At 10:09 AM 11/04/2001 -0800, georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote:
I think "overlooking" is too strong a word, I think it's more reasonable to call it mitigating circimstances. The guardsman needs to have it explained to him (in a way that the lesson will stick) that he does not have the authority to block travellers because he doesn't like their attitude or their political views. I'm not sure what disciplinary action is appropriate, probably a reptimand is good enough as long as it's made VERY clear that any sort of repeat performance will result in sever consequences.
It's one thing for a minimum wage ArentSoBright security guard to be concerned about the people carrying scary computer parts. (Hi, Dave!) That's a problem, but it's a one-off. This is something different - the Guardsman is sworn to uphold the Constitution, yet he's violating someone's rights in what appears to be a pre-planned retailiation for her political beliefs. That's a one-strike firing offense, like a cop getting caught stealing. The appropriate action is for the Guard's probably non-existent equivalent of Police Department Internal Affairs to find out who else was involved in this offense, and what level of pre-planning really happened - was it truly a random thing? If it was political, that's also sufficiently illegal that the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires soldiers to disobey, and failing to do so is another one-strike-you're-out kind of thing. Does the Guardsman only deserve firing, after an appropriate court-martial, or does he also deserve civilian punishment? The separate issue is the airline - the airline employee clearly deserves a reprimand, and whoever told all the other airlines that they don't want this Green Party person flying does as well. They sold her a ticket, and violated their contract to carry her, and the issue of whether it really was safety-related or whether a really egregious breach of contract is a question for a court.