UPI is reporting that in fact, they never were using the metal detectors at the Dallas rally in the first place, so there never was an order to desist.
It's weird how a myth picks up such fine details. Contributes to believability, of course, but that suggests somebody is deliberately lying. I guess it could just be people telling a good story and improving it slightly; but truth *matters*. Stories and real things are *different*.
I would be quite shocked if the Secret Service had been deliberately subverting security on somebody they were obliged to protect. And they must be quite peeved about this rumor!
You seem to be assuming that the UPI account, and the reported SS Disclaimer, are accurate & honest. At least one person who claims to have been there said that the line moved very slowly at first, then much more rapidly, which is consistent with the first reports, but not with this later account. (In the interest of fairness: the UPI URL gives me a "Network Error" message, so I'm not yet forming a Firm Opinion.)
My impression is that it's common practice to search early arrivals carefully, then be less careful about those later ones who'll be at a considerable distance from the speakers.
Well, the UPI, like the Washington Times, is owned by the Unification Church these days so I poked around a little. I did find the Star Telegram story they were picking up - http://www.star-telegram.com/667/story/489920.html - which makes it clear magnetometers *were* being used on some people earlier. The UPI story shortened the quote.
The Star-Telegram story also mentions reports that the same procedure -- tight early screening later loosened up -- was used at other rallies. I can guess at some reasons why that makes sense (presumably the first people in will grab the good close in seats, thus are more of a risk) but it's just guessing.
On the third hand, I'm not sure you were wrong to send a note. As someone else pointed out, UPI is not the best news source. You can get a lot more information collated on this story at this Making Light post.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I would be quite shocked if the Secret Service had been deliberately subverting security on somebody they were obliged to protect. And they must be quite peeved about this rumor!
no subject
My impression is that it's common practice to search early arrivals carefully, then be less careful about those later ones who'll be at a considerable distance from the speakers.
no subject
The Star-Telegram story also mentions reports that the same procedure -- tight early screening later loosened up -- was used at other rallies. I can guess at some reasons why that makes sense (presumably the first people in will grab the good close in seats, thus are more of a risk) but it's just guessing.
no subject
no subject
no subject
More on this story
I'm not comfortable with seeing all those indications of security starting and then stopping at multiple rallys. That bothers me.