Posted on 01/31/2008 9:03:21 PM PST by SkyDancer
The Oakland International Airport did not break any laws or regulations when it denied 200 marines and soldiers access to the passenger terminal during a layover last year from Iraq to the troops home in Hawaii, the Transportation Department says.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Sometimes *legal* and *right* are two different things.
True - I posted this when I saw it on Drudge - a while back someone asked about when this happened and I just came across it this evening - hope whoever asked will read it ....
All those men wanted was a bathroom, and a phone and to walk around. Why do 200 marines need to be controlled as opposed to 300 civilians getting off a Jumbo flight in the same airport. I have but one word for the officials at Oakland Airport. Gusanos despreciables
Hmmpph. It’s a pity the senior soldier on the plane didn’t declare the airport under enemy control, and order the troops to “secure” it.
I don’t know what the story is here, but during the later stages of the Vietnam war, the Seattle airport had freed up an area behind (obscure) doors where GIs had bunks and privacy.
I think that it was run by the USO.
Exactly, who cares if it was illegal or not. Someone should be fired for such an awful decision.
I think in the original article it said there were guns aboard the plane ... well Du’oh .... that was the reason given at the time ....
Absolutely despicable. Perhaps it’s time to stop using the terminals in the Peoples’ Republic of Kalifornia for our military personnel.
Disgusting to the max. What makes these pinheaded butt-munchers think a group of US Military personnel would need to be escorted or controlled, anyway? They routinely deplane more people from jumbo jets all day long.
This is just bureaucratic BS, pure and simple.
Thats two words.
Regards
Kalipornia authorities and seditious sheeple that keep em in office should be proud of themselves...........assh*les !
I can think of no less than a dozen ways both the troops and the airport’s security concerns could have been accommodated in this situation.
In the airport’s defense however, I early on in my career that when you are dealing with more than one person the whole system has to be designed with the least capable person in the group in mind. Or, as Mom would have put it “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.”
Bless her heart, she had a saying for EVERY occasion! I never cease to be amazed how often I am faced with making a decision and one of Mom’s sayings pops into my head. Probably why the Bible advises “train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it”.
I know the period, comma, etc. goes inside the quotes, but it drives crazy.
My limited knowledge of anything other than English tells me this is saying something about bat doo-doo going down in value over time. Am I close?
You want the doors locked and the lights turned off?
There's a joke about each branch having their own unique language. For example, if you tell a member of the Army, Marines, Navy and Air force to "secure that building," you will get four different responses.
To secure a building, the Army will surround the structure and establish a perimeter, blocking all routes of ingress and egress. Simultaneously, units will enter the edifice through every available path and clear it room by room. Once cleared, they will post a sentry challenging all who attempt enter or exit.
To secure a building, the USMC will call for naval gunfire and organic close air support, then execute a vertical envelopment placing blocking forces behind and on either side. The final phase is a massive frontal assault, breaching the walls and killing anyone inside.
To secure a building, the Navy will unplug the coffee pots, lock all safes, turn out the lights and lock the doors.
To secure a building, the Air Force will negotiate a three year lease with an option to buy.
Despreciables is despicable.
Thus the translation is “Despicable Worms.”
And the DPRK libtards don’t give a rat’s rip about either one.
Many moons ago (23 years) when I worked for an FBO we treated the military a little different. On occasion we would have Army Chinooks stop for fuel and or layover for the night. When they landed we would give them a meal and sell them fuel. If they layover ed for the night they would get food and a car for their use. On more than one occasion if they over nighted we also would toss a few back at the bar with them. Word got around among the pilots. If they were just stopping for fuel they would call in on the unicom frequency and we would have a meal ready for them when they landed. The majority of the time they would order either fried catfish, fried chicken or hamburgers all with french fries.
The other FBOs on the field even complained about us as they were not selling the fuel to them and we were.
Oakland has no idea on how to treat our great men in service. They are idiots. Did it not occur to them that they just put several thousand pounds of fuel in that aircraft. It does not have to land in Oakland it can take on fuel someplace else!!!!!!!!
Heh...well, I work a lot with Marines, so you get one guess. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.