Originally Posted by
amanuensis
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."
Because a small windowless room is an ideal place to do exactly what was done, attempt to take away the rights of Mr. Bierfeldt. That is the significance of the statement and it was necessary to state it. Earlier you ask if Mr. Bierfeldt would prefer being questioned at the checkpoint. I can't answer for him. But if I am going to be questioned I prefer that it be in a place where it can be seen by all, even if public at large assumes I'm "a perp". When it comes to tyranny, sunshine is a good disinfectant. I'd bet the treatment would have been much more professional if the checkpoint was the place where the questioning in this case took place.
I understand your point that you are put off by the tone of the article. I have the same knee jerk reaction to those who would use authority they don't have to attempt to take away the rights of others.
In our republic there is no excuse for this sort of tyranny and to pretend otherwise is foolish in the extreme.