Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours

A Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:23:40 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
escribió:
Unless you can give me a better reason than that, I still say it's
kidnapping.

And you would still be wrong.


--
bicker®

*bicker* wrote:
You are mistaken. Government officials are supposed to
maintain secure areas secure. Kidnapping describes a
felony, committed by a criminal, not a control action taken
by an authorized official.

Sorry, but detaining anyone against their will without any legal reason is
kidnapping. The USA government may wrap itself into its onw flag, but the
kidnapped victims are Gantanamo have been detained against their will, without
any legal reason, haven't been charged with any crime and have been tortured.
Not only that, but they were taken from their place of residence against their
will and transported across the world where they are kept in dog cages and
treated as dogs.

nobody wrote:

Sorry, but detaining anyone against their will without any legal reason is
kidnapping.

Your argument would be treated a lot stronger if you would use the correct
terminology. There's a significant difference between kidnapping and unlawful
detention.

What we are discussing here is what a reasonable limit is. No one would argue
that a country has the right to screen passengers upon entry to the country to
ascertain their citizenship. They also have the right to implement policy and
rules to implement that process which could include keeping the passengers in a
sterile area (defined as no contact with non-passengers) until screening is
complete.

Clearly, making that screening process take months or years is unreasonable.
Making that process take an hour or two, while possibly uncomfortable, is not.

The question on the table is when does a reasonable process become unlawful
detention?

In message , at 10:27:43 on
Fri, 31 Dec 2004, "Clark W. Griswold, Jr."
remarked:
What we are discussing here is what a reasonable limit is. No one would argue
that a country has the right to screen passengers upon entry to the country to
ascertain their citizenship. They also have the right to implement policy and
rules to implement that process which could include keeping the passengers in a
sterile area (defined as no contact with non-passengers) until screening is
complete.

Clearly, making that screening process take months or years is unreasonable.
Making that process take an hour or two, while possibly uncomfortable, is not.

The question on the table is when does a reasonable process become unlawful
detention?

There are normally tests of "reasonableness". So, for example, how far
is this rural airport from Seattle, and how quickly could a team of
people be driven there to complete the formalities?

Well, it's 183 miles, and the airport at Seattle is supposedly closed.
So I guess 6 hours might be enough.

Alternatively, those 6 hours could have been spent bussing a new flight
crew from Seattle, as air transport was clearly a bit dodgy that day.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:27:43 on
Fri, 31 Dec 2004, "Clark W. Griswold, Jr."
remarked:
What we are discussing here is what a reasonable limit is. No one would argue
that a country has the right to screen passengers upon entry to the country to
ascertain their citizenship. They also have the right to implement policy and
rules to implement that process which could include keeping the passengers in a
sterile area (defined as no contact with non-passengers) until screening is
complete.

Clearly, making that screening process take months or years is unreasonable.
Making that process take an hour or two, while possibly uncomfortable, is not.

The question on the table is when does a reasonable process become unlawful
detention?

There are normally tests of "reasonableness". So, for example, how far
is this rural airport from Seattle, and how quickly could a team of
people be driven there to complete the formalities?

Well, it's 183 miles, and the airport at Seattle is supposedly closed.
So I guess 6 hours might be enough.

Alternatively, those 6 hours could have been spent bussing a new flight
crew from Seattle, as air transport was clearly a bit dodgy that day.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
Alternatively, those 6 hours could have been spent bussing a new flight
crew from Seattle, as air transport was clearly a bit dodgy that day.

Big question is whether it would have been considered acceptable to bus
uncleared passengers to SEATAC where they woudl clear customs/immigration.
Would it have required on cop per bus ? or would they have trusted the bus
driver to provide the sterility ?

Of course, one issie is that if the airport keeps saying"we'll re-open in 5
minutes", then it becomes much harder for pilot to make a decision to abandon
hope of going to Seatac.

In message 1104516730.6c80942955e8dffd40f9d2c41e6220ca@teran ews, at
13:22:01 on Fri, 31 Dec 2004, nobody remarked:
Alternatively, those 6 hours could have been spent bussing a new flight
crew from Seattle, as air transport was clearly a bit dodgy that day.

Big question is whether it would have been considered acceptable to bus
uncleared passengers to SEATAC where they woudl clear customs/immigration.
Would it have required on cop per bus ? or would they have trusted the bus
driver to provide the sterility ?

That would require far more transport; easier to take the
officials/pilots to the plane.

Of course, one issie is that if the airport keeps saying"we'll re-open in 5
minutes", then it becomes much harder for pilot to make a decision to abandon
hope of going to Seatac.

The main delay seems to have been getting the new crew to the rural
airport, rather than sitting around wondering when Seattle airport was
going to open.

--
Roland Perry

In message 1104516730.6c80942955e8dffd40f9d2c41e6220ca@teran ews, at
13:22:01 on Fri, 31 Dec 2004, nobody remarked:
Alternatively, those 6 hours could have been spent bussing a new flight
crew from Seattle, as air transport was clearly a bit dodgy that day.

Big question is whether it would have been considered acceptable to bus
uncleared passengers to SEATAC where they woudl clear customs/immigration.
Would it have required on cop per bus ? or would they have trusted the bus
driver to provide the sterility ?

That would require far more transport; easier to take the
officials/pilots to the plane.

Of course, one issie is that if the airport keeps saying"we'll re-open in 5
minutes", then it becomes much harder for pilot to make a decision to abandon
hope of going to Seatac.

The main delay seems to have been getting the new crew to the rural
airport, rather than sitting around wondering when Seattle airport was
going to open.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

The main delay seems to have been getting the new crew to the rural
airport, rather than sitting around wondering when Seattle airport was
going to open.


That's an airline issue though - not an immigration check delay. Which gets back
to my original point. NWA, of all airlines, should have been better prepared
with procedures in place to deal with passengers locked up in an aircraft for
hours on end.

Roland Perry wrote:

The main delay seems to have been getting the new crew to the rural
airport, rather than sitting around wondering when Seattle airport was
going to open.


That's an airline issue though - not an immigration check delay. Which gets back
to my original point. NWA, of all airlines, should have been better prepared
with procedures in place to deal with passengers locked up in an aircraft for
hours on end.