Rand Paul detained a direct violation of the Constitution.

[ak]

Rand Paul blocked at airport after refusing TSA pat-down | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

TSA may be in violation of the Constitution in "detaining" Sen. Paul. From Article 1, Section 6:

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. Sen. Paul was on his way to DC to vote in the Senate.

[resipsa]

He was not arrested or detained, just asked to have a simple pat down like anyone else after there was anomaly found with the initial screening. Instead he chose to throw a fit.


Also, he was on his way to speak at anti-abortion rally.

Anyone think this would be front page material of druge if it was Keith Ellison instead of Rand Paul (Ellison is the only muslim member of congreess)? Actually I take that back..it might still be front page news, but the headline might be just a tad different.

[Jeremy]

Common sense is non existent in America. The TSA is waste of taxpayer money and simply programming the sheeple to think a U.S. police state is normal and will "protect our freedom and liberty" when in fact, it does the opposite. Grope my Grandma, Fondle my kids, Pat down a sitting senator......but let the 3 dudes with turbins and foreign passports go right through because it's the "politically correct" thing to do.

Then when we're done with that we can ship billions of taxpayer dollars to countries that are proven to harbor terrorists such as Pakistan. All the while passing tyrannical laws against our own people such as the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

In this case though, more than likely this was staged or a publicity stunt from Rand to help his Dad's campaign on the same day that the traveling political circus showed up in Florida. And I'm actually a big RP fan. Personally though, I'm always up for a good groping or pat down when the opportunity presents itself.

[pokerprop]

Instead he chose to throw a fit.

Considering the fit he's been throwing before personal involvement -good on him!
As far as the rest of it, no big deal. Cheap headline, but if I ran a news company I'd damn sure publish it

[pokerprop]

Then when we're done with that we can ship billions of taxpayer dollars to countries that are proven to harbor terrorists such as Pakistan. All the while passing tyrannical laws against our own people such as the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

There are no terrorists proven to be harbored in Pakistan. Only men, many of which love their children as much we do ours, who are victims of the same social decease as us, and go on fighting for what they were trained to believe. It is a tragedy! nothing more. I refuse to acknowledge these men as terrorist any longer. That word has become the most evil word in the American language and I oppose it every ounce of my being. It is time we go back to trying "men", catching "men", killing "men" or whatever else is required in response to acts nameable by their specific crime. These men are not terrorist they are "men!" who are risking their lives and future in support of their cause, many of them heroes to their people. When their method becomes killing civilians, tourists or w/e.. then yes of course they must be stopped and assassinated if need be. However war propaganda has made terrorist such a popular label popular to justify and dehumanize so many things, I refuse to use it any longer. When the so called terrorist dies, chances are someone somewhere will cry when they get the news. I'm so damn tired of hearing "...is a terrorist suspected of involvement with..." did they find the terrorist label on his drivers license next to the organ donar sticker or was it that box he checked when registering to vote (are you a terrorist? please check yes or no)?. Human beings, not that much different than you and me, wired and trained to believe a certain way and a just as much victim as we. When more more people on each side begin to recognize this, we can end these wars.

[Mike]

You could do what Ron Paul did and call Osama Bin Laden "The Gentleman".

I know exactly what you mean, but you are basically just talking semantics here. You don't want the American media calling America's enemies, enemies? I definitely appreciate the perspectives that you bring to these discussions, but at what point do you take sides?

I guess it's the same as you calling it propaganda, sure it's biased towards one side - it always will be, but:

Did these individuals terrorize Americans? yes or no

If you can say yes, then they ARE terrorists to me. They may be heroes to their country / children, but I could care less. From my perspective, "the gentleman" was a terrorist.

[Catfish]

It is interesting indeed that when you look at it from the one side, then you see that there is always talk about "war on terror", military strategists tell you it is a war of a different kind (I think non-symmetric war is the term?), but still a war. The enemy on the other hand is not called a soldier, but a terrorist, or at best "insurgent".
Now when you look at most of the conflicts nowadays, and especially the ones the US military is involved, most of them are NOT the classic army vs army type. But that doesn't mean the fighters necessarily are terrorists. They are fighting for a cause, just like the other side.
You know what they say "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". The french resistance killed even French civilians, sure they were considered terrorists by the Germans, but were they? Of course not, you would say. You see it is just a matter of which side you are on. There is no black and white here. Let's face it, there will always be situations where in order to fight for a justified cause, the persons fighting for it may have no other option but guerilla warfare. And as history has shown, this type of conflict is much more common now than 50 years ago, actually it has kind of become more the norm than the exception

IMO the question here is, what kind of means do they employ, and even then there is a grey zone. In this I agree with Prop with a caveat - if their actions aim to kill civilians only and by intent, they are terrorists. And Mike, define "terrorize" please - because the way I understand you, anyone who "strikes fear into the heart of Americans" would be a terrorist?

And then, if by definition killing civilians makes you a terrorist, how do you label the US forces' killing of civilians, collateral and by accident or not? How do you define the bombing of the city of Dresden in WW2 - an act totally devoid of any military value, only meant to demoralize the German people?

The important thing is this is not about semantics at all - there is a reason why they are called terrorists. It is about dehumanizing them and justifying non-legal means against them, such as Guantanamo and killing them without a trial just based on suspicion.

The old Geneva Convention is not a big help here, because you could say that at the time it was

[Mike]

You know what they say "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Exactly what I said. Do I have to answer the other questions if we agree on this point?

IMO the question here is, what kind of means do they employ, and even then there is a grey zone. In this I agree with Prop with a caveat - if their actions aim to kill civilians only and by intent, they are terrorists. And Mike, define "terrorize" please - because the way I understand you, anyone who "strikes fear into the heart of Americans" would be a terrorist?

Yes, soldiers fighting soldiers is war, not terrorism. Collateral damage is also not terrorism, unless it is intentional. 9/11 was an act of terrorism, us invading Iraq was not (from my perspective).

And then, if by definition killing civilians makes you a terrorist, how do you label the US forces' killing of civilians, collateral and by accident or not? How do you define the bombing of the city of Dresden in WW2 - an act totally devoid of any military value, only meant to demoralize the German people?

By accident or collateral is not terrorism, otherwise we'd have many more "human shields". Dresden, from what I've read (which isn't much - think, Slaughterhouse Five) was an act of terrorism.

You hit the nail on the head, it's all about intent.

[pokerprop]

Catfish answered well. To respond at bit further, I'm taking sides wherever a side needs taken. The war propaganda has brought it to a point I'm now declaring there is no such thing as a terrorist anymore. If your name is Joe, you are Joe. If you're white, black, Asian, or whatever you are still Joe. If you are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or Atheist you yet again are still Joe. If you have one wife or twelve wives you guessed it, yup, still Joe. If you associate with those formerly known as (word I just retired) yet have committed no crime, you are not that word. If you engages in acts of terror then you are guilty for committing acts of terror and will be dealt with. At no point however did you stop being Joe nor did you suddenly become (word I just retired).

As mention in my initial post that word has become the most evil word in the American language. It is used to dehumanizes the situation and justify any course, and gain easy support. The danger we face in our own country is the term is so loosely defined these days, and the label given so freely, it may not be long before me, you, mine or your mother is the next to be labelled a terrorists. These days it is already in many circles supporting terrorism just to speak out against war. That circle and other circles continue to expand. I've grown to despise the word.

Additionally, I find it quite ironic people who wear their faith on their sleeves yet have dissociation with humanity when it comes to (word I just retired) and war. Perhaps someone should ask each Catholic when was the last time they lit a candle for their enemy was. Or the evangelicals when the last time they prayed that god would change whatever hearts necessarily to end this. Or a Buddhist when was the last time they poured water on a tree asking for peace in a land far away. That's not here nor there. The point, war should always be viewed as nothing more than a necessary act of evil and should always come with great remorse. If this is not the case, you are fighting or supporting an unjust war fueled by either hatred, revenge, or profits. What's more likely to stop this cycle? 1) killing as many people different than you as you can 2) understanding your enemy, his motives and then addressing only the crimes and risks?

"It is with sadness and with hope I am tasked with informing the American people that at 11:29PM our fighter jets..." You see war is everywhere these days, that we no longer get messages like this from head of state. War is a daily part of our lives that just happens in the background. Is this because the world's rapidly evolved into a far more evil place?

I'm not claiming to be a saint, I very much have it in me to kill. If someone harms one of my children in a great way, no law, nor army, will stop me, I guarantee that's a fact. However, this is not the case with government and military, or shouldn't be. A nation is a body of sense, intelligence and reason; emotion has no part in strategy. What are real objectives here? Are these wars needed? is there alternative? what are the costs?

These people they are are labeling (word I just retired) are not bugs. They eat, breath, sleep, laugh, all just the same as we. They have deep seeded idea that led them them to wanting to do their best, have courage and risk their lives for a higher purpose. We need to somehow deal with that. Killing one million of them is not going to help. You know what else is not going to help.. youtube videos of kids partying in the streets celebrating war. When 911 happened there was huge controversy over kids in Pakistan throwing candy in the street to celebrate people were appalled. Whether we were those people then, or we have just become them now, we and they are one in the same. I do not necessarily oppose all war, but I oppose utter disrespect for life and humanity no matter what flag you wear. Anyways, may your cards be live, your pots be monsters and most importantly may your wars be just.

[Catfish]

I agree with what you said, Mike. I was just trying to clarify.
It is just that in my native language, "to terrorize" has a much different meaning from "committing acts of terror" - not sure whether it is the same in English - but I am sure that when you used "terrorize", you meant "committing acts of terror"?