? I can point out places that say we have a right to travel freely and unimpeded. I can point out sections that say we cannot be searched and/or seized without probable cause and a warrant. Those who detest what the TSA is doing have the supreme law of the land to back them up. You, on the other hand, are just making stuff up, blowing smoke, and demonstrating that you have no clue what rights you're actually entitled to and what rights you're not. The uneducated like you are the easiest to control. You are the kind of citizen any government loves.

RB said...

Since Blogger Bob left out most of the facts in his story I am posting a link to Senator Pauls's side of the story.

......................

Sen. Rand Paul: My encounter with the TSA

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Waiting for Blogger Bob to type the PR spin he will be handed....appologizing to Sen. Paul but explaining he was at fault....sitting....and....waiting....

January 24, 2012 3:01 PM

.........
Heck, I can do it for Blogger Bob. It will start out like this:

We at TSA are sorry Senator Paul felt he had a bad screening experience.........

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Quoted:
" Anonymous said...
Can you please explain how the TSA detaining a sitting member of the US Senate meshes with the following from the US Constitution?"
--------------
Big difference between "detained" and "not allowed to pass through the checkpoint".

January 24, 2012 2:11 PM

..................
The Senator says he was placed in an enclosure and required to remain there.

That is a detention and may actually be an arrest.

Anonymous said...

Well lookie here. Is Rand Paul not aware of this?

[109th Congress Public Law 295][From the U.S. Government Printing Office][DOCID: f:publ295.109][[Page 120 STAT. 1355]]
Public Law 109-295 109th Congress


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ295/html/PLAW-109publ295.htm

Provided further, That Members of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, including the leadership; and the heads of Federal agencies and commissions, including the Secretary, Under Secretaries, and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security; the United States Attorney General and Assistant Attorneys General and the United States attorneys; and senior members of the Executive Office of the President, including the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget;shall not be exempt from Federal passenger and baggage screening:

Anonymous said...

Has anybody actually read the news here? Rand Paul was on his way to a pro-life rally. NOT THE SENATE. Krikey!!! – And you guys say the TSA is full of it…

Anonymous said...

Senator Rand Paul is on the Homeland Security Committee. The media didn’t seem too concerned in reporting that fact.

Anonymous said...

What if Rand Paul (who is known to be an outspoken critic of TSA) was trying to sneak something through security and got away with it? What would you all say if TSA missed something he was sneaking through?

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Has anybody actually read the news here? Rand Paul was on his way to a pro-life rally. NOT THE SENATE. Krikey!!! – And you guys say the TSA is full of it…

January 24, 2012 4:42 PM

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
No, he was on his way to Washington. A Senate vote was scheduled for the afternoon.

What is true is that he did have a speech scheduled after arriving in DC.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Well lookie here. Is Rand Paul not aware of this?

[109th Congress Public Law 295][From the U.S. Government Printing Office][DOCID: f:publ295.109][[Page 120 STAT. 1355]]
Public Law 109-295 109th Congress

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ295/html/PLAW-109publ295.htm


January 24, 2012 4:41 PM

............
The Senator did not refuse screening. He in fact did like everyone else and when the Strip Search Machine alerted on a none existent item he raised his pant leg and showed TSA that nothing was there and offered to go through the Strip Search Machine a second time.

So the problem is that TSA Screeners cannot distinguish bare skin from dangerous items.

The second problem is that adults can't make a second pass through the Strip Search machine, children can, so TSA has no effective means to deal with the extremely high False Positive Rate of the Strip Search Machines.

The last problem is that TSA has no effective way to deal with the public other than trying to bully people.

Just another TSA FAIL as is TSA's norm.

Some real leadership in TSA HQ could fix these things.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 9:59PM on January 23, 2012 said...
Again what about my rights as an american citizen?? I have the right to be able to jump on a plane and know that im safe. If you don't want to be screened than drive or swim to your destination. There are numerous signs as you enter a TSA screening location that says all Person's and their property are Subject to screening and are required to complete the screening process. You'd think this Senator would lead by example, I sure wish I were there when he was causing all this uproar...i'd be the first one to tell him off. He should be arrested and fined by the TSA.


You should have every right to contract with an airline that will provide all the security that you would like. It is the government which has taken away that right.

With the government forcing by law (aka threat of force) the airlines to accept their version of security, it violates not only the airlines' rights, but every single citizen's rights. The airlines though, currently see this as a net positive for the moment. They are relieved of all liability if anything "terroristic" in nature were to occur on one of their planes - and they would even have a case that the government (aka taxpayers) have to make them whole and replace any plane, etc. The airlines will happily maintain this shift of liability until such time that so few people fly that they can no longer afford to operate. (Which that day may or may not come.)

The loser is in all this is you, me, and every other person who would ever be a passenger on a flight. We no longer have the right to choose the level of screening we deem acceptable. Put screening responsibilities back into the airlines hands where they actually have a stake in the outcome. They'll quickly find a cost versus risk based solution that makes the most people happy. It also leaves opportunities for the different airlines to provide the level of screening that their customers find acceptable - which may be more or less than current or that the other airlines provide.

Since you seem to be happy with the current government run dragnet / theater that TSA calls security, why do insist on denying me my rights to contract with an airline that is willing to provide the level of security I deem acceptable?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"What if Rand Paul (who is known to be an outspoken critic of TSA) was trying to sneak something through security and got away with it? What would you all say if TSA missed something he was sneaking through?"

I would say it was business as normal for the TSA - they miss *lots* of stuff.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"It is not a "right" but a "privilege" to fly as a passenger. The TSA provides security for the airlines. The airlines are private companies and they have the right to not allow passengers to fly who have not been properly screened. If we get rid of the TSA, no private company would be willing to take the risk of ensuring the security of flying passengers."

This is wrong in so many ways.

The idea that flying is a privilege is nonsense. Please site the laws that say that.

The airlines aren't deciding who doesn't fly, the TSA is. The TSA doesn't own the airplanes. The airlines have no choice at all about the level of security.

You assertion that no private company would be willing to do security is also nonsense - who do you think did security before the TSA existed?

Anonymous said...

stuart said...
"I just reread the constitution and it doesn't say one is allowed to fly on airplanes without being searched!"

It also doesn't say you do have to be searched.

"Keep it up TSA - Thank you for protecting me."

If you believe they are protecting you then you aren't paying attention. It's just a big show that totally doesn't work.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Big difference between "detained" and "not allowed to pass through the checkpoint"."

Yes, there is a big difference. He was told he was not allowed to leave until they told him to - that's "detained".

Anonymous said...

Hmm.

TSA: We didn't detain him.

Senator Paul: "I was detained on one of those clear cubicles where they detain you. I was very aggressively told not to leave the cubicle. In my mind, I felt like I was being detained, I did step out of the cubicle one time to talk to the TSA. I was very forcefully told I needed to reenter or face more serious repercussions."

So, the TSA evidently thinks shoving someone in a glass box and telling them 'very aggressively' not to leave under threat of 'serious repercussions' doesn't count as 'detaining' them. As if we needed more proof the TSA is delusional.

Senator Paul: "The other thing I learned today that several TSA officials told me off the record that the scanning machine sends a false positive signal that they can randomly patted down people. I was told that's why it was positive. And then they finally let me go back through the screener an hour and a half later and it was negative. So either the machine is not very good or they programming in random screening, and a couple told me off record, I probably was subjected to a random screening, but they are kind of tricking the public into thinking you set off a buzzer so we don't have a choice in doing this random pat down."

IS THIS TRUE????? Are the scanning machines designed to actually create False Positives in order to force people to get groped? If this is true, can the process be influenced by the screeners? Can a screener somehow make the scanner produce a false positive, in order to get a chance to grope them???



(Senator Paul's quotes from: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/01/24/sen-rand-paul-my-encounter-tsa)

Anonymous said...

The question with the whole TSA with all of the problems this agency has caused, have they really done anything the old security mechanisms at the airport did?

The TSA posts about technology and screening and what they've caught. All of those things were caught and still would be caught by the former method of screening which was far less intrusive, harassing, and demeaning.

Anonymous said...

What I want to know is, since all the ter-er-er-ists are pooping their pants at the thought of being manhandled by a TSA agent... why are they not blowing up Friday and Saturday night crowed American bars?

Anonymous said...

"Has anybody actually read the news here? Rand Paul was on his way to a pro-life rally. NOT THE SENATE. Krikey!!! – And you guys say the TSA is full of it…"

The Senate was in session and had votes scheduled for the afternoon. The Speech and Debate Clause applies.

Anonymous said...

"I have the right to be able to jump on a plane and know that im safe. "

You have no such right.

"If you don't want to be screened than drive or swim to your destination. "

Sounds to me that you're the one who will need to find an alternate method of travel.

Anonymous said...

"Rand Paul was on his way to a pro-life rally, not the Senate. He even admitted that. Nice spin on it though!"

No spin at all. His morning appointment was a rally but Senate business was scheduled for the afternoon and the Senate was in session. The Speech and Debate clause definitely applies.

Anonymous said...

"The constitution forbids you to block a representative or senator in their official travel. Your screeners should go to prison. so should you."

Any citizen of Kentucky has standing to sue the TSA over this incident; your junior senator was detained in violation of the Speech and Debate Clause. Damages might be more difficult to collect but a judgement should be child's play.

Anonymous said...

"Well lookie here. Is Rand Paul not aware of this? "

The US Code does not amend the Constitution in any way.

Anonymous said...

I really wish we could provide two planes for each flight, one with screening and one which anyone is free to board freely without any screening."

Pretty good idea. Let's have dogs do explosive screening though, ok?

"I know which one I'd pick, and which one a terrorist would pick."

The terrorist would choose the screened airplane; no way a terrorist is going to get on an airplane with armed, proud, freedom-loving Americans.

Anonymous said...

TSA: Violating the Constitution one article at a time.

Anonymous said...

The first president to abolish the TSA will be re-elected in a landslide. All s/he has to do is campaign using this simple commercial:

"Fellow citizens: I shut down the TSA and made flying pleasant again. Remember that when you enter the voting booth."

Chip said...

TSA may have helped us out by detaining a US Senator...After all the Senate does after all approve their funding.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I don´t think I should have to opt between being virtually strip searched or groped intimately in order to fly.

Anonymous said...

stuart on January 24, 2012 @ 2:41 PM said...
I just reread the constitution and it doesn't say one is allowed to fly on airplanes without being searched!

Stuart, and anyone else attempting to find this in the constitution, please note that the constitution does not list every right that you or I have as citizens of the United States. It does tell us what the federal government is allowed to do -- in some cases, it even specifically notes what the federal government is not allowed to do. Anything not mentioned is reserved to the people or the states.

So, yes, you are correct, your and my right to fly on an airplane without being searched by the government is not listed. But, please note that it is not listed as something that the federal government is allowed to do either.

If people want to insist on the fallical argument that "it is not listed in the constitution, so you don't have that right", then please show me where it lists your right to:
- Go to the bathroom
- Procreate
- Etc...
Yes, the short list is absurd - but, that is the argument you are attempting to make as these items are not listed in the constitution either.

Sandra said...

"I would say it was business as normal for the TSA - they miss *lots* of stuff."

Including C-4, but so far we've heard nothing about that from Bob.

Screen short

Anonymous said...

[Moderator: Please note, that it appears the preview function may not be working correctly, and attempting to 'publish' previews appear to be erroring out on the word verification, despite being correctly done to preview and no option to enter a new one. If the below message is a copy, please delete this message completely. If not, please delete the mod note within the brackets and publish the rest below.]

Anonymous on January 24, 2012 at 4:41 PM said...
Well lookie here. Is Rand Paul not aware of this?

[109th Congress Public Law 295][From the U.S. Government Printing Office][DOCID: f:publ295.109][[Page 120 STAT. 1355]]
Public Law 109-295 109th Congress

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ295/html/PLAW-109publ295.htm


Now that you found that law, please show me where it is indicated that a law can override the constitution?

Anonymous said...

[Moderator: Please note, that it appears the preview function may not be working correctly, and attempting to 'publish' previews appear to be erroring out on the word verification, despite being correctly done to preview and no option to enter a new one. If the below message is a copy, please delete this message completely. If not, please delete the mod note within the brackets and publish the rest below.]

Anonymous on January 24, 2012 @ 2:59 said...
It is not a "right" but a "privilege" to fly as a passenger.
One that I may be willing to pay the airline for at a reasonable price - it benefits both myself and them.

The TSA provides security for the airlines.
Required to be provided by TSA by threat of force (law) or, in a few cases, overseen by TSA using TSA's "screening techniques". The airlines have no control over the screening and quietly enjoy it as it relieves them of all liability.

The airlines are private companies and they have the right to not allow passengers to fly who have not been properly screened.
Currently, they do not. I do agree that they should, but TSA denies them that right. The airlines do not control what screening occurs and currently can not realisitcally adjust it to account for proper cost / risk analyses nor what their customers are willing to accept.

If we get rid of the TSA, no private company would be willing to take the risk of ensuring the security of flying passengers.
They used to... and I bet they would. Although, the airlines would really be more concerned about the airplane and then how to limit liability in regards to the passengers. That's not to say they would want anything to happen to the passengers, but their first priority would be to the company's assets - the plane and crew. It may sound scary, but I can assure you, it's not.

Sancho said...

The problem I have with the TSA is the lack of common sense. This incident further proves this case. Rand Paul is a Senator and his father is running for President. He is not a terrorist which everybody knows is true. He showed his bare skin where the scanner alarmed at to show the machine had a false alarm. Why isn't a visual inspection of bare skin good enough, Senator or regular traveler? Why is a pat down needed.

Another example was with my wife. She was almost forced to "voluntarily surrender" a pair of scissors because the TSA thought the blades were too long. They acutally measured the blades and determined they were under the limit. Even if they had been slightly over, what is the danger? People can get larger knives at restaurants past security. Anyway, how would someone be able to take over a plane with scissors with the hardened cockpit doors and post 9/11 passenger attitudes?

The vast majority (99.9999999+%) of travelers are not terrorists, but we are all treated as such. I'm tired of being considered guilty until proven innocent for simply trying to board a plane.

Sandra said...

"Question for Bob; If your scanner alarmed on Senator Paul's leg and Senator Paul then physically pulled his pants leg up to show his bare leg why was a pat down required. You said only the effected area would be patted down. Isn't a visual inspection of the area better than a pat down."

For the same reason that the TSA demanded a passenger who stripped to his underwear put his clothes on so he could be patted down.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Passenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html

Dumb? Yes. Par for the course for the TSA? Again, yes.

Screen shot taken

oblivion2k said...

Anonymous said...
Well lookie here. Is Rand Paul not aware of this?

[109th Congress Public Law 295][From the U.S. Government Printing Office][DOCID: f:publ295.109][[Page 120 STAT. 1355]]
Public Law 109-295 109th Congress

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ295/html/PLAW-109publ295.htm

____
Constitutional law trumps all other law. As it stands, that law you just mentioned is unconstitutional in certain situations, and thus, null and void.

kimm said...

Anonymous said...
What would you all say if TSA missed something he was sneaking through?


I choose to not be so paranoid. While caution is fine, and smart, thinking that every single person at the airport just might be a potential terrorist is just ridiculous. Again, if someone is that afraid, they need to find transportation where they have no risk in getting from point A to point B. And good luck with that!

RB said...

Anonymous said...
stuart said...
"I just reread the constitution and it doesn't say one is allowed to fly on airplanes without being searched!"

It also doesn't say you do have to be searched.

"Keep it up TSA - Thank you for protecting me."

If you believe they are protecting you then you aren't paying attention. It's just a big show that totally doesn't work.

January 24, 2012 5:36 PM

..............................


Actually the Constitution says that without warrant no search can occur.

There is no discussion of Administrative Search, or only at Airport Searches only of searches with probable cause. The words are clear!

TSA screening doctrine is a clear Constitutional violation.




Article IV:

Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Anonymous said...

"Big difference between "detained" and "not allowed to pass through the checkpoint"

There certainly is. I believe the original post referred to Sen Paul being put in a cubicle and not being able to leave. As detention is defined in the legal sense as a temporary loss of liberty, it is clear he was detained. The reason that the TSA is denying he was detained is simple : TSOs lack the authority to detain if you detain someone without authority, it's a crime, the precise nature of which varies by state. If an LEO had told Sen Paul to stay, the detention may have been proper, assuming the LEO was unaware of the Constitutionally protected nature of his travel). How often does the TSA exercise proper detention procedures? I don't know but I guess virtually never. I suspect there is a tacit understanding at most checkpoints is that should a question arise, the LEO will say he/she was aware of the detention and had authorized it. That is probably sufficient in the vast majority of cases but ifs here is no way that LE in Nashville is going to say it detained a Senator traveling to DC on Senate business. The TSA is On its own here and there will be repercussions.

(anti-censorship screenshot taken)

Dzi said...

"If you believe they are protecting you then you aren't paying attention. It's just a big show that totally doesn't work."

Why exactly would you say that? Even a single failure does not mean the whole thing is useless, check laws of logic.

Anonymous said...

So there was an anomaly on his knee, which only requires a targeted pat-down of the lower leg on that side from knee to ankle and you're done in less than 5 seconds. But instead...

TSORon said...

Laura Monteros said...
[[Don't U.S. Senators have Secret Service agents assigned to them?]]

No, they don’t.

And for all the Anon’s out there making inaccurate arguments about the Constitution Article 1 Section 6, please read the news article linked below. His travel was not covered under the Constitution Article 1 Section 6. Last time I checked going to speak at an anti-abortion rally was neither going to or coming from any formal function of his duties as a US Congressman.

http://tinyurl.com/8a4cdpc

“The younger politician was heading to Washington to address the March for Life, a massive Pro-Life rally marking Sunday’s 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.”

Anonymous said...

Evidently the majority of the people posting comments that the Senator could not be detained while on legislative duty never noticed he was actually traveling to make a speech to a group. And I wonder, did the Senator refuse to properly identify himself the same as he refused to comply with the targeted pat-down? Sounds just like a politician looking to set-up someone for free advertising for both he and his dad.

Anonymous said...

stuart said.... "I just reread the constitution and it doesn't say one is allowed to fly on airplanes without being searched! Keep it up TSA - Thank you for protecting me."

I just re-read the Constitution and it doesn't say you can practice free speech on a public website's blog. Get real. You certainly don't understand how the Constitution applies to the people and what the intentions were of the writers (who mind you, wrote it during an era when airplanes weren't invented yet, but meant for those rights to last for all generations in eternity). The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect us from warrantless searches by government officials. For example, TSA Screeners grope searching citizens before boarding airplanes.

Sandra said...

In response to TSORon, the TSA's self-appointed Constitutional scholar: If you'd done your research properly, you would have discovered that Sen. Paul actually was heading to Washington to attend a session of Congress. He participated in a vote in the late afternoon of January 23, 2012.

Screen shot taken

RB said...

Guess I will have to ask the question again.

Bob, does TSA screening protocols trump the United States Constitution - Article 1 Section 6?

It is a very simple question, why no answer?

Anonymous said...

"It is not a "right" but a "privilege" to fly as a passenger."

Sorry, wrong. As has been shown several times in the past, airline travel is a right.


"The TSA provides security for the airlines."

Again, wrong. The TSA requires screening for some people to gain access to the AOA and SIDA. There is no contractual "provides" relationship to the airlines. Do you believe that the airlines could fire the TSA and engage other services to provide screening?

"The airlines are private companies and they have the right to not allow passengers to fly who have not been properly screened."

They have a statutory obligation to exclude passengers who have not been screened.

"If we get rid of the TSA, no private company would be willing to take the risk of ensuring the security of flying passengers."

The TSA will be reformed to be the oversight agency it was originally intended to be. As a result, screening will be conducted by private companies under rules and regulations promulgated by whatever replaces the TSA. The TSA will cease being an incredible waste of money and a jobs program.

Anonymous said...

I am so tired of these egotistical, narcissistic politicians getting attention for causing an up roar because they feel they are above the people they serve.

Anonymous said...

"What I want to know is, since all the ter-er-er-ists are pooping their pants at the thought of being manhandled by a TSA agent... why are they not blowing up Friday and Saturday night crowed American bars?"

Because there are very, very few terrorists, and terrorism is very, very rare, and suicide terrorism is even rarer than THAT. TSA is a pack of hysteric bedwetters.

Anonymous said...

"And for all the Anon’s out there making inaccurate arguments about the Constitution Article 1 Section 6, please read the news article linked below. His travel was not covered under the Constitution Article 1 Section 6. Last time I checked going to speak at an anti-abortion rally was neither going to or coming from any formal function of his duties as a US Congressman. "

Sorry, Ron, but like the TSA web site, you can't believe everything you read. The Senator (not Congressman, btw) was enroute to DC where the Senate was in session. It is likely that in addition to his speech, he had dinner dates, etc, planned for his time in DC. None of this makes any difference changes the reality that the TSA violated the Speech and Debate Clause by detaining the Senator.

Best that you stick to the TSO job, at least as long as it lasts.

(anti-censorship screenshot taken)

Anonymous said...

Dzi said...
"Even a single failure does not mean the whole thing is useless, check laws of logic."

A single failure, no. Lots and lots of failures over and over, yes.

Anonymous said...

Video shows he WAS detained (in the glass cubicle) and that he was NOT irate.

This is proof of how TSA spins the truth and blame US THE PUBLIC for their innapropiate behavior.

TSORon said...

Sandra said...
[[In response to TSORon, the TSA's self-appointed Constitutional scholar: If you'd done your research properly, you would have discovered that Sen. Paul actually was heading to Washington to attend a session of Congress. He participated in a vote in the late afternoon of January 23, 2012.]]

And you have a link supporting that claim, right?

mmasse said...

According to TSA Rand Paul was extremely irate with the TSA. Upon looking at the video released he is calmly standing there. Shame on the TSA for lying to the American public and if you lied about this who knows what else you are lying about.

Anonymous said...

TSA cares about our nations families. We at TSA safeguard your family as if it were our own family boarding an aircraft. Just remember we too have family members that travel. We care about the safety of all families.

Anonymous said...

"This Senator can't recognize that terrorists are trying to hit us again."

What evidence do you have of this?

"Him and his father want to do away with the TSA. They propose that we go back to pre-9/11 days?"

No, I don't thing "him" wants to do that; government policies contributed largely to the ability of the hijackers to gain control of the airplanes.

"Or that we don't have any screening of passengers?"

Has Senator Paul or his father suggested doing away with all screening? If so, can you direct me to where this is documented? Or are you saying that the only alternative to the TSA's security theater is no security at all?

Anonymous said...

"I just reread the constitution and it doesn't say one is allowed to fly on airplanes without being searched! Keep it up TSA - Thank you for protecting me."

I guess you missed Article 1, Section 6, the Speech and Debate Clause? Go back and read it again.

Anonymous said...

"Senator Paul could have staged this incident to grab another 15 minutes of fame, get his dad's name prominently in the news, and bash TSA too."

Senator Paul is BRILLIANT. First, he managed to have a false alarm go off showing a problem with his knee. Knowing it was a false alarm, he raised his pant leg to show the TSO that there was no contraband hidden. Then, probably using Jedi mind tricks, he skillfully managed to have the TSOs detain him, not only violating Article 1, Section 6 but also violating the authority of the TSO. Amazingly, he then used his cell phone to inform his staff he wouldn't be making an important meeting - the speech at the pro-life rally - and tricked a TSO into saying he would confiscate his cell phone; which the TSO lacked ANY legal authority to do!! Finally, he managed to have the LEO file a report that said he was "irate" knowing that the tapes would show he was calm, collected and not at all irate.

That guy is a genius!

(AUP complied with screenshot captured)

Anonymous said...

(laff, laff, laff..)

Does anyone here believe for an instant that the TSA/DHS cares one whit for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or their oaths?

Those, good people, are relics of another time. The TSA, like every government agency, cares only about two things anymore:

1) Going home at the end of their shift;

2) Doing nothing that would endanger their benefits/retirement.

The security theater of the TSA is a laughingstock the world over because it does nothing to protect us by design. It is an entirely reactive organization that is incapable of responding to emerging threats in any effective way. I won't bore you with picked-over examples; suffice it to say that all terrorists have to do is modify their tactics very slightly to produced huge, enormously expensive and often ridiculous responses that cut deeply into what used to be Constitutionally protected rights.

They're inside the DHS OODA Loop, ladies and gentleman, making twisted and sick jokes at our expense while the TSA plays the unwitting straight man.

Sandra said...

TSORon asked me if I had a supporting link to the fact that Sen. Paul participated in a Senate vote on the afternoon of January 23, 2012. Here it is, Ron:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00001

Screen shot taken.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"TSA cares about our nations families. We at TSA safeguard your family as if it were our own family boarding an aircraft. Just remember we too have family members that travel. We care about the safety of all families."

If that's how you treat your own family then I feel sorry for your family.

The TSA security is nothing but voo-doo magic. It's based on the hope that doing something that resembles security will somehow magically produce real security.

Jim Huggins said...

Sandra writes:
In response to TSORon, the TSA's self-appointed Constitutional scholar: If you'd done your research properly, you would have discovered that Sen. Paul actually was heading to Washington to attend a session of Congress. He participated in a vote in the late afternoon of January 23, 2012.


TSORon replies:
And you have a link supporting that claim, right?


Easy enough to verify, Ron. Sen. Paul voted "nay" on the nomination of John M. Gerrard to the position of U.S. District Judge. The vote was taken at 5:32pm on January 23rd.

Anonymous said...

TSORon said...
Sandra said...
[[In response to TSORon, the TSA's self-appointed Constitutional scholar: If you'd done your research properly, you would have discovered that Sen. Paul actually was heading to Washington to attend a session of Congress. He participated in a vote in the late afternoon of January 23, 2012.]]

And you have a link supporting that claim, right?


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00001

Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation John M. Gerrard, of Nebraska, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nebraska )
Vote Date: January 23, 2012, 05:32 PM

Paul (R-KY), Nay

Bazinga.

RB said...

Guess I will have to ask the question yet again.

Bob, does TSA screening protocols trump the United States Constitution - Article 1 Section 6?

It is a very simple question, why no answer?

Anonymous said...

If we get rid of the TSA, no private company would be willing to take the risk of ensuring the security of flying passengers.

You have absolutely no basis for this claim and you know it.

Every time a passenger sets foot on an airplane, the airline assumes extreme liability -- to the passengers, to their shareholders and to innocent bystanders. Private security screening, mandated by the need to overcome that liability should revert to the responsibility of the carrier.

Instead of due diligence driving a system toward safety and efficiency, we have the TSA engaging in ridiculous security kabuki. Instead of thinking brains protecting us, we have rule books -- and any soldier or Marine can tell you what happens when you "go by the book."

Al Quada scored big on that awful day. Not only did they murder over 3000 people at the cost of 19 of their own, they inflicted huge financial losses and caused us to abandon the last vestiges of a free society.

If you think I'm exaggerating, wait until you get "detained" on the way home some night by a TSA VIPR team.

GSOLTSO said...

Alex sez - "How does it work if a woman is 4-foot-11 and a guy is 6-foot-5? Do they show the exact same "gingerbread man" image? How does the machine know how to account for how tall someone is? I don't know about anyone else, but this kind of technology is scary!"

The machine scans what is presented to it and analyzes what is there, as long as the person fits in the machine, the image will look essentially the same. The gingerbread man image is just what appears on the screen at the machine.


And also - "If the computer can automagically tell how tall you are, what else can it tell about you? How much you weight? What color your skin is (racial profiling anyone)? What your fingerprint is???"

It gives none of this information.

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

"I am so tired of these egotistical, narcissistic politicians getting attention for causing an up roar because they feel they are above the people they serve."

I am tired of people who don't understand our Constitution. With respect to our "egotistical, narcissistic" Senators and Representatives, they *are* above the rest of us when they are the respective House is in session and when they are traveling to and from the same.

I am tired of people who bravely stand up for their Constitutional rights - in this case Amendment 4, not the Speech and Debate Clause - are termed narcisstic and egotistical.

Anonymous said...

"And you have a link supporting that claim, right?"

TSORon, if you want the video of Senator Paul voting, it's on the CSPAN2 site. No pesky reading necessary - pictures!!

Ron, epic fail trying to support that Senator Paul's travel doesn't fall under the Speech and Debate Clause.

A serious question: Does TSO training include anything at all regarding our Constitutional rights?

Anonymous said...

"I just reread the constitution and it doesn't say one is allowed to fly on airplanes without being searched!"

My goodness! I just reread the Constitution and it doesn't say one word that a TSO can't detain someone and shoot them if the TSO cares to!

The Constitution is meant for a good, moral and educated people. Sadly, we seem to have lost all three when people will try to justify the clearly unwarranted and unneeded detention of a Senator by government agents.

Anonymous said...

"I am so tired of these egotistical, narcissistic politicians getting attention for causing an up roar because they feel they are above the people they serve."

I am tired of people who don't understand our Constitution. With respect to our "egotistical, narcissistic" Senators and Representatives, they *are* above the rest of us when they are the respective House is in session and when they are traveling to and from the same.

I am tired of people who bravely stand up for their Constitutional rights - in this case Amendment 4, not the Speech and Debate Clause - are termed narcisstic and egotistical. In fact, I consider those willing to surrender their hard won Constitutional liberties as cowardly, narcisstic and egotistical.

(AUP complied with screenshot taken)

RB said...

stuart said...
As a frequent flyer, I say "Congrats to the TSA!" For those of you who didn't read the news, people have bought things on airplanes and killed people. Anyone not wanting to be searched does not have to fly. Problem solved! I just reread the constitution and it doesn't say one is allowed to fly on airplanes without being searched! Keep it up TSA - Thank you for protecting me.

January 24, 2012 2:41 PM

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Stuart, you may have reread the Constitution but you demonstrate a total lack of understanding.

The United States Constitution doesn't say what citizens can do but what government can do.

The Constitution places limits on federal government and anything not directly assigned to the federal government is left to the States or the People.

You really should try knowing just a tiny bit about a subject before showing your total lack of understanding to the world.

Anonymous said...

"It gives none of this information."

Why on earth should we believe you, after the way you have lied and continue to lie about these pointless machines?

Anonymous said...

"Bob, does TSA screening protocols trump the United States Constitution - Article 1 Section 6?"

This might be determined when a Kentucky resident sues the TSA for a civil rights violation, to wit, deprivation of the citizen's right to representation. Now that I think about it, if it's filed as a civil rights lawsuit then standing is universal. Hmm. I wonder if I could get this done over the weekend...

Adrian said...

"The ATR software displays the same generic image for all passengers to further protect passenger's privacy." [sic]

This doesn't make any sense. One cannot "further protect passengers' privacy" until one does something to protect that privacy to begin with. If one is actively invading privacy, then the best one can do is mitigate some of that invasion.

Nothing the TSA does protects passengers privacy (which is ironic, since, for many, there's a strong correlation between privacy and security). In fact, many of the things the TSA does invades passenger privacy. For example, requiring passengers to turn over PII to third parties who have no obligation to protect that information is an invasion of privacy. Whole body imaging is an invasion of privacy. Rifling through passengers' belongings is an invasion of privacy.

A few things TSA does partially mitigate some of these incursions, but they don't actually do anything to protect privacy.

Anonymous said...

Another false positive today - an insulin pump - was not investigated and then the TSA had to call airport police and stop boarding of all flights until they could find the passenger.
MM-Wave = false positives and discrimination against people who need to wear or use medical equipment.

Anonymous said...

GSOLTSO said...

Alex sez - "How does it work if a woman is 4-foot-11 and a guy is 6-foot-5? Do they show the exact same "gingerbread man" image? How does the machine know how to account for how tall someone is? I don't know about anyone else, but this kind of technology is scary!"

The machine scans what is presented to it and analyzes what is there, as long as the person fits in the machine, the image will look essentially the same. The gingerbread man image is just what appears on the screen at the machine.


I think they mean does it properly show on the figure? In other words- will an alarm on tall person's knee show up on the 'knee' of the figure, just like an alarm on a short person's knee show up on the 'knee' of the figure? Or will an alarm on a tall persons knee show up on the figures thigh, and an alarm on a short person's knee show up on the figures calf? Will an alarm on a fat persons hip show up completely off the figure, while an alarm on a thin persons hip show up in the figures stomach? Like that.

Anonymous said...

It gives none of this information.

Not to you, anyway.

(Reassuring to know that you have access to the scanner algorithm source code and the expertise to make that statement with confidence.)

I call your attention to the following (emphasis mine):

TSA Announces Installation of "Stick Figure" Software for Some Body Scanners: The TSA has announced that it will begin installing software on millimeter wave body scanners that will display a generic stick figure on a computer monitor and not the naked bodies of individual air travelers. The TSA said this will address privacy concerns. However, there is no plan to install similar software on the more widely used backscatter x-ray devices. It is also still unclear whether the body scanners are capable of capturing, storing, or transferring the underlying graphic naked image. Seeking to answer this question, EPIC filed a lawsuit, following the TSA's failure to provide an adequate response to EPIC's FOIA request. For more information see: EPIC: Body Scanner Technology. (Jul. 21, 2011)

https://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/

Anonymous said...

A serious question: Does TSO training include anything at all regarding our Constitutional rights?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



Nice one!

TSORon said...

Sandra said…
[[TSORon asked me if I had a supporting link to the fact that Sen. Paul participated in a Senate vote on the afternoon of January 23, 2012. Here it is, Ron:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00001]]

Very good madam. Links are helpful when trying to sort fact from fiction. From the link you provided: [[Vote Date: January 23, 2012, 05:32 PM]] (emphasis mine)

From Senator’s Paul’s web site:
[[WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Monday, Sen. Rand Paul was scheduled to speak at the 2012 March for Life on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., but was improperly detained by the TSA and forced to miss the event. However, after the rally, Sen. Paul hosted a reception welcoming marchers from Kentucky and those across the country. Below are the remarks Sen. Paul would have delivered at the 2012 March for Life.]]
(emphasis mine)
(http://www.randpaul2010.com/2012/01/senator-paul-2012-march-for-life-remarks/)

Nothing there about a senate vote. Although it does appear that he stopped in at the senate and did the people’s business for a few minutes, there is nothing stating that was the reason for his travels that day. I wonder how many other events he went to Washington to attend that day? Care to do the research, or is it asking too much to research something that does not fit your agenda?

Anonymous said...

Yet another miss for the TSA:

http://consumerist.com/2012/01/tsa-cant-tell-the-difference-between-a-gun-an-insulin-pump.html

A "female passenger's insulin pump came up as a possible gun on the TSA screening device.

And yet somehow, the woman continued through the checkpoint, presumably picked up her bags and put her shoes back on and got far enough away from the TSA agents that they needed to alert airport police and have the gates cease boarding until she was located."

First it was replica of guns on purses, then it was cupcakes. Now it's insulin pumps. And to add insult to injury, the TSA didn't even catch it until the passenger was well past the checkpoint! if it has been a real gun, she could have handed it off to someone else before the TSA found her.

FAIL on all accounts.

RB said...

What, still no answer? Reposting now just to get set for the next posting cycle.

Guess I will have to ask the question yet again.

Bob, does TSA screening protocols trump the United States Constitution - Article 1 Section 6?

It is a very simple question, why no answer?

RB said...

What, still no answer? Reposting now just to get set for the next posting cycle.

Guess I will have to ask the question yet again.

Bob, does TSA screening protocols trump the United States Constitution - Article 1 Section 6?

It is a very simple question, why no answer?

Anonymous said...

According to the comments on this article, even after submitting to screening and being told twice that she was good to go, the TSA is still claiming that she left the checkpoint before screening was completed.

Oh, and while the news is all claiming the TSA can't tell the difference between a gun and an insulin pump, the reality appears to be that they can't tell the difference between an insulin pump and a bomb, even after the body scanner and the traveler pulled it from under her clothing to display it to them.

So, even passengers who comply 100% with the TSA's nonsense will probably still get the blame if one of their blueshirts screws up, as is pretty evident in most cases.

Anonymous said...

"TSORon said ....
Nothing there about a senate vote. Although it does appear that he stopped in at the senate and did the people’s business for a few minutes, there is nothing stating that was the reason for his travels that day. I wonder how many other events he went to Washington to attend that day? Care to do the research, or is it asking too much to research something that does not fit your agenda?"

You appear to be guilty of the same thing since your research fits "your" agenda.

Regardless of yours or her agendas the man did do business of the Senate that day and therefor was illegally detained in so much as the Constitution is concerned. But then that has never stopped the TSA before as we all know.

GSOLTSO said...

Anon sez - "I think they mean does it properly show on the figure? In other words- will an alarm on tall person's knee show up on the 'knee' of the figure, just like an alarm on a short person's knee show up on the 'knee' of the figure? Or will an alarm on a tall persons knee show up on the figures thigh, and an alarm on a short person's knee show up on the figures calf? Will an alarm on a fat persons hip show up completely off the figure, while an alarm on a thin persons hip show up in the figures stomach? Like that."

The alarm box will be consistent with the person in the machine (regardless of their dimensions - as long as they fit in the designated area). If there is an alarm on the knee, it will display on the knee, regardless of the dimensions of the passenger - ditto for any other anomolies detected by the machine.

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

"Oh, and while the news is all claiming the TSA can't tell the difference between a gun and an insulin pump, the reality appears to be that they can't tell the difference between an insulin pump and a bomb, even after the body scanner and the traveler pulled it from under her clothing to display it to them."

Isn't an insulin pump a "medical device?" Weren't we assured that after the senior citizen was accosted at JFK that this wouldn't happen again?

What's going on? Does someone in TSA leadership need to be incarcerated for these outrages?

Anonymous said...

"Nothing there about a senate vote. Although it does appear that he stopped in at the senate and did the people’s business for a few minutes, there is nothing stating that was the reason for his travels that day. I wonder how many other events he went to Washington to attend that day? Care to do the research, or is it asking too much to research something that does not fit your agenda?"

Ron - give it up. The Senate was in session and Sen Paul was traveling to DC. The Speech and Debate way in no way requires him to prove to the TSA that he had a vote in which he wanted to participate.

It is maddening that when a government employee is confronted with an obvious breech of the Constitution, that employee goes to outrageous lengths to justify the illegal behavior.

A clue, Ron: The correct answer is: "The TSA inadvertently violated the Senator's Constitutional rights. I encourage TSA management to immediately change policies so that this doesn't occur in the future."

Your posts are similar to the person who continually asserts that air travel is not a right enjoyed by the public; an erroneous thesis, repeated and vigrously supported is, at the end of the day, erroneous.

(anti censorship screenshot taken)

Anonymous said...

"Although it does appear that he stopped in at the senate and did the people’s business for a few minutes, there is nothing stating that was the reason for his travels that day. I wonder how many other events he went to Washington to attend that day? Care to do the research, or is it asking too much to research something that does not fit your agenda?"

Excellent point, Ron, but not the one you intend. The fact that Paul was traveling to DC to attend a session of the Senate absolutely qualifies him for protections under the S&D Clause. This would be the case even if the session started in a week, month or year. It is in NO WAY up to the TSA to determine if his travels qualify for protection; that is the entire point of the protection of the Clause.

You see that he did "a couple minutes" of the people's business in the Senate - an undeniable admission that his travels qualify for the protection of the Speech and Debate Clause.

8675309 said...

"The security theater of the TSA is a laughingstock the world over because it does nothing to protect us by design."

Fatal US Hijacking events before TSA: 9

Fatal US Hijacking events after TSA: ZERO

http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm

The statistics do NOT support your lies.

Anonymous said...

"Nonsense. The members of "the Legislative" have sworn to uphold the Constitution, not play security theater with the TSA."

Interesting...members of the U.S. Military are sworn to uphold the Constitution as well, but it hasn't prevented some of them from commiting crimes, including murder.

I would also like to comment regarding those who say their 4th ammendment rights are being violated. There are signs ALL OVER EVERY AIRPORT that clearly state YOUR ENTRY INTO THE SECURITY SCREENING CHECKPOINT CONSTITUTES YOUR CONSENT TO SEARCH. The two key words here being YOUR CONSENT. You are not REQIRED to fly on an airplane. If you don't like the security measures. Drive or take a boat.

Airport security screening has been in place since the 70's and pat-downs have been around since the mid 80's. the only reason so many people are complaining now is because TSA is run by the Federal Government. If it was a private screening company (Which it will be if TSA goes away)...who will you complain to? The private company isn't going to care one way or the other if you like their screening or not, and the policies will be the same as they are now. So enjoy having the TSA around, at least you can complain about them. Happy flying.

TSORon said...

An Anonymous poster stated…
[[You appear to be guilty of the same thing since your research fits "your" agenda.

Regardless of yours or her agendas the man did do business of the Senate that day and therefor was illegally detained in so much as the Constitution is concerned. But then that has never stopped the TSA before as we all know.]]

Anon, kindly READ Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States. It states specifically:
[[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]]
(emphasis mine)

The good senator was not “arrested”. If he was indeed being disruptive at the checkpoint he could have been arrested even if going to a congressional session (Breach of the Peace), according to A1, S6, C1. The video released so far does not support the TSA’s claim in that area, but anyone who has actually viewed the video can tell it’s been edited quite a bit. Not a helpful video at all, and it supports neither your claims nor TSA’s.

In any case, you are off base about the what the Constitution says, just as Sandra is.

RB said...

Well it is now the 29th of January and TSA has failed to answer a very simple question so I will ask once again:


Bob, West, or anyone who can speak for TSA, does TSA screening protocols trump the United States Constitution - Article 1 Section 6?

It is a very simple question, why no answer?

Anonymous said...

"The good senator was not “arrested”. If he was indeed being disruptive at the checkpoint he could have been arrested even if going to a congressional session (Breach of the Peace), according to A1, S6, C1. The video released so far does not support the TSA’s claim in that area, but anyone who has actually viewed the video can tell it’s been edited quite a bit. Not a helpful video at all, and it supports neither your claims nor TSA’s. "

As discussed earlier, Ron, the detention of the Senator by the TSA qualifies as an "Arrest" under the Constitution. Since the adoption of the Constitution, distinctions between consultation, detention and arrest of occured.

At least you've come to understand that it's not up to the TSA to determine if the Senator's itenerary meets a TSO's standard for travel. Rest assured that the TSA violated Article 1, Section 6.

I'm no longer interested in discussing Constitutional law with a TSO. It's clear the source of his paycheck is more important than the foundation of our liberties.

Anonymous said...

"Interesting...members of the U.S. Military are sworn to uphold the Constitution as well, but it hasn't prevented some of them from commiting crimes, including murder."

What does one have to do with the other? When one commits a murder, they're arrested, tried and convicted.

Anonymous said...

"The good senator was not “arrested”. If he was indeed being disruptive at the checkpoint he could have been arrested even if going to a congressional session (Breach of the Peace), according to A1, S6, C1. The video released so far does not support the TSA’s claim in that area, but anyone who has actually viewed the video can tell it’s been edited quite a bit. Not a helpful video at all, and it supports neither your claims nor TSA’s"

Ron, before you post, please do at least a small amount of research - I recommend starting with Google - for the topic about which you're commenting. Your post shows that you're not aware of the Constitutional meaning of "detention" or "breach of the peace."

As strange as it may seem, these terms have specific meanings and neither are open to the specific definition that you'd like to apply.

I'm shocked that a TSO would be so dissmissive of the Constitution just for a paycheck.

Anonymous said...

"Fatal US Hijacking events before TSA: 9

Fatal US Hijacking events after TSA: ZERO

http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm

The statistics do NOT support your lies."

No, no, no. On 1/1/02, I asked a stuffed animal to protect us from hijackers. So, the correct recap is:

"Fatal US Hijacking events before Protector Bunny: 9

Fatal US Hijacking events after Protector Bunny: ZERO

http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm

The statistics do NOT support your lies."

And I'll add that I don't like you lying about my Protector Bunny.

(screenshot captured)

Anonymous said...

8675309 said...
Fatal US Hijacking events before TSA: 9
Fatal US Hijacking events after TSA: ZERO
http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm
The statistics do NOT support your lies.

No fatal hijackings in 1988 to 2000 without the TSA. That's longer than the TSA has existed. The statistics don't prove that the TSA is effective.

Anonymous said...

8675309 said...
Fatal US Hijacking events before TSA: 9

Fatal US Hijacking events after TSA: ZERO


9/11 occurred just days before The Nintendo GameCube was released in Japan. Since the Nintendo GameCube was released in Japan, there have been no further hijackings.

Therefore, according to your logic, the Nintendo GameCube being released in Japan is responsible for the lack of terrorism.

Or, it might just be that Correlation is not Causation, and that other factors (like the fact we killed Osama already, or the policy of locking the cockpit door) had something to do with it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
You are not REQIRED to fly on an airplane. If you don't like the security measures. Drive or take a boat.

Driving and taking a boat are not practical ways of travel. I cannot get from New York to Los Angeles for a meeting tomorrow by driving. I cannot get from the USA to Germany (for Oktoberfest) and back, by boat, during my one week of vacation.

Flying IS a requirement in today's society.

Anonymous said...

TSORon said...
Anon, kindly READ Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States. It states specifically:
[[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]]
(emphasis mine)

The good senator was not “arrested”.


So, now you're down to arguing the exact meaning of words. He wasn't 'arrested', we just shoved him in a room and forbade him to leave.

I doubt the Founding Fathers would have chopped words so.

Anonymous said...

"Flying IS a requirement in today's society."

Also, flying is a right enjoyed by Americans, not a privilege as some here have suggested. If you have any questions, see the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and "public accomodation as a civil right."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"What I want to know is, since all the ter-er-er-ists are pooping their pants at the thought of being manhandled by a TSA agent... why are they not blowing up Friday and Saturday night crowed American bars?"

Because there are very, very few terrorists, and terrorism is very, very rare, and suicide terrorism is even rarer than THAT. TSA is a pack of hysteric bedwetters."


Exaclty. You see, thanks to the 9-11 attacks, our government has found a new way to control it's citizens by chipping away at our rights. They are selling FEAR, and business is booming!! In just New York alone, without even counting the second World Trade Towers attack on 09/11/01, there have been several terrorists attacks over the decades which killed massive numbers of people. From bombings in night clubs and on Wall Street, to the bombing of the La Guardia Airport in 1975 which killed 11 people, injured 75, and destroyed the TWA terminal. All of these were done by foriegn terrorist groups---not some domestic mass murderering criminal. If you never heard of these terrorists attacks in New York history, you're not alone. People have short memories and the TSA is taking advantage of that in their business of selling fear, by trying to make us believe that as of the morning of 09/11/01, terrorists have all of a sudden began running all over our land, and in order to keep us safe, we must give up our Constitutional rights, roll over on our backs, and submit to them.

I feel sorry for those who support these sensless TSA searches. The TSA has succeeded in turning you into a herd of sheep who is convinced you that you NEED to depend on government officials like the TSA regulate your lives. Please open your eyes and pay attention to what is happening.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Airport security screening has been in place since the 70's and pat-downs have been around since the mid 80's. the only reason so many people are complaining now is because TSA is run by the Federal Government."

Total nonsense. Did you actually fly during the 70s or 80s? If you haven't noticed any changes in the security procedures since the 80s you really need to pay more attention.

RB said...

Another day has passed and it is now the 30th of January and TSA is once again doesn't have the professionalism to address a very simple question. I have to wonder why? Perhaps TSA doesn't feel that government answers to the people.

Bob, West, or anyone who can speak for TSA, (how about that crack TSA legal staff that relies on Google for legal reference) does TSA screening protocols trump the United States Constitution - Article 1 Section 6?

It is a very simple question, why no answer?

Brent said...

TSORon...give it up. I am a former congressional staffer from both the House and Senate sides of Capitol Hill. Members of Congress cannot be arrested or detained when they are traveling for official duties. "Official duties" means more then just voting on the floor of the respective chamber. Official duties can mean speeches on the floor, committee hearings, giving a speech in an official role (as Senator Paul was) etc.

TSA violated the Constitution...simple as that. Y'all would come out ahead if you just said "yep we messed up".

Anonymous said...

"TSA violated the Constitution...simple as that. Y'all would come out ahead if you just said "yep we messed up"."

Likely, the TSA will admit precisely that as it just did in the case of the senior citizens who were strip searched at JFK.

Of course, when that happens we will see nothing here.

JoJo said...

Anonymous said... "I would also like to comment regarding those who say their 4th ammendment rights are being violated. There are signs ALL OVER EVERY AIRPORT that clearly state YOUR ENTRY INTO THE SECURITY SCREENING CHECKPOINT CONSTITUTES YOUR CONSENT TO SEARCH. The two key words here being YOUR CONSENT. You are not REQIRED to fly on an airplane. If you don't like the security measures. Drive or take a boat."

Here's the deal. The Constitution doesn't say "unless these rights are waived." There is no room for confusion about the 4th amendment because it is excruciatingly clear. It does not say "except in times of war or terror" and nowhere does it mention "administrative searches." A sign being posted warning you that your rights are about to be violated does not make it okay, and your going forward does not imply consent. If there were signs posted outside on ever lawn warning you that you will be frisked before you are allowed to leave your house, will you still hold onto this "But the sign says so you know! You're consenting by leaving your house!" nonsense? I think NOT!

RB said...

Seems we have reached the last day of January 2012 and still no response from the public servants at TSA on whether TSA Screening procedures trump Article 1, Section 6 of the United States Constitution.

I have to wonder why? Perhaps TSA doesn't feel that government answers to the people.

Bob, West, or anyone who can speak for TSA, (how about that crack TSA legal team that relies on Google for legal reference) why not step up and respond to a valid question on this forum with the stated goal of dialog so the public better understands the TSA screening process?

Anonymous said...

Entering a TSA checkpoint is like going into a foreign country.
Normal U.S. laws and constitutional rights dont seem to apply there.
TSA makes up their own rules as they go along.
Failure to follow these rules could result in being detained, arrested and,interrogated.
They dont care who you are and dont trust anybody.
If god himself came through a TSA checkpoint they would make him remove his shoes and be screened.

Anonymous said...

who protects us from the tsa? Is the tsa accountable to the people who fund it, the constitution it is ruled by as well as the will of the people it serves? OR do you not care to have any accountability? This is not hard, the tsa is government at its worst and is more of the problem than the answer. do you work for us or lord over us under the guise of protection? Glad to see you called out. More to come btw after the elections and your defunding.

RB said...

WE have now reached the Second day of February, 2012 and still no response from the public servants at TSA on whether TSA Screening procedures trump Article 1, Section 6 of the United States Constitution.

I have to wonder why? Perhaps TSA doesn't feel that government answers to the people.

Bob, West, or anyone who can speak for TSA, (how about that crack TSA legal team that relies on Google for legal reference) why not step up and respond to a valid question on this forum with the stated goal of dialog so the public better understands the TSA screening process?

Still waiting and will keep asking until an answer is finally provided.

RB said...

We have now reached the 3rd day of February, 2012 and still no response from TSA on the question of: do TSA Screening procedures trump Article 1, Section 6 of the United States Constitution?

Seems TSA has time to infest places like the Super Bowl (not a transportation activity) yet no time to answer a legitimate question.

Seems TSA has time to infest airports like DFW, JFK, MIA, and many others with all manner of TSA criminals but no time to answer a legitimate question.

Surely the honorable employees (if there is any such thing) of TSA can answer a simple question.

RB said...

Seems we have reached the 5th day of February 2012 and TSA still refuses to address why a Member of Congress travels were interrupted by TSA in direct conflict with the United States Constitution.

I have asked for an explanation but now it seems TSA and its Blog Team are again Censoring posts that displeases TSA.

Copy of this post submitted to DHS OIG.

RB said...

Here we are well into the 6th day of February and still silence from TSA on how TSA screeners can interrupt a Member of Congress travels and detain the member while on the way to vote in chambers.

Does TSA really think they are the new law of the land and can do anything they like regardless of clear direction from documents such as the United States Constitution?

TSA is malignant! It is time to end this failed experiment that is TSA.

Your answer TSA!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 210   Newer› Newest»