In case of factual depletion, abandon discussion.

Post #16,914 by Brandioch 11/6/01 3:34:10 PM Reply	In case of factual depletion, abandon discussion. You've already agreed that she was treated the way she was because she was a "PITA". Now that you've admitted the authorities did not have any LEGAL grounds, you're bailing out of the discussion. Kowtow to your masters. And NEVER question authority.
Post #16,920 by Another Scott 11/6/01 3:47:26 PM Reply	Talking past each other. Hi Brandioch and All, B, you seem to be missing some of the others' points, and vice versa. Can a person be effectively searched if they don't stand still? I don't think so. We have a report that she wouldn't stand still, thus if true, she was excluded for a valid reason, not because she didn't kowtow. I think this is closer to the truth than her account. Now that you've admitted the authorities did not have any LEGAL grounds, you're bailing out of the discussion. As you know, Don didn't do that. The airport and airline had the legal authority to do what they did. The rules are listed in this FAA [link\|http://cas.faa.gov/faq.html\|FAQ]: Q. What regulations cover civil aviation security and where can I find a copy of them? A. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 107 and 108, regulates airports and air carriers, respectively, and may be found on the FAA's web site at [link\|http://www.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/FARS\|http://www.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/FARS]. Q. Who is responsible for the people working at our nations airports performing security screening? When and why do they physically search my carry-on? A. Preboard screeners are either direct airline employees or, in most cases, contracted by the airline to perform security screening functions. The FAA requires airlines to screen all items entering the sterile area of the airport. Preboard screeners may screen carry-on items by x-raying and/or manual search. If screeners observe an item inside a bag that they cannot readily identify during x-ray inspection, they must open the bag and manually inspect the contents. Q. Under what authority does the FAA or the airlines conduct security screening or physical searches at airports? A. Air carriers are required to conduct passenger screening under Title 49 United States Code Section 44901, Screening passengers and property, which states that "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations requiring screening of all passengers and property that will be carried in a cabin of an aircraft in air transportation or intrastate air transportation. The screening must take place before boarding and be carried out by a weapon-detecting facility or procedure used or operated by an employee or agent of an air carrier, intrastate air carier, or foreign air carrier." [...] Q. I would like to be issued a special identification card, based upon a handicap or religious belief, which would help expedite security screening at the airport. A. The FAA does not grant or issue a special identification card, nor can the airlines grant a special exception for security screening . The FAA does allow the airlines, upon request, to conduct private screening of individuals. Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,928 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:02:01 PM Reply	Nope. Looking at the whole situation. There are two, somewhat conflicting accounts. If she refused to be screened, what would have happened? What would happen to you if you attempted to enter the secured area without being screened? Did this happen to her? She said she submitted to a complete search of her person and her baggage (quote available upon request). They say she was moving and resisted being wanded. So, who's right? That is why I told Bill to try it at his local airport. But he's afraid to because he knows that he'd be detained and questioned by the local cops and/or FBI. Since this didn't happen to her..................... Cause and effect? Action and reaction? Their position is that she wasn't let on the plane because she refused to be screened. My counter to that is that, if she had refused to be screened, she'd be talking to the local cops and/or FBI. Since she wasn't, she didn't.
Post #16,940 by Another Scott 11/6/01 4:16:25 PM Reply	You've apparently missed some things. There's a difference between 1) Walking through a metal detector, putting a bag on the X-ray machine, (after being asked) walking up to a guard with a wand for hand screening and at that point refusing to be scanned in an effective manner; and 2) walking through the metal detector and (after being asked) refusing to be scanned with a wand and then continuting to walk toward your gate. In the first instance, you'll be refused entry, as Ms. Oden was. In the second instance, you'll likely be detained and the local law enforcement personnel will likely pay you a visit. Bill (IIRC) pointed out, regulations say you have a right to refuse personal screening so you won't be arrested for #1. You'll be denied entry, as she was. Your challenge seems to be closer to #2 than #1. If she refused to be screened, what would have happened? What would happen to you if you attempted to enter the secured area without being screened? Did this happen to her? Did she attempt to enter the secure area without being screened? I've seen no evidence of that. It seems to me, her actions were closer to #1. She apparently interferred with effective screening of her person, so she was denied entry. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,944 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:23:14 PM Reply	Prove it. This is easily solvable. Just do what I said to do. No need to discuss it. Just do it.
Post #16,950 by Another Scott 11/6/01 4:26:52 PM Reply	Spell it out. Don't be coy. What is your specific challenge. Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,955 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:33:16 PM Reply	I do not believe this. Yet the evidence is here, before my own eyes. "Don't be coy. What is your specific challenge." Is it possible that you have managed to miss EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of that example of mine? Your fear........ - (Brandioch) - 2001-11-06 19:56:18 Or, better yet, do a search on the string "cops and/or FBI". Get back to me when you've completed the challenge. Fuck it. Just to save people the time and trouble of asking what it was again, I'll post it again. #1. Go to your local airport. #2. Try to go through security. #3. Refuse to be screened. That's all. Just do that. Just like it is claimed she did.
Post #16,964 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:42:01 PM Reply	You should... ...because I've given you 2 examples. One...a statement from airport security. The other, your very own Nancy Oden...who didn't seem to get detained...according to your dictionary term. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,970 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:45:10 PM Reply	Reading WITH comprehension. No, Bill. "I do not believe this" was in reference to the fact that someone seems have managed to get this far into the thread without reading what my challnge to you was. The one you are afraid to take. Even though you keep claiming that nothing would happen. Your fear tells the truth.
Post #16,979 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:59:21 PM Reply	Sure.... so you can continue to ignore direct contradictory evidence in an effort to make me drive to the airport and attempt to crash security. Since I can read with comprehension and your challenge was to go THROUGH security without being screened...not deny additional screening. Not likely...since I have offered evidence...which you reject. SO I would say that the evidence is there for >you< to refute...not I. How far are you from Sea/Tac? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,978 by Another Scott 11/6/01 4:57:12 PM Reply	The reason I asked... was because her case didn't involve her trying to get through security without screening. It involved her refusing to be effectively screened. If you disagree, please post evidence that she attempted to go through security without being screened. Until you can do so, your challenge doesn't fit the situation here. That's why I gave you the opportunity to clarify what your challenge was. Don's post of the interview with her said that she was at the gate when she was told she couldn't get on the plane. Was she arrested? No. Was she allowed to fly? No, she wasn't. Because it was decided that she wasn't effectively screened (or because she was against the war, or her politics, or her bad attitude, or ..., depending on your point of view). This doesn't seem to fit your view of what should have happened to her, or what would happen to me or BP if we did what she's accused of doing. I think this ends my participation in this thread.... Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,932 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:10:51 PM Reply	Ahh...your MO... ...as proved below in your personal attack on me. No facts to back your assertions...so instead you create strawman (I dare you to crash security), invent new laws (the big bad FBI will "detain" you if you refuse screening) and attack me. Even though I've quoted a statement of fact that anyone can refuse additional screening under penalty of >denied access<...(not big bad FBI man)...AND...the airport personnel..when faced with a passenger who denied/made difficult/balked at additional screening was...in fact...not arrested or "detained" by the big bad FBI man but instead she was...oh...there it is again...simply denied access. Here is where you say to both Silverlock and myself..."Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!" Mr Black Knight, sir. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,947 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:25:13 PM Reply	Compare the dates. do you practice being an idiot? - (bepatient) - 2001-11-06 05:18:11 In GMT to make it easier. How many hours earlier is your attack on me?
Post #16,952 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:30:26 PM Reply	What...to your posts yesterday? Ah...feigned innocence... "I didn't start it...YOU did" It doesn't help your case. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,973 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:48:43 PM Reply	Quote it. If you can. Claim whatever you want. Just reference it.
Post #16,980 by bepatient 11/6/01 5:00:23 PM Reply	Even if I quote it you'll ignore it. You've got quite a track record of doing that in this thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!