If she did not say "bomb" of course I would consider the actions of the officials inappropriate and objectionable.
But, then, if she did not say that word - why did the plane get directed to a remote location, and the passengers removed and transported via busses, and the luggage searched? Surely by retaining and questioning her they were able to determine if there was or was not a threat. If not, that would have precluded the need to involve the people for the search and frighten the passengers, etc.
I seriously doubt they would have gone to that length just because they were reacting to her "snippiness." Maybe one or two personnel would be inclined to want to give her a lesson - but not an entire airline, FBI, etc. Something does not smell right to me.
Something in both stories must be incorrect or missing. I guess it will either unravel in future stories or be dropped from the news.
We don’t know her exact words…but wouldn’t you expect that if she had used the “B” word the Phoenix police would have used that word, and not “item.” As I noted above the WND article is a crib from another article, in which the “bomb” statement is unattributed. Anyway, it is clear even in the context of the WND article that she was not claiming to have a bomb, but was merely giving her low opinion of the competence of the TSA staff.
But, then, if she did not say that word - why did the plane get directed to a remote location, and the passengers removed and transported via busses, and the luggage searched?
The answer: The TSA are bureaucratic, ham-fisted, bloody-minded, idiots, that think that they have the right to escalate any minor incident to an major incident; and impose absurd rules and regulations, and have us the sheeple pretend that this is all serious or suffer the consequences.
Look, even if she had used the “bomb” word, after the police had determined she was not a threat, and after the plane had already landed at its destination, what was the point of directing the plane to the remote location, scaring the passengers, and searching and then blowing up the luggage…what was the f*ing point? There was no rational point, its just, “This is what we do, this is our policy, and this shows that we are very serious and important and powerful.”
Surely by retaining and questioning her they were able to determine if there was or was not a threat. If not, that would have precluded the need to involve the people for the search and frighten the passengers, etc.
If you read the San Diego Tribune article you will see that Dr. Esha Khoshnu was in fact not found to be a threat, and though she missed her flight, she was allowed to fly on a later flight. The flight she was supposed to be on was allowed to fly because the luggage had been screened, like all the other luggage on the flight.
I seriously doubt they would have gone to that length just because they were reacting to her "snippiness." Maybe one or two personnel would be inclined to want to give her a lesson - but not an entire airline, FBI, etc. Something does not smell right to me.
The are willing to go to this length because they can, without any penalty, because they can cite rules, regulations, procedures, which are replacements for intelligence, judgment and common sense. I didn’t see the airline or the FBI mentioned as factors in this situation. As far as “smell right”: It seems that whenever a conflict between an individual and LEO types arise, someone on the thread will say that the individual’s story “doesn’t smell right,” i.e. no matter what, they assume that the government is right. I don’t know if you saw the recent Freeper vs. TSA thread, but posters were making the same type of comments. Posters also make similar comments on the school zero-tolerance threads, you know when an honor student is arrested and kicked out of school because an old Boy Scout knife is found in his father’s station wagon that he took to school that day.
There is a similarity between the school zero-tolerance threads and the TSA antics, but if brain-dead school administrators unfairly penalize school kids, the damage is limited, but the TSA has the potential of causing unlimited damage to our economy (as the FAA already did) and society by harassing people who are not realistic threats, but refusing to profile by policy the real threats. Do you know that the airlines pre-9/11 had tagged using a terrorist profiling program most of the hijackers but were not allowed, by FAA policy under U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, to use that information, and are still not allowed to use that information? And that Mineta banned pilot carried guns, and even with an act of Congress the FAA is making it very difficult for pilots to be armed? Don’t you understand that it is the US Government, and not the occasional cranky or disgruntled passenger, who may have good reason to be disgruntled, that is the problem here?