yes in some cases, who guards money transfers from retailers to banks? the police or loomis/brinks? there are always private alternatives some are better others are worse.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fG8dNxLVpFE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Sounds very reasonable. Great interview. They wouldn't let him walk through the scanner again, and when they finally let him an hour and a half later, nothing appeared to warrant any concern.
I fly a fair amount and can't recall having a problem with the TSA. I also don't think TSA employees in general are perverts and think they are just people doing a job in a tough economy. Even with that I don't think the body scanners, pat downs and removing our shoes is a good idea. The amount of safety we are getting from these policies, whose effectiveness is highly questionable, I don't think is worth the cost or the amount of aggravation from them. Conservatives frequently mention that it's not governments business to keep us safe from everything and I think this is an area where that criticism should apply. Yes there is a risk of another terrorist attack just like there is a risk of a meteorite hitting a plane. That risk can never be reduced to zero and we have to consider how reasonable are the measures employed to reduce that risk.
As long as Barry's still in charge, decent Americans will get scanned, groped and humiliated in the name of "keeping us safe".
hey guys just esteban checking in. here i am, doing my esteban thing. completely reasonable, never partisan and always on topic. you forgot to tell us about how many degrees mrs. esteban has. but seriously you are right. i forgot about that TSA vs your entire freedom war BHO is waging. just tell me, when BHO gets re-elected, will you crawl back in your hole?
Look....I think the body scanners are a waste of money. Instead just make the cockpit door more secure and the problem is solved. If the cockpit doors we secure 9/11 couldn't have happened.
police and FBI are not allowed to randomly stick their hands down peoples pants, grope women's breasts and take naked pics of them.
i believe he is referencing this... http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei 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. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.
naked body scanning and sexually molesting innocent americans does nothing to "ensure" weapons are not brought on board an airplane. and furthermore, not wanting the TSA sexually molesting innocent americans does not mean one is against any form of security. clearly, we need some security at airports, but the current way is ineffective, expensive, time-consuming, degrading and a gross violation of the constitution. there are many, many, many cases of people making it thru TSA checkpoints w/ all kinds of weapons. there are no documented cases of the TSA preventing acts of terrorism. but there are many, many, many cases of TSA "agents" involved in criminal activity while on the job.
I'm confused about your confusion. On the first issue, other Congressmen already know his position on the TSA (I would hope). So 'bringing attention' consists merely of saying the same thing louder. If they fundamentally disagree with him, it won't matter how loud he says it. So Rand really really passionately believe in reforming TSA. They've already thought about it and his passion is for nothing. On the second issue, the TSA debate is between civil liberties and security. And, in general, it's a zero-sum game. The more liberty you give passengers the less you can guarantee safety. This is why I think we have no shot at reforming the system in the short term -- every legislator will be afraid to be the guy who let a terrorist blow up another plane. If Rand Paul somehow prevailed on the rest of Congress and regained our civil liberties in air travel and then a plane blows up, he'll be the guy who let the terrorists in. So long as he tries and fails though, he's the valiant but doomed defender of civil liberties. If he really wants to try though, he needs to be wheeling and dealing in Congress, not getting detained at airports. Find ways to give travelers respect without compromising security as much; find a way Congress can reform the TSA without being acccused of being soft on terrorism.; persuade individual legislators or swap votes or whatever to get something passed. We don't need one of our leaders out there playing the victim.
