Posted on 09/30/2007 11:25:27 AM PDT by Stoat
Two days ago, an e-mail about the rude treatment of Marines and soldiers returning from Iraq started making the rounds on the Internet. The brother of one of the mistreated Marines who described the incident at Oakland Airport works on the Hill. The brother forwarded the Marines e-mail around. The e-mail is real, contrary to the Daily Kos nut who dismissed it as fake without any evidence whatsoever (can you say p-r-o-j-e-c-t-i-o-n). I contacted the Marine chaplain to verify the e-mail on Friday. He confirmed.
You can read the whole thing here or here at The Corner from Michael Ledeen.
In short: On September 27th 204 Marines and soldiers who were returning from Iraq were not allowed into the passenger terminal at Oakland International Airport.Instead they had to deplane about 400 yards away from the terminal where the extra baggage trailers were located. This was the last scheduled stop for fuel and food prior to flying to Hawaii where both were based. The trip started in Kuwait on September 26th with a rigorous search of checked and carry on baggage by US Customs. All baggage was x-rayed with a backscatter machine AND each bag was completely emptied and hand searched. After being searched, checked bags were marked and immediately placed in a secure container. Carry on bags were then x rayed again to ensure no contraband items were taken on the plane. While waiting for the bus to the airport, all personnel were in quarantined in a fenced area and were not allowed to leave. Nevertheless, Oakland forbade them from entering its terminal. According to the Marine, a Lieutenant who served in Afghanistan with the same unit in 2006 noted that Oakland had treated troops the same way before. He was almost arrested by the TSA for getting belligerent about them not letting the Marines into the terminal, despite more rigorous screening prior to landing in Oakland. Both JFK airport and in Germany had no problem with the Marines entering their terminals.
I have also obtained the Port of Oaklands response about the incident to Captain David Epstein of the Reserve Officers Association. The Port official blames a lack of clear communication from the charter airline hired by the military. In other words: its the troops fault:
Thank you so much for sharing with me the information you had regarding the incident at the airport. As you know sometimes the way things appear initially regarding an incident turn out to be different after looking into the details. We checked into this once you had called me and raised your public relations concern, so again thank you. Here is the background information I have about the incident as well as the procedures and policies that affected decision-making that day.
In the case of North American Airlines Flight #1777, a military charter flight that arrived at OAK on Thursday, September 27, aircraft parking and passenger service arrangements were coordinated and approved in advance between the ground handling company and Airside Operations. The airport received information that the passengers were not TSA-screened
at their originating airport and that weapons were on-board the aircraft. Together with our security partners, the airport made a decision to park this aircraft at a remote location on the tarmac. It is the responsibility of the charter airline that its operation is compliant with TSA screening requirements.Upon landing and parking at OAK, the pilot-in-command advised the ground handling company that the parking and passenger handling provisions did not meet expectations. Upon learning this, Airside Operations and Aviation Security worked with the ground handling company and other law enforcement partners to coordinate a plan that was satisfactory to the pilot and passengers, and which was compliant with all airport safety and security standards.
Oakland International Airport (OAK) makes customer service a priority for all its passengers, whether they are traveling on commercial, military or general aviation aircraft. Charter airlines operating at OAK can choose to contract with a number of ground handling companies. Ground handlers coordinate flight services such as passenger handling, and aircraft fueling, cleaning and catering. It is the responsibility of ground handling companies to communicate aircraft and passenger operational needs to OAKs Airside Operations Office in advance so that special accommodations can be coordinated to ensure that all airport operational, safety and security concerns are addressed.
The scheduled arrival and departure time of the flight is set by the aircraft operator. Time is needed to refuel the aircraft, perform maintenance inspections, refresh the catering, and give passengers time to stretch to break-up long travel periods. An analysis of the incident and prior correspondence between OAKs Airside Operations and the ground handler determined that the airport did not receive clear communication in advance from the charter airline that was hired by the military.
I am out of town starting tomorrow for a convention. If you have any further inquiries about this incident and the way it was handled, Rosemary Barnes who is part of our Public Affairs team would be happy to speak with you. You may also call Joanne Holloway, the acting manager of the Ports Community and Customer Relations Department.
Kindest regards,
Marilyn Sandifur
Port Spokesperson
Port of Oakland
The airport did not receive clear communication is not a satisfactory explanation. The bottom line is that Oakland officials made the final decision (the airport made a decision to park this aircraft at a remote location on the tarmac). The Port of Oaklands p.r. flacks have passed the buck and seem to believe they can blow off this incident without bothering to apologize to the troops who felt mistreated and without pledging to ensure that the troops are received properly the next time they touch down at that airport.
Big mistake from a region of the country that already has a bad, longstanding rep as anti-military.
All fair-minded observers should agree: The troops deserve better.
***
A commenter at Pattericos notes:
When I was returning from the first Gulf War, we went through the quarantine process prior to boarding the plane to leave Saudi Arabia. After our baggage and bodies were searched we went into the quarantine holding area from which we could not leave, ensuring that no contraband would enter the US. Our first stop was Rome, and we stayed on the plane. We landed at JFK and went into the terminal for a couple of hours. A security detail stayed on board the aircraft. We then re-boarded and returned to Ft. Hood, TX.
Troops returning from overseas have to pass through customs. In the case of troop transports, this is actually done overseas, hence the quarantine area. The only processing we went through in the US was turning in weapons & other sensitive items when we returned to Ft Hood. Remember, troops do not carry passports in combat zones. I assume that the military follows the same procedures that they did in the 90s vis troops returning from overseas deployments and they should be able to disembark during layovers in the US. I can tell you from personal experience, troops just want to get a quick stretch, a chance to clean up before returning home and maybe a cool drink: I hope the Oakland airport can accommodate these simple needs.
See, this is what happens when you let Democrats run a city. Oh, and you also forgot the compulsory "but the gang bangers on International Bvld.--really anywhere in the flats--are just victims of rich, racist Republicans". Just so we don't get a Sharpton-esque shakedown.
I erroneously assumed because some one gave their self the title “Marine Chaplin” that they were in the Marines.
Your simple statement to correct my mistake is appreciated.
Well excuse me and thanks for the correction.
Sorry you have such an angry defensive snotty attitude.
Look at the post just below yours.
Flippant comments? I think not, just a little ill-informed.
Now which title it was that I said I earned?
LOL! Saw a group deploy, the clerk transposed a serial number. Shiite HIT the fan looking for a missing rifle.
This airport should be avoided at all costs by our military. No gas for war.
Time to boycott Oakland and let the world know what idiots they are.
Clarification always helps. Are there really so many Freepers who take everything at face value? I question everything I read....it has served me well.
Who am I to change military custom???
Hmmm, a buddy of mine and his wife were married in ‘85 in Worcester, Massachusetts by a chaplain that wore captain’s bars and the globe and anchor.
Clarification always helps. Are there really so many Freepers who take everything at face value? I question everything I read....it has served me well.Did you honestly think this story wouldn't get any scrutiny what so ever and you alone would have to be the guy that had to lay the facts bare?
I don't know where you got that. I'm only responsible for myself and what I believe.
He is due back from Iraq soon.
I’ll be sure to make a point of asking him EXACTLY how he is treated on his trip back to Kaneohe, Hawaii.
Maybe is is because you seem to consider yourself half a vast conspiracy as well as the expert on what a Marine Chaplain is supposed to be called.
There are Navy Chaplains that will spend their entire careers with out serving with a Marine unit and there are Marine Chaplains that will never have served with any one else but Marines despite being QUOTE Navy UNQUOTE Chaplains.
Denying the validity of the story because you disapprove of the way a Chaplain recognizes himself and attempting to minimize what was done to those in his care by splitting hairs over his title does nothing to prevent it from happening again, if anything it lays open the door for continued insults against Our returning Marines at this airport.
After all You’ve done your best to prove this story was a non issue because there are no “Marine” Chaplains.
I never did any such thing. In fact, your entire post in inaccurate. You either don't or won't understand. Either way, I don't have time for you.
I never did any such thing. In fact, your entire post in inaccurate. You either don't or won't understand. Either way, I don't have time for you.
Others will judge weather or not I am accurate, whilst you slither away.
Oh, Im not going anywhere. So, you can beat up on me when this all turns out to be true (as it looks). Still, anytime I see an email, with an exaggerated headline, and inconsistencies in fact, Im going to suspect the story until it is verified. Nine times out of ten, the story wont pan out. Im not sure why so many folks here have a problem with that.
Here let me let you in on a little secret, one that will blow your pompous posturing clear out of the water.
Your whole argument is based upon the assumption that a Navy Chaplain a man of God, in the service of our Country and a spiritual protector of the Marines in his care would lie, and not only would he lie but he would sign his name to a lie and distribute it to countless others when the facts are easily checked and verified, as they were.
I pity a person that has so little faith in our Marines and those that lead and minister to them that they would rather believe that they are lying then to actually accept the truth at face value and wait for further confirmation.
You have one hell of imagination. Let me get this right...all I have to do is sign an email saying I'm a chaplain, and nothing else should be questioned?
Certainly, you'd verify that the name is true, right. OK. So, we did that. Then one would have to wonder why whoever forwarded his email added such an exaggerated tittle...and why they called him a Marine Chaplain. How is that questioning him the chaplain. It is a question of the people who are forwarding his email?
BTW, I also am a military officer with 26 years (and counting) and I know that I should verify things that are questionable.
Have you ever known a military Chaplain to lie?
Seriously His name, his rank, and The Marine unit involved as well as the date were all in the initial story and have been verified.
What is about that that makes you so intent on continuing to portray this story as a hoax?
Ego, maybe?
Me I’ll just keep bumping this thread as long as you want to put your foot into it.
But his identity wasn't verified initially. Is there anything wrong with me wanting it verified? Geez, pull your head out. You are making all kinds of assumptions about me with no knowledge whatsoever. I guess you live in a world of stereotypes.
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.