Sen, Rand Paul, protester.
Sen. Rand Paul, libertarian and Republican U.S. Senator from Kentucky, has a choice: he can be a high elected official of the United States government, or he can engage in civil disobedience. He cannot do both.
Sen. Paul was detained today by the Transportation Security Administration in Nashville, Tenn., after refusing a full body pat-down following an image scan that did not clear him through security. I feel his pain. But a United States Senator must obey the law and cooperate with all lawful activities of the U.S. government and its agencies. If he objects to pat-downs so much, he has the power and influence to wield to try to change procedures and policies. Apparently they were not so burdensome while thousand of other citizens endure them every day. Now that Sen. Paul is facing a feel-up from a gloved stranger, he is suddenly over-come with principle. Easy for him, too, since unlike us mortals, Senators are exempted by the Constitution from being detained while on the way to work.
For a U. S. Senator to defy a TSA agent who is attempting to keep the skies safe in the manner determined to be appropriate by the U.S government encourages and implicitly endorses defiance by everyone else. That is a breach of Paul’s duty as a high elected official of the United States.
Ethics Alarms 
“The TSA just violated the highest law in the land.
U.S. 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.’ ”
– Gaymon Howard Wright III
Great point.
When I was in the Navy you did not have to comply with an unlawful order. Resisting the police state is what every good American should do.
And besides , rumor has it, they found a pair of testicles on the man..which we all know is uncommon among todays congressmen.
1. If Senators want to do that, they have to resign first. They are the governmnet—they can’t defy the government.
2. You made my Coke come out my nose.
Paul, you always have to comply with a lawful order.
You don’t have to comply with an order that is not lawful. By definition, failure to comply with a lawful order is a court-martial offense. Always has been. Still is.
By the way, I was in the Navy, too. ET2(SS) Logan, USS Olylmpia, SSN 717. From precom all the way to deployment, happy cold-warrior and steely-eyed killer of the deep. 🙂
Personally, I think having huevos often interfere with the execution of good judgment.
In this case, Rand Paul executed poor judgment, and then compounded his offense by trying to hide behind the Constitution rather than accepting the consequences for his attempted civil disobedience, an indispensable part of civil disobedience. The purpose is to highlight an unethical or unconstitutional law, and accept full consequences for its violation.
Perfect.
Is there a source for him “hiding behind the constitution”? I know it was referenced by ABC News, linked by Jack’s post, but it wasn’t attributed to anyone but the writer of that article.
rather than accepting the consequences for his attempted civil disobedience
As I’ve said here, TSA articulated that he had two options: 1) Full body Pat-Down or 2) He could not fly (i.e. be returned to the unsecured part of the airport.
He chose the 2nd, which meant that he did not fly on his scheduled flight (as a consequence) and had to be re-booked on another flight. How did he not accept the consequences? How did he hide behind the constitution?
I think you’re blowing this out of proportion by labeling him a dunce on this issue.
The way I see it, and correct me where I am wrong: He wasn’t detained. He submitted himself for routine screening and when additional screening was requested, he declined and returned to the unsecured area of the airport.
His way of declining the additional security was to request the original screening again because he felt there was an error. Rather than prove it wasn’t an error and insist on a pat-down, he elected to not pass through security.
Dunce so far? Not yet…
He then had his trip re-booked on another flight and attempted to pass through security again. It’s unclear if he had to submit to a pat-down on his 2nd attempt or if he passed the initial screening without incident, but since there’s not more to the story, I would infer the latter. Logic would then tell us that he was right the first time….there was an error.
Still not a dunce. He’s just exercising his options.
“But a United States Senator must obey the law and cooperate with all lawful activities of the U.S. government and its agencies. If he objects to pat-downs so much, he has the power and influence to wield to try to change procedures and policies.”
I don’t see where he didn’t cooperate. Just because you submit yourself for screening doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean that you must not quit the process. The option to abandon security and return to unsecured areas must always be an option. He exercised that option and I don’t think that makes him a dunce. I think that makes him principled. Additionally, wasn’t he one of the few who opposed these TSA practices to begin with? Why wouldn’t he make a lawful principled decision to further his point and draw attention to the issue?
Reading comprehension: Rather than prove it wasn’t an error, TSA insisted on a pat-down, and he elected to not pass through security.
You are in fact not permitted to quit the process. You get more or less arrested for that. Security at airports is a one-way operation…refusing screening is like refusing a breathalyzer. Particularly if you set something off. :Gee, my bomb seems to have set off an alarm of some kind. Never mind!!! I’ll be going now.”
This morning I went through the screener, and the machine said there was a hot spot near my knee. So I showed them my knee and pulled my sock down and felt that would be sufficient. But they wanted to do a pat down exam. I said I would walk back to the screener. They said no, you either get a pat-down or you don’t fly. I said I would rather talk to the manager, but nobody there seemed to be willing to let me go back to the screener.
Sounds like an option to me. Sounds like they gave him an option to quit the process. So, how does exercising an option given to you by the TSA make you a dunce?
And just for fun…
The other thing I learned today that several TSA officials told me off the record, that the scanning machine sends a false positive signal so that they can randomly pat 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 programmed 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.
I do detect a dunce, but it’s not Rand Paul. He was detained in a cubicle for 90 minutes. Yes, he’s supposed to be completely immune to all that, but he didn’t pull that card, either on site or in the interviews later. Civil disobedience on his part is his choice just as much as any citizen’s. Just because you hold an opinion about some special status for Senators doesn’t make it so. Can you point to any legal precedent for that contention?
As the TSA is directly violating the 4th amendment, their actions are not really “lawful” in the first place. If you think Rand Paul hasn’t been vocally opposed to TSA procedures in the past, you haven’t paid attention at all.
Check the title of the blog, Sam…it’s not “legal alarms.” And he cannot engage in honorable civil disobedience, because he’s not going to be spending nights in jail like Thoreau. For a Senator, it isn’t civil disobedience, it’s called violating your oath of office and official duties. Engaging in risk-free violations of law is simply lawlessness, and in this case, arrogance and ignorance too.
He can fight the government, or he can be part of the government. He can’t do both, and, by the way, that is rather obvious. A Senator refusing to comply with the law violates any system of ethical analysis you can name, and if you can’t name them, I will. It doesn’t work under universality, absolutism, stakeholder sytems or utilitarian variations. It’s W-R-O-N-G.
If he’s not allowed to decline the pat-down, then why did they ask him for permission to conduct a pat-down? When he denied permission, why did they give him and option to grant permission or quit the process?
Again, how is he a dunce by exercising options given to him?