Since one would expect a room at an airport used for questioning to be small and windowless (because its function does not require anything more grandiose), then why was it necessary for the article linked to in the first post to so state? The author made it sound like there was something objectionable about being questioned in such a room, above and beyond the questioning itself. It was as if the author was saying, "not only was Bierfeldt taken away from the checkpoint for further questions, but the frosting-on-the-cake was that the room was small and windowless. It would only have been remarkable if Bierfieldt had been taken to some other kind of room, such as an airport lounge room.

It comes down to tone. The author of the article was trying to place everything that the TSA and airport police did in the worst possible light. I guess it is a knee-jerk reaction for me to play devil's advocate when I encournter this type of "journalism."