Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Here We Go Again

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 2, 2011 | 5:40 pm
  #16  
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Why in the world would TSA keep a person from flying for the stated cause that something about her rump was concerning but ok her to fly the next day?
Because they can. That's how tyrants operate.
WindOfFreedom is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011 | 5:45 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
Originally Posted by eyecue
There is nothing in it.
Well apparently there was something in her nates . Care to enlighten us as to
a) what you think that could have been; and
b) why the eagle-eyed screeners couldn't "resolve" it ?

Perhaps it never happened.
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011 | 6:32 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
Perhaps it never happened.
Given how poorly written that particular news story was, I have a problem even knowing in any detail what "it" might have been. I think trying to derive any useful information from that particular news story is hopeless.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011 | 9:54 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
Given how poorly written that particular news story was, I have a problem even knowing in any detail what "it" might have been. I think trying to derive any useful information from that particular news story is hopeless.
Yeah, that 'shape of the rump' thing is bizarre but I can't imagine what the (cough) reporter might have misheard. She was denied access though and the TSA isn't going to tell us why, so the story is about as much as we're ever likely to know. Situation normal.
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011 | 10:59 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Nebulous
Programs: Delta, KLM, Luftansa
Posts: 125
If they truly believed she was a security risk, why was she allowed to remain in the airport?
Justruss is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2011 | 12:03 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OOL/DOH
Programs: QF LTS WP, Avis Pres Club, HH Diam.
Posts: 3,190
Originally Posted by Justruss
If they truly believed she was a security risk, why was she allowed to remain in the airport?
Act 3, Scene 5...
VH-RMD is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2011 | 7:05 am
  #22  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,386
Originally Posted by VH-RMD
Act 3, Scene 5...
Constitution 1, Amendment 5:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Global_Hi_Flyer is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2011 | 7:11 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
Angry

Originally Posted by Justruss
If they truly believed she was a security risk, why was she allowed to remain in the airport?
And told to "come back tomorrow" ?

She was simply being punished, by inventing a non-existent concern[sic], for having the temerity to push back against the TSA.
And the beat goes on...
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2011 | 7:39 am
  #24  
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
And told to "come back tomorrow" ?

She was simply being punished, by inventing a non-existent concern[sic], for having the temerity to push back against the TSA.
And the beat goes on...
You got it. She was being punished. See the thread about SEA: "We can do whatever we want."

Ye Gods and Little Fishes!
WindOfFreedom is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2011 | 1:08 pm
  #25  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
Constitution 1, Amendment 5:
With 3 minutes left in the first half, it's

TSA Tyrants: 47
Constitution: 0
ScatterX is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.