Post #16,584
11/5/01 10:17:10 AM
|
Another (local) view.
[link|http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/article.html?ID=44958|Here] from the Bangor Daily News. By Jeff Tuttle, Of the NEWS Staff e-mail Jeff
Last updated: Saturday, November 3, 2001
Green Party activist denied Chicago flight
BANGOR \ufffd Green Party activist Nancy Oden was grounded at Bangor International Airport on Thursday after reportedly becoming uncooperative when she was targeted for additional screening.
Oden, who said she believed she was singled out for extra scrutiny because of her activist past and public opposition to the current war effort, was on her way to Chicago to attend a Green Party USA meeting when airline personnel told her that she had been selected to undergo added security screening before boarding.
\ufffdI was treated if I were guilty just because I\ufffdm a dissident and I speak out,\ufffd Oden, a middle-aged woman who sits on the party\ufffds national coordinating committee, said from her Jonesboro home after she had abandoned her travel plans. \ufffdThey\ufffdre looking at me like I\ufffdm a terrorist and I\ufffdm just a peaceful person trying to go to a meeting in Chicago.\ufffd
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, security has been tightened at all the nation\ufffds airports \ufffd including BIA, where armed National Guardsmen monitor the screening area and passenger lists are checked against the FBI\ufffds terrorist watch list.
Officials at BIA and American Eagle Airlines have a much different account of Oden\ufffds afternoon run-in with the added security.
\ufffdShe was uncooperative during the screening process,\ufffd said American Eagle spokesman Kurt Iverson, who added that Oden reportedly would not stand still when security staff tried to wave a metal-detecting wand over her. \ufffdObviously if they can\ufffdt submit to screening, [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations require that they not be allowed to board the plane.\ufffd
Oden said that while she asked security staff not to touch her with the wand, she did allow them to complete their search of both her person and her baggage. Oden said that she did pull away from a National Guardsman when he grabbed her left arm and asked her if she \ufffdknew what happened on September 11,\ufffd she said.
While acknowledging that Oden was singled out for added extensive screening, authorities said it was more likely due to the manner in which she purchased her ticket than for her activist past.
Under newly adopted FAA regulations, more passengers \ufffd either randomly or based on a computerized profile \ufffd are being targeted for more intense screening during the boarding process.
While industry officials were unwilling to release the criteria under which they would profile a passenger, they said the criteria did not include federally protected characteristics such as race, religion, age or sex.
Without providing details, interim airport director Rebecca Hupp said that the FAA guidelines \ufffdhave more to do with the ticket than the person.\ufffd For instance, one airline official said, a passenger who pays cash for a ticket the day of the flight would likely undergo added scrutiny.
Oden bought her nonrefundable ticket online, she said.
While an FBI spokeswoman would neither confirm nor deny the presence of any name on the terrorist watch list \ufffd another trigger for added security response \ufffd one law enforcement source said it was \ufffdextremely unlikely\ufffd Oden was on the list of potential terrorists because her name is unknown to the FBI.
After the incident, Oden was told she could not take her scheduled flight to Chicago, and that she could not travel on any other airline at the airport that day.
\ufffdIf I had done something wrong, they should have arrested me instead of denying me my right to travel,\ufffd an upset Oden said Friday. \ufffdWe\ufffdre losing more of our rights and people don\ufffdt realize it.\ufffd My wife was on a United flight from San Francisco on Friday. A man on her row was asked to leave the plane because of some discrepencies with his identification. He left without the plane without incident. My wife's colleague travelling with her, an American citizen of Chinese ancestry, was asked to undergo more thorough searches in every leg of his trip. He didn't put up a fuss about it. Security is tighter at airports, and searches are more thorough now. Airlines are checking tickets and passengers more thoroughly now. Based on what I've read, I don't think Oden was singled out nor treated unfairly. If she wouldn't submit to a reasonable search, then she shouldn't be allowed to fly. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #16,603
11/5/01 11:30:56 AM
|
well, goody
This reminds me never to fly. Ever. Christ almighty, God forbid I don't genuflect JUST THE RIGHT WAY if I ever need to buy a ticket.
Backbone. Maybe this spinal deficiency is more widespread than I thought...
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #16,611
11/5/01 12:07:18 PM
|
Its one of those grey areas.
How much do you need to be polite to your fellow people, and how much do they really need to do, etc.
Its not clear-cut... Certainly sounds like she was out to *cause* problems. Yes, sometimes that's good. Sometimes its just causing problems.
Course, if you want a ride with *me* you'll have to genuflect correctly DURING the flight, too, or else... :)
Ok, just before hand, and then you'll have to praise my landing and write a comic strip about it... :)
When ya wanna go up?
Addison
|
Post #16,613
11/5/01 12:18:39 PM
|
Heights. Bad. Urk.
Honestly, I didn't particularly enjoy flying BEFORE the 11th. Trains are fun. They're more comfortable than Greyhound, and have a better survival rate than airplanes.
or as Carrot Top put it once:
"I know they say that statistically, Flying is 'safer' than taking the train -- you know, there are more train accidents each year than plane crashes... but that's not the whole story. Think about it: when a train gets into an accident, people ask 'was anyone hurt?' When a plane gets into an accident, people ask 'WERE THERE ANY SURVIVORS?' "
Of course, it loses something in print -- the way he shouts the last line, it almost ended my life I was laughing so hard.
However, doing another lunch would be a fine alternative.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #16,617
11/5/01 12:42:48 PM
|
What Heights?
Hey, I'm scared of heights, too, but as long as the door's closed, there's no risk of falling. :)
Trains are fun.
Sadly, I'm getting very sick of having to choose between crappy alternatives.
The ONLY thing that makes me think highly about the airlines (their customer service, particularly) is Amtrak.
Addison
|
Post #16,631
11/5/01 2:15:45 PM
|
Or a conversation between . .
. . one of my clients (an avid flyer) and an acquaintance of his (an avid yachtsman).
"Naah, flying makes me nervous."
"But flying's safer than your boat. There are more accidents with boats than with airplanes."
"Yeah, but if something goes wrong, most people can swim, but very few can fly."
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #16,610
11/5/01 11:58:55 AM
|
Your rights are lost, one by one.
"While industry officials were unwilling to release the criteria under which they would profile a passenger, they said the criteria did not include federally protected characteristics such as race, religion, age or sex."
AND
"My wife's colleague travelling with her, an American citizen of Chinese ancestry, was asked to undergo more thorough searches in every leg of his trip."
AND
"Based on what I've read, I don't think Oden was singled out nor treated unfairly. If she wouldn't submit to a reasonable search, then she shouldn't be allowed to fly."
"unfairly"?
As opposed to someone who wasn't an activist?
Or as opposed to someone who didn't meet their criteria for being a good American (such as your wife's colleague)?
If they didn't find a weapon on her
AND
she's a middle-aged woman
THEN
why wasn't she allowed to fly?
Read some of the other stories about people who aren't allowed to fly.
[link|http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2001-10-25/cover.asp|http://www.newsrevi...25/cover.asp]
|
Post #16,620
11/5/01 12:58:27 PM
|
What "rights"?
You do not have a "right" to board a plane.
Tell you what it sounds like to me...
Ticket bought on Travelocity...first security flag.
Passenger denies/becomes beligerent on suplemental wand search...2nd security flag
Once this occurs...the airline..which is responsible for its own security...excercizes its LEGAL right to deny her access to the plane for cause. At Bangor airport, almost everyone else awaiting security review would be on this womans flight. They got to watch this woman become belligerent and refuse to allow supplemental search at which point...the airline refused her passage because they felt it would make the balance of passengers uneasy to allow her on the plane.
You heard that correctly...your access to the plane is not a legal right...it is a mutually agreed to contract upon ticket purchase...and the contract language is written to HUGELY favor the carrier...which basically has the right to deny you access at any time.
And I'd be willing to bet the only way the folks at the airport knew she was a Greenie was when she told them.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,628
11/5/01 1:56:13 PM
|
Police state.
You're correct, she does not have a "right" to use their plane.
She could have used any other airline there.
Oh, but they were told not to let her on board.
Did you read the other references?
Like I said, your rights are lost one by one.
First, by harassing anyone who doesn't conform. Like she didn't.
Or those that look wrong. Like the oriental in Scott's story.
There was no reason why she shouldn't have been allowed on the plane after being wand'ed.
Even if that airline didn't want to honour her ticket, she should have been able to contract with another airline.
But that RIGHT to enter into a contract with another airline was TAKEN from her.
With no due process.
Like I said, you lose your rights one by one.
|
Post #16,632
11/5/01 2:24:01 PM
|
Or when you throw them away....
As it appears, that she did.
Oh, but they were told not to let her on board.
...
First, by harassing anyone who doesn't conform. Like she didn't.
First, you've made a moral judgement. At the very least, it appears that she was uncooperative.
Second, if I walk through with a gun, I'm "non conforming" and I suspect you'd *want* me harrassed, just a bit.
She didn't lose her "rights" to anything. OTOH, she did have a problem, and we've expanded "rights" to many things - and "lost" them. You can't walk on the interstate. So you have the "right" to travel, but the only way available to you might be outlawed. Right? (if you can't walk down the road, and all the land is privately owned....)
But you and I accept this. We accept being disarmed, and searched, and the inability to joke in airports - is that a loss of rights? Yes, and no. Beep's assertation was way too strong.
But what about the *other people*? If I get on an airplane, muttering about killing people, what responsibility does the airline have towards me, regarding the OTHER PASSENGERS?
Oh, so *their* rights have to be abridged?
Its never that simple. And in this case, its certainly not sounding like a simple case of "Oh, she's a liberal bitch, lets give her the 1-2". The phrase "looking for trouble" is sometimes very relevent.
[link|http://www.kithrup.com/brin/brin.htm|IAAMOAC. ]
"I am a member of a civilization." (IAAMOAC)
This is more true now than ever!
Our society has many flaws, but if you ponder history, and cantankerous human nature, it's astonishing how far we've come. (Wouldn't our ancestors have wanted us to be better?) We just don't say IAAMOAC often enough. ... Keep the faith! - David Brin.
Its far more complex than her rights were violated - she was quite happily violating other's rights, as well.
The current Mallard Fillmore story line has a similar ring - the "Liberals" shouting down the "Conversative" so no one can hear what she has to say - using *their* free speech rights.
Addison
|
Post #16,640
11/5/01 2:59:04 PM
|
Your reality check just bounced.
"Second, if I walk through with a gun, I'm "non conforming" and I suspect you'd *want* me harrassed, just a bit."
Let's just TRY to keep this in the realm of possibility, okay?
Carrying a gun is a lot different.
"She didn't lose her "rights" to anything."
So, she didn't have a right to enter a contract with another airline?
For a legal service they were providing to other people?
Like I said, you lose your rights one by one.
As for your example of walking on the interstate, I see people walking on the interstate at times. Usually because they've had car problems. But that isn't the point. The point is when someone tells someone ELSE not to provide you with a service.
I can call a cab to go down the interstate. But when the cops tell the cab companies NOT to pick me up, we have a problem.
Do I have a "right" to any particular cab?
No.
Do I have a "right" to enter into a business contract with any particular cab?
Yes.
Her right to enter into a business transaction with another airline were taken.
They were taken when the other airlines were TOLD not to sell her a ticket.
"After the incident, Oden was told she could not take her scheduled flight to Chicago, and that she could not travel on any other airline at the airport that day."
"But what about the *other people*? If I get on an airplane, muttering about killing people, what responsibility does the airline have towards me, regarding the OTHER PASSENGERS?"
Reality check. She was NOT doing this.
"Oh, so *their* rights have to be abridged?"
Reality check. She was NOT doing this.
"Its far more complex than her rights were violated - she was quite happily violating other's rights, as well. "
Ummm, how?
|
Post #16,664
11/5/01 4:18:51 PM
|
P, K, B.
"Second, if I walk through with a gun, I'm "non conforming" and I suspect you'd *want* me harrassed, just a bit."
Let's just TRY to keep this in the realm of possibility, okay?
Carrying a gun is a lot different.
Nope. Its not even different. There are rules set up. One of those is you can't take guns past there. Another is you're subject to search. I personally think the restriction on guns is absurd and a violation of rights, but that's another topic, entirely. I carry a gun, I'm in violation, and BY DEFINITION, I'm no longer conforming.
You're taking her word - unless you want to tell me you were there , that she was singled out for her political afflications. This doesn't seem to be backed by much fact. The testimony of other people who were there apparently showed she was objecting/resisting, thus causing problems, drawing attention to herself, AND breaking the agreed rules.
So, she didn't have a right to enter a contract with another airline?
For a legal service they were providing to other people?
Like I said, you lose your rights one by one.
And they had the right to refuse her. This again, isn't clear cut. Ask Denny's about what happens if people think you discriminate, and sure, despite posting "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
You keep saying it, but that's all you're doing.
The "loss" of rights already occured. I'm not sure what you're advocating - everybody can be searched except those who object?
As for your example of walking on the interstate, I see people walking on the interstate at times. Usually because they've had car problems. But that isn't the point.
Notice the sign on the entrance ramp on the interstate. Pedestrians, Horses, Mopeds (that's can't go interstate speed), etc - are PROHIBITED. Its a public road.
You might not LIKE the fact its exactly on point, but that's your problem. There exists precedent to deny rights, because of OTHER people's needs and safety.
Reality check. She was NOT doing this.
Check your reality check at the door.
First, you don't know. Neither do I. We've got one HIGHLY politicized account, and one less so, that disagree. The second sounds more reasonable, but we don't know. She *was* creating a disturbance in some fashion.
Now ANSWER the question - HOW do you deal with the "RIGHTS" of the OTHER PASSENGERS?
Because its crucial to the whole point underling a culture/civilization/non-anarchy.
They have the right to safe passage, and not fear for their lives, right? Yes or no, please. And if yes - as you should say (or else you've got no business arguing "rights" - how do you balance a possible problem, one where they are scared, with her rights to be outraged at being searched?
It requires a balance. Its not a black and white issue.
Ummm, how?
Disrupting security, for one.
But golly, its so HARD to think about these things, its so much EASIER to scream about "Loss of rights" and never postulate how you CAN'T HAVE A SOCIETY where EVERYBODY HAS EVERY "RIGHT" they want ANYTIME".
Must be those damn evil repos. Their fault!
Addison
|
Post #16,667
11/5/01 4:28:24 PM
|
She did not have a gun.
She did not have ANY weapons.
She was searched.
Her baggage was searched.
No weapons were found.
Again, let's try to keep this in the realm of reality.
|
Post #16,703
11/5/01 5:14:46 PM
|
What did she do?
Reality? *Ahem*.
Anyways. OK, forget the gun then, how about *ANYTHING ELSE*, you know, the points that apparently you want to ignore? Like other people's rights, and how not everybody can have all their rights?
Addison
|
Post #16,707
11/5/01 5:17:54 PM
|
The other points?
Like your comment about muttering about killing people and scaring other passengers?
She didn't do that, either.
Why don't you tell me how other passenger's rights were impacted?
Without her carrying a gun or muttering death threats or any other fantasy.
Just tell me how other passenger's rights were impacted by what she DID do.
|
Post #16,709
11/5/01 5:23:48 PM
|
I see part of the problem.
Like your comment about muttering about killing people and scaring other passengers?
Called an analogy. Its where you show a comparision of a similar event, to hopefully get comphrension.
My apologies, I thought you'd understand what one of those was, thought I've seen you use them....
So if you didn't understand that, no wonder we had a problem.
In this case, she apparently caused a scene in security. In case you haven't noticed, people are rather jumpy. If other passengers were being discomfited (one of the other points you've forgotten about), then their rights are being infringed upon.
I'd have far more sympathy with her if she hadn't gone hyperbole on the issue - leading me to believe that she did it FOR the attention and press (I've certainly never heard of her before).
But of course, you wouldn't suspect a pure Anti-Bushian like that of such dastardly deeds.
The journalist who wrote about his problems, I have sympathy for, and hope he is able to change the system, to protect our rights.
But I don't particularly think that screaming bitches are a good figurehead for "right protection", especially ones that don't exist now, even if you don't understand them, or the analogies.
Addison
|
Post #16,717
11/5/01 5:47:47 PM
|
Whatever.
"Called an analogy. Its where you show a comparision of a similar event, to hopefully get comphrension."
Nope. Because she wasn't making any comments nor performing any actions even remotely similar to that.
Now, if you were showing that someone muttering death threats would have been allowed on the plane, then I could understand the analogy.
You'd be showing how a greater threat was allowed an action
therefore
a non-threat should be allowed the same action.
But going from a threat being denied an action
therefore
a non-threat should be denied the same action
.......I'm not seeing that.
So, you say she creates a scene at security.
Were the other passengers "jumpy"?
Nothing in either story said anything about other passengers being discomfited.
|
Post #16,734
11/5/01 6:51:28 PM
|
Now if she'd been merely a screaming *son*-of a bitch..
|
Post #16,646
11/5/01 3:28:33 PM
11/5/01 3:31:50 PM
|
Read...then post...
She was uncooperative during the screening process, said American Eagle spokesman Kurt Iverson, who added that Oden reportedly would not stand still when security staff tried to wave a metal-detecting wand over her. Obviously if they can't submit to screening, [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations require that they not be allowed to board the plane.
Oden said that while she asked security staff not to touch her with the wand, she did allow them to complete their search of both her person and her baggage. She refused to allow the wand. She's not allowed on ANY plane. Them's the rules. And I will tell you...there is NO sense of humor with airport security or the national guard...and if you decide that you want to be belligerent...you will be shown the door...which she was. As for her being targeted because she was Green...that is HER assertion and most probably bullshit. As I said before...it is much more likely that she bought her American ticket on Travelocity...which currently raises a security flag...and the only other available carrier in Bangor is Delta...and...if she calmed down and allowed the security checks...she would have been allowed transport...most likely on Delta later in the day...but what better way to get press then scream "I've been violated" You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Edited by bepatient
Nov. 5, 2001, 03:31:50 PM EST
|
Post #16,652
11/5/01 3:43:09 PM
|
Gotta back Beep on this one.
A careful, or even cursory reading of the report quoting airport staff indicates this woman was asked to submit to a higher level screening than normal (they do perform this at random occasonally). She was uncooperative. At this point the airport security personnel could have had her strip searched, confined and/or jailed.
Face it, she's probably a biatch who gets her jollys from being a pain in the ass.
(Okay, I take the biatch part back)
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #16,655
11/5/01 3:46:14 PM
|
See my other reply.
|
Post #16,654
11/5/01 3:45:01 PM
|
Read....Then post.
Bill said "She refused to allow the wand."
The article said:
"Oden said that while she asked security staff not to touch her with the wand, she did allow them to complete their search of both her person and her baggage."
She ASKED them not to TOUCH her with the wand.
She SUBMITTED to a COMPLETE search of her PERSON and her BAGGAGE.
Bill said: "She's not allowed on ANY plane. Them's the rules."
But the article specifically stated that she submitted to a COMPLETE search of her PERSON and BAGGAGE.
It's called "reading with comprehension".
|
Post #16,658
11/5/01 3:58:09 PM
|
I comprehend just fine.
She was being a PITA. They gave her some grief in response, "you can't fly today". Ever hear of *we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone*? It may have been a tightass response but it clearly did not impinge on her rights. You can call it retaliatory or vindictive, but not a denial of her *rights*.
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #16,670
11/5/01 4:29:37 PM
|
Again, comprehension.
The other airlines were told to NOT let her fly.
They did not refuse service, they were TOLD to refuse service.
After she had passed the search.
|
Post #16,672
11/5/01 4:40:36 PM
|
Right back atcha
The Airport security refused her access to the terminal. Nowhere is there any mention of the airlines being "told" to do anything.
-quote
After the incident, Oden was told she could not take her scheduled flight to Chicago, and that she could not travel on any other airline at the airport that day.
\ufffdIf I had done something wrong, they should have arrested me instead of denying me my right to travel,\ufffd an upset Oden said Friday. \ufffdWe\ufffdre losing more of our rights and people don\ufffdt realize it.\ufffd
-endquote
(emphasis mine)
As far as her "right to travel", Go to another airport, cooperate, get on flight, go to Chicago.
Sheesh.
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #16,678
11/5/01 4:49:08 PM
|
Oh >there< it is...
If I had done something wrong, they should have arrested me instead of denying me my right to travel, an upset Oden said Friday. She says she has a "right" to travel. Hop in the car, babe... Elwood: It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses.
Jake: Hit it! You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,683
11/5/01 4:52:08 PM
|
Damn! Where did I leave my sunglasses?
Can't leave home without 'em, ya know.
:-)
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #16,687
11/5/01 4:57:31 PM
|
That's right.
She was told she couldn't fly with any of the other airlines there.
I wonder what would have happened if she had tried.
Care to guess?
And she is right. If she HAD done something wrong, she would have been arrested.
|
Post #16,689
11/5/01 5:01:03 PM
|
I wonder what would happen if I pissed into the wind?
But no, I'm not stupid enough to do that.
Admit it, you're reaching.
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #16,695
11/5/01 5:06:08 PM
|
She wasn't arrested or detained or charged.
So, what was the complaint(s) about her again?
|
Post #16,820
11/6/01 8:33:28 AM
|
re: complaints
-quote
"So, what was the complaint(s) about her again?"
-endquote
Let's see if I can put this into words of one syllable,
She did not cooperate (sorry for the big word) with airport (sorry for the big word) security (sorry for the big word).
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #16,871
11/6/01 2:15:08 PM
|
How can I put this?
How did she not cooperate?
Details?
Did she refuse to be scanned?
NO!
Did she refuse to be searched?
NO!
Did she refuse to have her baggage searched?
NO!
Did she refuse to kowtow to the self-important pathetic asshole running the show?
YES!
And that got her banned.
Congratulations. That is what you are supporting. Pardon me if I don't see the problem.
I understand how certain of you would consider that a problem.
|
Post #16,872
11/6/01 2:17:43 PM
|
ie Words to Live-By, Cratchit: *Never Question Authority\ufffd*
|
Post #16,875
11/6/01 2:22:14 PM
|
How can a search be conducted if she won't stand still?
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=16584|Here] is a post with the Bangor news story.
\ufffdShe was uncooperative during the screening process,\ufffd said American Eagle spokesman Kurt Iverson, who added that Oden reportedly would not stand still when security staff tried to wave a metal-detecting wand over her. \ufffdObviously if they can\ufffdt submit to screening, [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations require that they not be allowed to board the plane.\ufffd
How can they effectively screen a passenger who won't stand still? In effect, she refused to be scanned.
More in Bill's thread in the Open Forum.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #16,881
11/6/01 2:32:15 PM
|
Agreed that this *may* have been the case. LITMUS TEST #1
SHE denies that.
THEY claim that.
WE DON'T KNOW !!
This has ALL been an exercise about:
WHICH conclusion does one automatically jump to - given conflicting CLAIMS.
Get It ? It has been merely a LITMUS TEST of personal er 'proclivities'.
Who flunked ?
{Sheesh!}
A.
|
Post #16,883
11/6/01 2:36:18 PM
|
Some of us took the essay test.
While, maybe, some of us took it as true/false.
:-)
As we've both said, we don't know what really happened.
There are examples of people being singled out unfairly. This, to me, doesn't seem to be an example of such an occurrence.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #16,888
11/6/01 2:55:49 PM
|
And again...
...she felt singled out >by her admission<...refused wanding by reporter and airport account (2 different sources saying she was either difficult or refused part of the screening).
She was denied access.
That made her mad, obviously.
There aren't alot of conclusions to jump to, Ash. What seems to be the problem is that some have granted rights to people that don't exist...invented airport rules that don't exist and essentially decided that this woman's story was true on face value.
Oops.
I believe I have stated on more than one occassion that those "some" seemed to have picked a poor horse in this race.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,917
11/6/01 3:41:25 PM
|
Once again, "detained". :)
"...refused wanding..."
Bill, I think you'd better retire with a nice dictionary before you get caught up in these discussions.
|
Post #16,984
11/6/01 5:12:47 PM
|
I see you still can't...
...invalidate the point.
But the grammar and spelling lessons should come in handy...thanks.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,880
11/6/01 2:30:23 PM
|
*sigh*
"Did she refuse to be scanned?
NO!"
Umm, sorry. The answer to that question is yes. Unless you are using a different definition for the word "refuse".
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #16,882
11/6/01 2:33:51 PM
|
See above: there are *CONFLICTING* claims. WHO lied most?
|
Post #16,885
11/6/01 2:44:39 PM
|
Let's try this shall we?
How about a little common sense?
Security in aiports is at high alert right now.
The security agents are under intense scrutiny right now.
More thorough searches/screenings are called for in some random cases and some specific cases (Travelocity purchased tickets).
What is more likely, she is/was a PITA who wouldn't cooperate fully with the security agents or the FBI has her on a watch list that flagged her name as a suspected terrorist and was therefore denied access to her flight?
I tend to side with the PITA theory myself. And you can't use the *evil repo* argument with me. I hardly ever agree with the conservatives here as you well know. So I am not predisposed to accept govt versions of stories.
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #16,962
11/6/01 4:38:57 PM
|
JMFCUTA
"And you can't use the *evil repo* argument with me."
Jesus Mother Fucking Christ Up The Ass!
WHERE did that quote come from?
"How about a little common sense?"
How about sticking to quoting ME or the references?
Where did you get the *evil repo* shit?
|
Post #16,975
11/6/01 4:51:17 PM
|
Try to pay attention here
I was responding to Ashton. I've already given up on you.
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #17,017
11/6/01 6:22:05 PM
|
Oops. Wrong window.
I thought that was Bill replying to me.
Sorry.
|
Post #16,916
11/6/01 3:39:06 PM
|
I can post a quote. You cannot.
"Oden said that while she asked security staff not to touch her with the wand, she did allow them to complete their search of both her person and her baggage."
There, I've posted a direct quote stating that she submitted to a complete search of her person and her luggage.
Now, you do the same. With a statement that >SHE< REFUSED to be screened.
That's all you have to do.
:)
|
Post #16,918
11/6/01 3:44:17 PM
|
I decline to waste any more time on you
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #16,923
11/6/01 3:57:25 PM
|
I'll play, for a while....
[link|http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/article.html?ID=44958|Here].
\ufffdShe was uncooperative during the screening process,\ufffd said American Eagle spokesman Kurt Iverson, who added that Oden reportedly would not stand still when security staff tried to wave a metal-detecting wand over her. \ufffdObviously if they can\ufffdt submit to screening, [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations require that they not be allowed to board the plane.\ufffd
If a person won't stand still during a screening/search, is it an effective screening/search? I don't think so.
If you believe the report above, she didn't stand still for the screening, so she wasn't effectively searched. She was uncooperative, couldn't be effectively searched, and thus was not mistreated by being excluded from the secure area.
If you don't believe the report above, and instead believe her account, then something wrong might have happened in her case.
So where do you stand? Do you disbelieve the Bangor Daily News account?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #16,966
11/6/01 4:42:43 PM
|
And there seem to be conflicting reports.
Which is why I posted the challenge about attempting to pass security while refusing to be scanned.
You start with the reports.
You extract the items that seem to be in agreement.
What would happen to you if you tried pass security without being screened?
Did this happen to her?
|
Post #16,986
11/6/01 5:14:21 PM
|
You challenge is still incorrect.
Pass security != refuse screening
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,020
11/6/01 6:23:37 PM
|
Reading with comprehension.
"Pass security != refuse screening"
That is quite true.
That is why you must attempt them both.
|
Post #17,048
11/6/01 8:36:21 PM
|
Bah
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,691
11/5/01 5:01:14 PM
|
Its obvious you don't understand the rules...
..she was denied access to the secured area of the airport. You can't get on a plane without access to the secured area of the airport.
She was denied that access because she balked at their security measures...and then got all huffy about it.
Too bad.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,693
11/5/01 5:04:13 PM
|
Read with comprehension.
She stated that she submitted to a complete search of her person and her baggage.
No where has that been contradicted.
She was not arrested nor detained nor charged with anything.
If she had tried to gain access to the secured area AND refused to be searched, she would have been arrested or SOMETHING.
But she wasn't.
If you don't believe me, why don't YOU try it?
Try getting through airport security without submitting to their security measures.
Let me know what happens.
|
Post #16,697
11/5/01 5:07:33 PM
|
You are not arrested...
...for refusing security...just denied access.
Trying to crash security is another issue...and I'm surprised you'd try something like that after the tack you took with Addison's thread.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,701
11/5/01 5:12:14 PM
|
Try it sometime.
Go to the check point and REFUSE to allow them to scan you.
Don't tell me what will happen.
I know what will happen.
If you're so positive that you know what will happen, then do it.
|
Post #16,705
11/5/01 5:16:53 PM
|
yawn
still stretching.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,710
11/5/01 5:25:17 PM
|
Your fear tells all.
That's right.
You're not going to do that.
And I know why.
Because, once you refused to be scanned, security would haul your ass off to one of the rooms they keep just for that purpose and you'd be talking to the cops and/or FBI.
And they don't take these situations casually.
But that didn't happen to her.
Even with the heightened security in place.
But, feel free to make any claims you want to.
Just don't bother to back them up.
You wouldn't want that on your record.
|
Post #16,711
11/5/01 5:28:09 PM
|
couple of comments from the peanut gallery....
Because, once you refused to be scanned, security would haul your ass off to one of the rooms they keep just for that purpose and you'd be talking to the cops and/or FBI.
Nope. they just wouldn't let you past. They'd probably presume you were there to make a scene, they'd politely stop you, and it would only escalate if you attempted to go past them.
If you want to refuse, they'd happily let you stand there.
But, feel free to make any claims you want to.
Just don't bother to back them up.
You wouldn't want that on your record.
Check out the "Microsoft is Guilty" forum... given what you've said there today, that's rather hypocritical. (sorry for crossing forums)
Addison
|
Post #16,714
11/5/01 5:35:22 PM
|
So, prove it.
When I said "record", I meant police record. As I would have suspected was evident from the context.
You have your opinion of what would happen, I have mine.
Since your's would result in zero jail time, why don't you prove it?
That's all.
It shouldn't take much time. A few minutes to run up to security, attempt to pass and refuse to be scanned. It shouldn't take long at all.
PS: Don't cross forums.
|
Post #16,715
11/5/01 5:39:44 PM
|
Re: So, prove it.
Since your's would result in zero jail time, why don't you prove it?
Because refusing to submit to security, in an airport, is incredibly stupid.
And I don' t make a habit of doing stupid things.
Much less, to win an argument like this. Hardly worth it.
And neither is germane to the main point. Which is that her political affiliation doesn't seem to have been the reason for her problem.
PS: Don't cross forums.
You make an attack like that, while you're backpedelling and refusing to - on the same day - tough noogies. The forums get crossed, at least for the purposes of pointing that out.
Better yet, you stop with the hypocrisy.
Addison
|
Post #16,719
11/5/01 5:51:08 PM
|
Your fear tells all.
Nothing would happen. So you claimed.
"Because refusing to submit to security, in an airport, is incredibly stupid."
But you claimed that nothing would happen.
But you know that something would happen.
Which would prove my position.
If nothing would happen, then you have nothing to be afraid of.
|
Post #16,725
11/5/01 6:03:39 PM
|
Re: Your fear tells all.
"Because refusing to submit to security, in an airport, is incredibly stupid."
But you claimed that nothing would happen.
Yep, I did. I'm still pretty sure that's the case.
But you know that something would happen.
Nope. Not worth taking the chance that something might. But you're right. There's always a chance that I might be the Object Lesson of the day.
You know nothing of my "fear"s. Continue with the insults, and they will be returned, with interest compounded.
I have nothing to gain by such an act. Further, it would be rude and arrogant and insulting, and I'd damn sure be bothered as hell by some SOB such as yourself doing it.
So there's lots of downsides, not the least to my integrity. Fear's not a part.
I'm not political, and have *nothing* to gain. I don't want my name in the paper, I don't "win" in any confrontation. Unlike your subject here.
Now, the funny part, is you're so black and white here. But over in that other forum, when presented with B&W evidence contrary to your statement, you aren't.
Like I said initially, there's not a sharp edge on "rights' when it comes to lots of people, and the modern world. We've given them up, and for the most part, gained much more than we lost.
You can't walk down the interstate, legally, or bicycle down it - but its a public road. If its the only road between where you are and where you want to be, you still can't get on it, without a approved vehicle.
An *analogous* situation. You "lost" the right to progress down a public way.
The original statement by you, was due to some problem, yet undetermined the truth of that, in security, she was denied boarding. The reasons for that ability are the protection of other people's rights - something you're ignoring, totally.
Addison
|
Post #16,731
11/5/01 6:38:11 PM
|
That is called "fear".
"Not worth taking the chance that something might."
But nothing will happen.
"There's always a chance that I might be the Object Lesson of the day."
That is "fear".
"Continue with the insults, and they will be returned, with interest compounded."
They are not insults. I am showing that your position is in error because you will not do what you say is something that doesn't matter. Because you know what will happen. Even if you have to cloak it in terms of "unlikely possibility".
"Further, it would be rude and arrogant and insulting, and I'd damn sure be bothered as hell by some SOB such as yourself doing it."
How so? You just go to security, attempt to pass and then leave when they try to scan you.
Regarding rights:
"We've given them up, and for the most part, gained much more than we lost."
Something about giving up freedom for security and deserving neither.
"The reasons for that ability are the protection of other people's rights - something you're ignoring, totally."
I'm not ignoring them.
I just haven't seen anyone give a reason how those rights (or even what rights they were) were affected.
Like I said, neither story had anything about other passengers being "jumpy".
|
Post #16,758
11/5/01 9:22:50 PM
|
What fear?
And again...this is how I know you're talking out of your ass.
Airport Security is NOT a police force...they are SECURITY...they have the authority to deny me access to the area that they are tasked to SECURE.
Now...they do have the right and the authority to call a member of some police force...local or FBI...if they feel I am committing a crime...but if I walk up to security and say...no...I don't want to be scanned...they have the authority to do nothing but deny me passage.
But...of course...[link|http://209.11.43.206/businesstravelnews/travsource/search_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1035804|I don't know anything about it.]
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,665
11/5/01 4:20:30 PM
|
And....
She ASKED them not to TOUCH her with the wand.
She SUBMITTED to a COMPLETE search of her PERSON and her BAGGAGE.
We of course KNOW that SHE can be trusted to tell the unvarnished truth, while ANYTHING anybody else says MUST BE LIES.
Addison
|
Post #16,666
11/5/01 4:21:16 PM
|
"Don't touch me"
You know, this "request" is just reasonable enough to look good on paper. Depending on the way it was delivered, it could have been the most infuriatingly obnoxious thing she could say.
And when she got touched (probably accidentally), she got all squimish and pissed. I can just picture that....
In addition to that, the whole article smells of political "National Enquirer" with some bothersome hysterical bitch mixed in for a good measure. OK, like the previous speaker, I'll take the "bitch" back. :)
|
Post #16,673
11/5/01 4:42:32 PM
|
Heh...
...She refused the wand. At that point...she's done. They could have undressed her...hung her upside down....and looked at her make-up with an electron microscope...they STILL are allowed to refuse her passage...because she refused their screening.
And you have decided that this is a discussion of "rights"...which, of course, its not...but thats what keeps these discussions lively, isn't it.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,690
11/5/01 5:01:13 PM
|
And they didn't. Because?
"They could have undressed her...hung her upside down....and looked at her make-up with an electron microscope...they STILL are allowed to refuse her passage...because she refused their screening."
Again, that is what you would normally expect them to do, isn't it?
But that didn't happen.
Why?
|
Post #16,692
11/5/01 5:02:58 PM
|
Well now...
...that may have violated some of her >actual< rights.
But instead they only violated the one that she made up for the press.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,700
11/5/01 5:10:19 PM
|
I'm not following that.
You said:
"They could have undressed her...hung her upside down....and looked at her make-up with an electron microscope...they STILL are allowed to refuse her passage...because she refused their screening."
But they didn't.
I asked why they didn't.
You said that that would have violated her rights.
But if you read your quote again, you'll find that you said they COULD do that.
So, if they can do that because she did what she did, how would them doing that violate her rights?
|
Post #16,708
11/5/01 5:20:04 PM
|
Um...
gee...I'll try and make it sound even MORE rediculous so you might actually comprehend that...
ah...fuck it...if you wanna be that dense its your prerogative.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,713
11/5/01 5:33:26 PM
|
Guess we'll have to see what pattern emerges, and revisit.
Yes, this 'case' and that recent one of the Sac. reporter (eventually apologized to. Eventually.) may.. be the Red Herring which some here are just as quick to jump-to (as others to jump away from). It's so far anecdotal.
Naturally the sense of it all won't become Revealed Truth for those of a certain faith: until there are tabulated statistics to deconstruct.
I'll wait. We'll see. Rationalization is always such fun - til *you* are the one transgressed (but then - *you* don't fully qualify as a stat! just a datum. Remember that.)
Ashton
not even a datum; ouside 1 SD in most cases.
PS - anyone recall the er 'middle-Eastern-looking' gent (in a suit IIRC?) bounced from a flight a while back? by the Pilot because: some passengers were 'nervous' and so was he.
Choose then: assuage the mob without reservation and in every case of 'nervousness' / kiss personal Valuez goodbye. OR give benefit of doubt to the individual and his/her *actual behavior* and er 'dis-armamant found?'- and trade an imagined 'risk' (that surely SomeOne there.. might possibly.. generate): for those famous Farmily Valuez things.
As Judge Judy loves to say, I guess: the choice is *mine*.
(Maybe a Marshall on every plane AND a Judge at every airport - for the special Needs of Muricans in extremis?)
|
Post #16,676
11/5/01 4:47:24 PM
|
Which is why I didn't (and don't)
support a buyout of the Airline industry. Excuse me, if I don't have the right to ride your plane, you do NOT have the right to my money, tax or otherwise.
|
Post #16,682
11/5/01 4:50:38 PM
|
Then you shouldn't have..
...had the right to shut them down for 4 days.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,694
11/5/01 5:05:22 PM
|
Haven't read the Constitution lately...
but where does it say that airlines have a right to fly? (And threaten Americans?)
Feel free to point that out to me.
If an interstate is closed down due to construction, are motorists compensated for not being able to travel on the road?
|
Post #16,704
11/5/01 5:14:59 PM
|
Highways...
..its your money fixing those too.
>you< forcibly took 5 days of revenue from the airlines. now you want to refuse them when they ask to be compensated.
Hmmm...
S'ok I guess...but it sure will take a long time for me to get to California driving. UAL posted, IIRC, close to a billion dollar loss in the 3rd quarter.
Thats ok though...all we need is Southwest airlines...then we wouldn't have to worry about this lady flying from Bangor...cause there wouldn't be an airport there anymore.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,716
11/5/01 5:46:29 PM
|
Fine:
Pay them for the actual lost revenues* of those 3 days: forget bailing out their BOD decisions of all year. Isn't that how The Market works? No sniveling? (unless you can get Corp welfare increased, of course - always worth a try in emotional times, and never omitted; that try).
* Audited natch - preferably by the Swiss - actual lost revenues based upon normal accounting practices, and no bonus for previous negative balance sheets.
(Now as for the insurance Cos. / loss of commandeered aircraft: 'act of God?' / War loss? Heh. Won't it be fun watching the suits savage each other, perhaps quoting one scripture or another re gored oxen?)
A.
|
Post #16,720
11/5/01 5:57:24 PM
|
Umm...better re-read that again..
Highways, its your money fixing those too.
Yeppers, and it's my money for the FAA and the Airport Authority, etc, etc, etc. Apples and Oranges. I did not raise an issue on funds been spent for the FAA, NTSB, or other governmental agencies. I do have a problem with a buyout of a privately-held corporation (or series of corportations).
>You< forcibly took 5 days of revenue from the airlines. now you want to refuse them when they ask to be compensated.
Ahem, the government FORCIBLY took revenue from the airlines? Terrorists weren't involved? Intriguing thought. This implies that the airlines had the right to fly immediately after the attack and place the public in danger. Sorry, not buying it. No airline has the right to place the public in danger, period. Furthermore, the government, not only has the right but the responsibility to 'ensure the general welfare' and keep the public safe. And I still haven't seen anything that says that the government must compensate businesses that attempt to endanger the public. The scary thing is the precident this establishes. Say the Boeing 777 has a fatal flaw that shows up in 5 years or so. Suddenly Boeing 777 start crashing. The NTSB grounds all Boeing 777 while they investigate. Should the airlines should be compensated for this by the government? Next thing you know, Firestone makes truck tires that are faulty, resulting in crashes. Firestone tires (perhaps) are used by 90% of the Trucks on the US roads. The NTSB demands a recall of these faulty tires and refuses to allow the trucks on the road with these faulty tires. Should the truck company should be compensated for this by the government? Next it's passenger cars, with families dying. Are they compensated for this by the government?
S'ok I guess...but it sure will take a long time for me to get to California driving.
I have a coworker who had to drive from Memphis down to Orlando immediately after 11th. Isn't this your argument regarding the Green Party lady? That travel wasn't being restricted, merely the means. After all, as you pointed out, she could drive. She doesn't have the right to fly.
|
Post #16,761
11/5/01 9:36:21 PM
|
We'll just have to disagree here...
The amount given to aid the airlines is minor compared to what wholesale failure of the system would cost.
Granted the airlines were not the best managed gang...but costing them a billion in short term cash flow and telling them "deal with it" is just a tad drastic.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,776
11/5/01 10:30:21 PM
|
Perhaps so...
Granted the airlines were not the best managed gang...but costing them a billion in short term cash flow and telling them "deal with it" is just a tad drastic.
Perhaps...with one difference: I believe the terrorists cost them a billion or so in short term cash flow, not the government. In the end, it doesn't matter. The airlines have the cash.
|
Post #16,779
11/5/01 11:05:37 PM
|
Re: Perhaps so...
Sure. Either way...we really can't afford for them to fail.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,753
11/5/01 9:05:25 PM
|
A public "taking" is to be compensated
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #16,879
11/6/01 2:28:13 PM
|
My experience.
This past weekend I flew Delta from Charlotte to Atlanta to NYC (Newark Airport) on Saturday and the reverse on Monday. I wanted to visit my Mom and sisters and see Ground Zero. To minimize potential luggage problems, I had carry-on only. This meant I had to leave my Gillette Sensor razor at home and buy throwaway razors in NYC.
The check-in at the ticket counter (I had an e-ticket) was fairly quick and required the usual picture ID check. The one thing that different was that only the boarding passes for the two flights that day were issued. In the past, all boarding passes would have been issued.
Going through security was not as smooth. First they checked the boarding pass. Then the luggage, coat, and metallic pocket contents X-ray. For some reason, I had forgotten about the wristwatch and set off doorway loop metal detector. They use the wand. Thinking it might be the belt buckle, or else something hidden in or behind the belt, they told me to loosen the belt and show them the back of the buckle. No problem. Then, the wand found the wristwatch that has the stainless steel back. Had I put the watch in the little basket, it would have been easy.
At the gate, before boarding, it was announce that, selected *at random*, some passenger's carry-on luggage will be hand searched. If your boarding ticket had some letter codes on the lower right, you were to go to a table were a Delta agent would look at and check the contents of your carry-on. I was not one of those selected. Whether having a Delta Frequent Flyer card since the 1980's or having an honest face had anything to do with it, I don't know. Four Mexicans (judging by the accent and appearance), travelling together had been selected for the random search. It's hard to chalk that up to the improbability machine being turned on at that time. This Delta flight was dual-logoed as an AeroMexico flight. While having the boarding pass scanned, you once again had to produce a picture ID.
In Atlanta the subsequent flight was in the same terminal building, so it was just question of showing your picture ID at the time the boarding pass was processed.
Both these flights were about 2/3 full.
The return trip was smooth given that I managed to switch to earlier flights at the terminals. As any of you that travel to NYC know, there is immense variability in how long it takes to get from Manhattan to Newark airport. I gave myself plenty of time and this time the bus I used got there fairly quickly. The Newark check-ins were smooth. The only strange thing was that for the first time, and on the other side of the doorway loop, I was asked to take off my (baseball style) cap. I suppose I could have had plastic knives there, but I could have had them in my socks too.
At the gate, I noticed that the adjoining gate was also going to Atlanta, but an hour earlier. I managed to get on accepting the last and one of the worst seats on the plane - a non-reclining middle seat in front of the seats by the wing emergency exit doors. Hey, it's only a two-hour flight and at worst I'll be waiting in Atlanta closer to home.
In Atlanta, I asked to be put on a flight that wad an hour and a half earlier than the original booking. Because I had not been called after all rows were boarded, I asked the boarding attendant if they had a seat for me. "Oh, sure!" she said and let me on. She did not ask to see my picture ID, which I believe, was a procedural error. Not that practically speaking picture ID of the sort we have, in my case a North Carolina driver's license, are not easily forged. This flight was only a quarter full. Not a good thing for Delta.
Anyway, I did my thing to keep the airlines going. And, I would do it again without hesitation.
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
