Oakland Airport Apologizes to Detained Marines: as much as can be expected

A quick review:

• Back in September 27, 2007, over two hundred soldiers and United States Marines were ordered to get out of their chartered airplane, North American Airlines Flight 1777, and told to wait on the grass, near the baggage trailers.
• One Marine sent an email to Congress, expressing dissatisfaction with the incident.
• The email, and more-or-less-accurate copies, started making the rounds on the Internet.
• Some people said that the incident hadn't happened, and that the email was a fake. After all, there were several versions floating around: so none of them could be real?
• Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee sent a letter, with the [real] email attached, to the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
• Oakland International Airport admitted that they kept the soldiers and Marines 400 yards away from the Terminal: and the restrooms.
• Oakland International blamed TSA rules and the charter company.
• The TSA denied that their regulations were involved.
• It emerged that the Oakland bureaucrats probably didn't receive, lost, or ignored the flight's paperwork.

That brings us up to this week.

Around Wednesday, Oakland International apologized to the Marines. Sort of.

"We apologize, I apologize to any members of the military that were on this flight and may have experienced some discomfort or perception of disrespect," was what Omar Benjamin said. He's executive director of the Port of Oakland, the outfit that operates the airport.

"There was no disrespect intended," he added.

Even with that "may have experienced ... perceptive of disrespect," I think it's as close to an apology that's likely to come from the Oakland transportation services. The "may have ... perception" business is most likely what an administrator faced with anachronistic, seventies-style, behavior by part of his outfit has to do: Try to put the best face possible on what happened, while not admitting enough to invite lawsuits.

How news services handled this was more interesting.

"Marines Miffed At Airport Mistreatment" is how MSNBC put it, displaying an article from KITV-TV, of Honolulu, HI. I like alliteration, but "Miffed" as a description of "Marines" is not something I'm likely to write. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "miffed" as " 1. A petulant, bad-tempered mood; a huff. 2. A petty quarrel or argument; a tiff."

Petulant? Huff? Tiff? Marines?! I'm inclined to see MSNBC's take on the incident as not entirely sympathetic with the Marines. In a way, I can see the news service's point of view. After all, the Marines were allowed to stand or sit on grass. They'd been in a war zone, so a strip of grass between an active runway and a taxi ramp in Oakland might be considered quite a treat.

Or not.

Here's how I see the way that anti-war/anti-military people and organizations have handled the way American soldiers were treated at Oakland International:

1. Ignore the incident.
2. Deny the incident, claim that the emailed report is a fake.
3. Admit the incident, but blame someone else.
4. Trivialize the incident.

Unfair? Maybe. But: Miffed Marines?! It's hard not to regard that as a deprecatory statement.

Facts from

• "Marines Miffed At Airport Mistreatment" is how MSNBC put it, displaying an article from KITV-TV, of Honolulu, HI.
  (October 3, 2007)
• "Update: Oakland airport officials apologize for Marines incident"
  (October 3, 2007)

Oakland vs the Marines: When Denial Doesn't Work...

There's a little matter of over 200 U.S. soldiers and Marines ordered off their plane, 400 yards from the Oakland International Airport terminal last week.

Last Saturday, September 29, 2007, it was still possible to try hushing it up by claiming that an email detailing the incident was a fake. I don't doubt that fake emails were floating around. Fake facts are a sort of background noise in the blogosphere, and the Internet as a whole: like the 1995 near-attack by a USN ship on a Canadian lighthouse. The lighthouse incident was as factual as Orson Wells' 1938 Martian Invasion.

One of the emails, however, was real enough for two congressmen to append to a letter they sent to the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Now that it's fairly obvious that over 200 soldiers and Marines were left outside for two hours for no practical reason, the Oakland fellows are saying that they didn't have the proper paperwork.

That might be true.

However, I remember the Vietnam War, when soldiers returning to the Bay Area were spat on.

Come to think of it, things are improving.

To the great credit of Oakland, no one spat on the soldiers and Marines.

Hurray.

U.S. Marines Banned from Oakland Airport Terminal

This reeks.

One of the grotesque aspects of the war on terror is that quite a few Americans don't seem to realize who has their interests at heart, and who doesn't. For example:

Last Thursday, September 27, 2007, over two hundred soldiers and United States Marines, bound for Hawaii after a tour of duty in Iraq, landed in New York City. They passed through customs and security screening at JFK International Airport. They had already cleared security once before, in Germany.

Then, they proceeded to Oakland International Airport, a stopover on their way to their base in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The authorities at Oakland, leaning that over two hundred big, rough, people with guns were coming, had the charter plane stop 400 yards short of the terminal. The soldiers and Marines were told to get out of the plane, and stay on the grass between an active runway and a taxi ramp. There the people who have been defending America waited.

Over two hundred U.S. soldiers and Marines, following orders and staying on the grass.

Not allowed to go into the terminal.

Somewhat more to the point, not allowed to use the terminal's restrooms.

For about two hours.

They're U.S. military. They know how to follow orders. But this time, they didn't like it. As one Marine put it, in an email, "If felt like being spit on. Every Marine and soldier felt the message loud and clear. 'YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN OAKLAND!'"

Now that Oakland International's little oopsie is an understated news item, the Oakland authorities are blaming the TSA and the charter company used by the soldiers and Marines. The TSA, at least, is disputing their claim.

Although there were weapons on the plane, "There was no ammunition on the plane and the bolts of the rifles had been removed."

Which brings up interesting points.

1. Do the people at Oakland realize that the United States Marines and other branches of the U.S. military are on their side?
2. Assuming that whoever is running Oakland International thought there was live ammunition on the plane, and that the passengers were hostile, did they honestly believe they could have stopped an armed force which included U.S. Marines, after that force had established a beachhead only 400 yards from the terminal? Granted, there's negligible cover out there, but these are U.S. soldiers and Marines.

I'm inclined to think that the Marine's interpretation of Oakland International's apparently lunatic behavior is correct.

Particularly since this isn't the first time it's happened. Oakland wouldn't let Marines in the terminal, back in 2006.

This could be some sort of honest, if stupid, mix-up. But I doubt it.

Granted, this seems to be a case of the TSA and two hundred soldiers and Marines saying one thing, and whoever runs Oakland International saying another.

However, if forced to choose, I'm less likely to take the word of bureaucrats being important a few miles south of Berkeley: and more likely to take the word of a United States Marine.

"American Marines & Soldiers Returning from Iraq Denied Entry to Oakland Airport Terminal"
Letter from two Congressmen, and an email from a Marine, to the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation