White House sides with TSA in Rand Paul standoff

[Dave]

Even though I don't fly, I'm not real crazy about the way the TSA does things. I understand that there needs to be some type of security when flying. Basically, what needs to be defined is what is a reasonable search... the searches as they are now are debatable as to if they are constitutional or not. That said, if you don't want to be searched or deal with TSA, don't fly... and I don't :-)

The White House is standing by the Transportation Security Administration in its standoff with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and his father, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

The elder Paul called the TSA a "police state" Monday after Rand Paul was reportedly detained by TSA after he refused to take a pat-down from TSA officials at the Nashville International Airport.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that he didn't have any reaction to Paul's "police state" comments.

But Carney sided with the TSA saying, "I think it is absolutely essential that we take necessary actions to ensure that air travel is safe."

Ron Paul, who is one of four remaining Republican candidates for president, disagreed Monday afternoon. Paul said after he confirmed the incident involving Rand Paul on his Twitter page that it showed why the TSA should be eliminated.

"The police state in this country is growing out of control," the elder Paul said in a statement released by his presidential campaign.

"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," he continued. "The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe. That is why my ‘Plan to Restore America,’ in additional to cutting $1 trillion dollars in federal spending in one year, eliminates the TSA."

TSA has defended its treatment of Rand Paul, saying that its employees in Nashville followed its normal procedure with the senator, who has often sharply criticized the agency's pat-downs before he refused one Monday morning.

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

U.S. security officials denied that Rand Paul was held by the agency. Instead, they said the senator was escorted out of the security area after his refusal to accept a pat-down after his trip through one of the agency's X-ray machines caused issues.

Both Pauls have been vocal critics of the TSA, calling for the controversial agency to be disbanded.

TSA said in a statement that "the passenger," Rand Paul, "has since rebooked on another flight and was rescreened without incident."

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/tsa/205813-white-hou...

[Willy]

The only way to provide adequate security is to use profiling when screening passengers. But that will never happen in America. All of the incidents caused by terrorists on US flights would not have succeeded if the US had profiled passengers as the security teams do at airports in Isreal. I know profiling is a sticky issue but we will never have true security until that happens. Just the fact that we now must spend hours on pre-flight  security inspections is a win for the terrorists.

[Lisa O'Brien]

I fly all the time - I have never had problems with the TSA. It is such an easy process I don't get what the hype is about. Since I am on the plane  personally I'm  glad passengers have to go through screening or get a pat down -  going out in a blaze of glory is not on my list.

[Dave]

I think part of the problem with the TSA is that while the rules are the same everywhere, each individual person that works for the TSA will interpret those rules not always in the exact same way. I see that a lot watching football actually... one of the big ones in football that is abused is regarding the 'process of a catch'. How one official interprets that rule and how another does varies from official. I've seen plays that should of been catches be ruled not catches and non catches be ruled catches. I think the TSA needs to track down individuals that might not be interpreting the rules the same way and get them trained to do it exactly the same as everyone else.

And I think that Willy is at least partially right.. not being able to profile some passengers is part of the problem. I never figured out how giving an old lady a hard time while giving others that are more likely a pass made any sense. TSA should be able to look at each individual passenger as they come through and if anyone fits a certain criteria, they should be allowed to pull those people aside and give them some extra scrutiny. And before anyone says 'so, you want to pull every Muslim aside', no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure there are certain things that can be watched for that could be on a variety of people.What the Israelis do as far as their screenings do seem to work.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Who knows maybe the little old lady - was actually a cranky old &*^%$, and someone decided to give her a hard time. It would be very hard to profile anyone at an airport based on religion - no airline asks this when purchasing a ticket. So what you really would have is people profiling on race/nationality - and this is not a proven science because I know people that are Muslim from just about ever race/nationality (with the exception of American Indians). And I would think that any would be terrorist now would at least attempt to blend in with the other passengers so as not to cause suspicion on themselves.

[Dave]

I think one thing that could be done is for their to be some back ground checks... probably would be mainly for international travelers then anyone else. People traveling between known areas that have a large terrorist history like Yemen should get a little more scrutiny then someone traveling to and from say Australia. If a person travels between Yemen and the USA more then a few times in say 6 months, they deserve to be looked at. As with the case with the underwear bomber, he traveled very lightly for going overseas (granted his being on the plane is the fault of the airport security where he boarded at), the light/no baggage should be an immediate red flag anywhere for someone traveling overseas. Like so many other things, airport security is never going to be 100% perfect but I tend to think there are other things that could be done.

[easymoney]

I'm begining to agree with the senior paul on this police state we are coming into. there are hundreds of offshuts  to homeland security .add the TSA and whatever elses going on and you have as many enforement here as the US army.

just remember the firearm law enforement and others carry is not to protect you, its to protect them. Think about it?

[Marty Redman]

Flying is always my last option.  I object totally to the Xrays they use on you, not that they can see my winkie, but that it gives you a big belt of radiation.  Heres a suit/report that justifys my fears:  http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/epic_v_dhs_radiation....

 

The terrorists have won.  Each new law that gets passed in the name of national security that takes more of our rights away is a battle won for them and a step closer to make us more like them.