Video: White House sides with TSA in Rand Paul patdown

posted at 6:10 pm on January 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

The worst part of this is Jay Carney’s vaguely creepy insistence on using bureaucracy lingo in referring to Paul throughout as “the passenger.” That’s actually a nifty reflection of TSA’s philosophy of treating fliers equally badly so long as they’re treated equally. We’re all random passengers, none of us any more or less a security risk than anyone else. If someone flying in from Saudi Arabia has to submit to a patdown because he set off the scanner, than darn it, a U.S. senator on his way to speak at a rally on the Mall has to submit too. (The perfect cover story for a hijacking plot.) One of these days Janet Napolitano is going to get detained in a TSA snafu and then at last we’ll have achieved the perfect security-theater clusterfark.

Contrary to Carney’s talking points, Paul says he was in fact detained:

“If you’re told you can’t leave, does that count as detention?” Paul asked.

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

“But, they’re wasting time, I think, by doing this. Instead of targeting people who meet a risk profile for terrorism, what they’re doing is they’re just doing these random things. But, I think it’s a waste of time and it’s insulting to put people through a body pat down when they have not shown any risk.”

He offered to go back through the scanner to prove that the “anomaly” that showed up the first time wasn’t really there, which TSA finally agreed to — after two hours of arguing. Ah well: If you support creating a “trusted traveler” program, this screw-up is the best PR you’ll ever have short of, say, Oprah getting arrested for trying to carry shampoo on in an overhead bag. (I know, I know, Oprah doesn’t fly commercial.) Exit question: Is detaining Rand Paul while on his way to Washington unconstitutional?

video platform
video management
video solutions
video player


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Being treated like a suspect by TSA is an easy thing to avoid. Just don’t fly. I took one commercial flight since they started this garbage and since then I have vowed that I will not ever again subject myself to this bunch of idiots. No place I need to get to that badly.

Another poster was right too, that any real terrorist that had a bomb hidden on his or her body would detonate it right there in the airport the second it became obvious they were going to be searched; taking out the TSA goon that ruined their plan and anyone else in the blast radius. Suicide bombers were not expecting to go back home anyway, and it’s not like they are just going to say “well if you won’t let me blow up the plane I guess it’s OK with me if you just arrest me and put me in jail.”

TSA is a bad joke and the Islamists are the only ones getting to laugh.

MikeA on January 23, 2012 at 9:48 PM

The TSA doesn’t catch terrorists as 9/11 proved. Even when one of them was suspicious about one of the attackers the guy got through with box cutters. So box cutters didn’t count as a dangerous weapon? WTH?

BetseyRoss on January 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Not defending the TSA because they should be Abolish, but there was no TSA on 9/11/2001. TSA was formed in response to 9/11 because the congress felt the federal government could do a better job of Airport Security then the Airports and Airlines, Placing the Blame for the Hijackings on the Airports and Airlines.

Which ofcourse SOP at the time was to Cooperate fully with HiJackers (box cutters or not), that has obviously change but not many people remember what Flying was like in 2000…. Those were the days…..

the_ancient on January 23, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Has anybody informed the White House of Article I Section 6 of the Constitution of the United States, because I am unaware of the country being under martial law that would negate the law of the land.

savage24 on January 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Let’s put this thought into our collective pipes and commence to smoke: As stupid and annoying and intrusive as the TSA has been over the past ten years, can we agree a small part of the reason we haven’t been successfully attacked again has been because of these piss-poor practices?

almosthandsome on January 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Fascism with a Human Face

As I have touched on previously the ugly reality is that we are living in a neo-fascist state. Sure we still have the illusions free speech and free elections. But do we really?
Just look at the choices we have for President in the upcoming elections. With the exception of Dr. Paul if one were to do a blind comparison among them all you would be had pressed to say who was who and who belonged to what party.

There is a reason for this of course and that is that as in the classical definition of fascism the corporations and the state have merged into a single amorphous entity. The corporations hire the lobbyists to write the bills that they then send to their bought and paid for politicians who pass them into law and then the corporations just go about their business of pillaging the economy and the citizens and everything is nice and “legal.” Just like in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Don’t ask questions of morality the politicians and the courts and the media will only ask that you consider if it is “legal.”

Anyone who thinks that the MSM functions as anything other than Ministry of Propaganda for the neo-fascist state is either not paying attention, woefully ignorant, sadly deluded or to be quite frank, just plain stupid.

So the point in time is rapidly approaching wherein a lot of people are going to have to ask themselves; can this be changed? Can we stand and fight the machine? Or; Do we just hunker down and try and hide from the eye of Sauron or perhaps even flee the country?

How many of us can become capital “A” Anonymous and fight them and hope for continuing victories as was recently achieved in the take down of the proposed SOPA and PIPA legislation? Knowing full well that the state is actively engaged in hunting them down and will have no mercy when and if they find them. How many of us can really become little ”a” anonymous and have the means to effectively hide from the government with enough land and or resources to sustain ourselves and hopefully stay outside their reach or concern? In either case, probably not to many of us. The only remaining alternatives will be to either become a cog in the machine of the corporate government or simply go along with the corruption and fraud and hope that it doesn’t target us specifically.

We are making the transition into what Fabian socialist H.G. Wells called “fascism with a human face.” How long until it devolves into what as George Orwell so succinctly put it “imagine a jack boot stomping on a human face.” No one can tell but have no doubt it will move in that direction.

The reason that this neo-fascist state gets away with this slow one-by-one usurpation of our rights and property is that they have made issues of economics and government so complex that for the vast majority of people when they come up their eyes just glass over and the subject changes to who will win the Super Bowl or the latest season of Survivor or whatever other mindless distraction, put forth deliberately by the same propaganda outlets, so that we don’t become involved with the outcome of our own fates at the hands of the corporatocracy.

The Department of Homeland Security and their increasingly thuggish TSA have grown into some sort Imperial Praetorian Guard, concerned not with protecting the citizens but only with protecting the power of the state. How soon until like those of ancient Rome they start to “remove” even elected officials who question their authority? Just today a sitting US Senator who has been outspoken in his criticism of the TSA was detained for refusing a “pat down” at an airport in his own state of Tennessee. This is not the politically correct theater of the absurd, this is barefaced tyranny.

How long will people continue to wallow in their normalcy bias, thinking that a choice between an Obama or a Romney or a Gingrich is actually a choice? Or simply closing our eyes to the ugly truth and concerning ourselves with nothing but the flickering images on our new HD TVs until one day we wake up and find that all our rights and liberties and property have been stolen from us in the name of “state security” and we wonder out loud “How did this happen?” or ask “Why didn’t the talking heads on TV tell us this was happening?” Or will we wait until the latest and greatest HDTV comes equipped with a web cam and microphone so the Ministry of Truth can watch us as we watch their propaganda. Why not just line up at the courts and all of us change our names to Winston Smith and be done with it?

Of course by the time that the realization of the truth begins to dawn for most it will be too late to “petition the government for redress of grievances” because that right will be gone as well. And all of us who tried to warn the public, who begged and pleaded and cajoled until we were blue in the face will have all either “gone Galt” (members of Congress talking about setting up a “Reasonable Profits Board” draws not even a stiffeled yawn from any of the candidates or the MSM) or disappeared into some FEMA camp, held under indefinite detention, just as the NDAA now says is “legal.”

It’s all to frightening and all too real. It might be 28 years late but 1984 is here.

LCT688 on January 24, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Wife asks – does Janet get that treatment?

I say – yes, and hell yes. It’s the one time she gets a good grope.

bbhack on January 24, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Just like in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
LCT688 on January 24, 2012 at 12:05 AM

I stopped reading right there.

almosthandsome on January 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM

White House sides with TSA in Rand Paul patdown

In other breaking news, Sun rises in east, dog bites man.

JimC on January 24, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Let’s put this thought into our collective pipes and commence to smoke: As stupid and annoying and intrusive as the TSA has been over the past ten years, can we agree a small part of the reason we haven’t been successfully attacked again has been because of these piss-poor practices?

almosthandsome on January 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM

We were attacked twice on Obama’s watch, including the infamous underwear bomber — neither attack having been stopped by ANYTHING the TSA did. Bush gets more credit by far for keeping us safe than Obama, but I don’t really think you can credit the TSA with that. Especially not since it’s only gotten MORE intrusive under Dear Liar and Janet “Big Brother” Napolitano.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Wife asks – does Janet get that treatment?

I say – yes, and hell yes. It’s the one time she gets a good grope.

bbhack on January 24, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Darn straight, get her in the old bowling ball grip.

arnold ziffel on January 24, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Darn straight, get her in the old bowling ball grip.

arnold ziffel on January 24, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Ewwwww. That is wrong on so many levels.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Darn straight, get her in the old bowling ball grip.

arnold ziffel on January 24, 2012 at 12:29 AM

TMI – I was leaving something to imagination.

bbhack on January 24, 2012 at 12:33 AM

So was he detained or was he kidnapped? Your choice TSA, but they should then deal with the consequences

Rbastid on January 24, 2012 at 12:43 AM

So was he detained or was he kidnapped? Your choice TSA, but they should then deal with the consequences

Rbastid on January 24, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Unless a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has in fact been committed, the difference between kidnapping and lawful detention is an arrest warrant. The TSA doesn’t have a leg to stand on here.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Blaming and laughing at the TSA is like laughing at cops. I thought R’s are the law and order types. I would rather a pat down than another 9/11. Thank God over 10 years we haven’t had another incident, and its not like those people wouldn’t want to do it again.

residentblue on January 23, 2012 at 6:47 PM

This statement reminds me of the liberals/hippies who scream that we should all fight the man and fight the power. Those types who then turn around and screech that only the cops aka the man should have guns. You know, because the cops are trained to be safe in using them.

oryguncon on January 24, 2012 at 2:20 AM

I travel fairly often, and happen to have one of the “trusted traveler” ID’s. In Dallas I can stroll through the special security line without removing my shoes, liquids or laptop….just like the good old days!

I find it ironic that a week or so ago, I opted out of the xray scanner at a major airport. I was run through the metal detector instead (no beep) then rushed over to an area for a full body massage and candelight dinner. All the time time the dirty old man kept sayin’ “You really should just go through the scanner next time, it will save you time”. I felt dirty after that.

wsucoug on January 24, 2012 at 7:38 AM

If the Transacting Sexual Assaults folk can mess with a sitting US Senator, what chance do everyday people have? I’m still boycotting air travel, train, all that Nazi controlled crap! Wake up people, your government is out of control!

insidiator on January 24, 2012 at 7:59 AM

This guy is proving to be as odd as his father.

hawkdriver on January 24, 2012 at 8:43 AM

The TSA doesn’t catch terrorists as 9/11 proved. Even when one of them was suspicious about one of the attackers the guy got through with box cutters. So box cutters didn’t count as a dangerous weapon? WTH?

BetseyRoss on January 23, 2012 at 7:10

PM

mmmm…..since when did the TSA exist on 9/11?

dman232 on January 24, 2012 at 8:55 AM

mmmm…..since when did the TSA exist on 9/11?

dman232 on January 24, 2012 at 8:55 AM

They didn’t of course.

hawkdriver on January 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Really? If the TSA had detained a Democrat on his way to an important speech, would the White House still support them? I think not.

RebeccaH on January 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Sigh……….I’m actually flying to Nashville later this week, and having had a total knee replacement, can expect to get irradiated or manhandled for the rest of my life. My only consolation is that rather than a 25 y.o. hardbody that the agents are fighting to frisk, I’m middle aged with a few jiggly bits so I’m sure there’s no joy in TSA land for my groper.

waterytart on January 24, 2012 at 9:50 AM

So, I’m sure he had his passport on him, they knew his name. Did they not know he was a US senator? The son of a presidential candidate? Detaining someone like that is just doubling down on stupid, and nobody can be THAT stupid, can they?

Okay, okay, TSA. Never mind.

Bob's Kid on January 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Blaming and laughing at the TSA is like laughing at cops. I thought R’s are the law and order types. I would rather a pat down than another 9/11. Thank God over 10 years we haven’t had another incident, and its not like those people wouldn’t want to do it again.

residentblue on January 23, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Let’s put this thought into our collective pipes and commence to smoke: As stupid and annoying and intrusive as the TSA has been over the past ten years, can we agree a small part of the reason we haven’t been successfully attacked again has been because of these piss-poor practices?

almosthandsome on January 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM

The TSA has never stopped a single terrorist. (Of course, they haven’t let any through, either – all the attempts we have had since 9/11 originated outside the US and never encountered the Full MonTSA.) But, they have stopped loads of the elderly, the disabled, the matronly, the juvenile, and helmsmen of the aircraft themselves. Because they *might* be terrorists! Yeah. Right.

I travel fairly often, and happen to have one of the “trusted traveler” ID’s. In Dallas I can stroll through the special security line without removing my shoes, liquids or laptop….just like the good old days!

wsucoug on January 24, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Problem is that only works in a select few airports – which I don’t fly through.

Law enforcement officers are allowed to …

blink on January 24, 2012 at 1:48 AM

The TSA aren’t law enforcement officers. They specifically avoided that – which should mean they have even less ability to “detain” you…….

GWB on January 24, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Let’s put this thought into our collective pipes and commence to smoke: As stupid and annoying and intrusive as the TSA has been over the past ten years, can we agree a small part of the reason we haven’t been successfully attacked again has been because of these piss-poor practices?

almosthandsome on January 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Right, and in test-runs they’ve shown to be 40% effective at finding weapons and bombs.

Hey everyone, before you get on the plane you have to submit to our new improved testing that is even more secure than the TSA. See I flip this coin… heads you can board, tails you can’t.

Do you feel even safer knowing my coin-flip technology just stopped 10% more weapons and bombs than the TSA did? Or did you have trouble smoking that level of idiocy through your pipe?

My math is valid; and I’ve seen the 40% results (which they’ve oddly quit making available to the public)… so my plan improves safety even more.

Are you in favor of my plan? Or is there some sort of issue with it?

You’re using the wrong argument.

Law enforcement officers are allowed to detain if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime: (a) has been committed; (b) is being committed; or (c) will be committed. It’s easy for TSA to argue that they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime will be committed if a passenger boards an aircraft after failing a body scan.

blink on January 24, 2012 at 1:48 AM

gekkobear on January 24, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Shoot, sent too soon.

You’re using the wrong argument.

Law enforcement officers are allowed to detain if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime: (a) has been committed; (b) is being committed; or (c) will be committed. It’s easy for TSA to argue that they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime will be committed if a passenger boards an aircraft after failing a body scan.

blink on January 24, 2012 at 1:48 AM

The pat-down search is ok because they had reasonable cause from the results of a previous search?

Or is your argument that using a device that lets me see under someone’s clothes isn’t in any way a search or invasion of privacy?

I’m pretty sure if I set up a secret millimeter wave scanner at the mall and start saving naked pictures of people and I get caught… that’s going to get me arrested.

I’m not sure you’ve justified the first search… and a first unjustified search justifying the 2nd one isn’t really a persuasive argument.

Can a cop pat you down without cause, find drugs; and use the drugs as cause to have his partner search you and take the drugs to arrest you? Or does the first search being without cause cause complications on justifying the second search?

gekkobear on January 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Blaming and laughing at the TSA is like laughing at cops. I thought R’s are the law and order types. I would rather a pat down than another 9/11. Thank God over 10 years we haven’t had another incident, and its not like those people wouldn’t want to do it again.

residentblue on January 23, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Ok, so you’ll give up the 4th amendment for some minimal promise of security? you’re happy to do so? You’re thrilled to give up rights in order to have some semblance or pretense of security?

Awesome.

I’ve been waiting for this day… let’s get rid of the 5th through the 8th Amendments and simply execute all people suspected of a violent crime. We’re willing to give up rights for safety; and how much safer will we be when we no longer have to prove someone is guilty before “removing them from society”? Suspicion is good enough for me, it’ll really clean up the streets.

Think of all the violent criminals and murderers who won’t be a problem anymore once we give up our rights.

All we have to do is trust that the government won’t abuse this power when we give them control and give up our rights… and you’re already willing to do that; so good job on being ahead of the curve.

Who needs rights when you have full faith that you can give the government more power than it should have under our Constitution and you know they won’t abuse it… they’ll just keep you safe.

Feel better now? Or does this somehow make you a bit concerned?

gekkobear on January 24, 2012 at 1:35 PM

gekkobear on January 24, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Hell, Gekkobear why not repeal the entire BoR, and be done with it. I mean, it’s those on the left that feel the 2nd is an antiquated notion. It only stands to reason that the 1st is, as well. The Constitution is a living, breathing document, after all. It can change on a whim, and adjust to current society, rather than current society having a set of proven rules to live by.

This should make Residentblue very comfortable, indeed.

BillH on January 24, 2012 at 3:09 PM

But what if the mall made these machines a requirement for entry? That’s the better question to ask. Given that the cost for such machines could plummet in 10 years, this question isn’t unreasonable. One could assume that the mall might lose business to other malls that didn’t require it, but the requirement itself would not likely be deemed illegal by the courts.

Fundamental difference, however, between this and the TSA (which you hinted at earlier in your comment): I cannot set up an airport with regularly scheduled commercial flights that doesn’t require you to undergo this search. And, if they set up these searches at subways and train and bus stations, you have eliminated all so-called “alternatives”.

My issue with the TSA is the assumption that I might be a criminal. That violates the most basic of our rights and will destroy our society.

GWB on January 24, 2012 at 5:15 PM

So, does an “anomaly” in an image created from a backscatter X-ray device constitution reasonable suspicion that a crime was about to be committed? I don’t think this case has been fought in the courts yet, but certainly the argument can be made.

blink on January 24, 2012 at 4:17 PM

That isn’t my question. My question is:

Does using a machine that can scan beneath my clothing and look at me naked constitute a search in and of itself? Or is only stripping me naked a search, and using a machine to strip me naked virtually isn’t a search?

Can I install a nude-o-scan machine at the entrance to a mall and not tell anyone? Or is that all of a sudden a horrific invasion of privacy?

I think the use of the “backscatter X-ray device” is a search in and of itself; and as there was no probable cause for that search it cannot be used as probable cause in a 2nd search.

gekkobear on January 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM

However, one could probably argue that reliance on the free market isn’t valid with respect to all commercial airports with in the US since it represents a monopolistic method of transportation. I wouldn’t want to speculate on the outcome of such a case.

Shoot, sorry… I guess you did manage to cover that.

I’m still not sure I’d call the search “valid and not overly invasive”; or the 2nd search justified because of probable cause from the first search, that didn’t require probable cause because of the venue…

I’m not sure why you couldn’t declare the first venue “outside” and the first search a “patdown” so cops could do patdowns on anyone anywhere with no cause; and use what they find as a probable cause for a 2nd search… if you’re allowing an initial unchecked search with that level of detail, you’ve removed the Constitutional requirements for a search already.

gekkobear on January 26, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2