Did Atta "Fly While Moslem"?

[Gus Van Horn blog]

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Somehow, it comes as no surprise to me that the recent "humiliation" of six "peaceful" imams, who were led off in handcuffs from a US Airways plane simply (as they disingenuously claimed) for "praying" was in fact a staged incident designed to provoke exactly the reaction it did so its perpetrators could scream, "racist!", thus preempting all rational discussion.

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.

"I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of

Islamophobia

and compared it to racism against blacks.

"It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said.

The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling. [bold and link added]

These enemies of civilization knew exactly what they were doing. To act so much like terrorists that numerous people agree they were rightfully removed from the plane -- and then piss and moan about "flying while Moslem" -- is beneath contempt. Every major news outlet in the country should plaster their cowardly faces -- along with that of the "prophet" they so admire -- all over their front pages with the most embarrassing headlines their writers can muster. For the barest minimum of a start.

These hatemongering clerics weren't "flying while Moslem". They were impersonating terrorists, apparently admitting that Allah is powerless without human aid, and hoping -- because their prayers are just noise directed at an imaginary psychopath -- that the passengers and crew would do just what they did. Well, a bunch of people who only wanted to survive a flight answered their prayers.

These imams were not victimized by the remotest stretch of the imagination. Quite to the contrary, the passengers had been "flying while free" from the dictates of such control freaks. And the security personnel were "doing their jobs while conscientious". And, for that matter, my countrymen were "living while minding their own business" on September 11, 2001. They were minding their own business, in fact, when they were murdered in the name of Islam by adherents of that faith -- and to the approbation of Moslems all over the world -- on that day of savagery.

How dare these whining provocateurs say anything about "flying while Moslem"! Any one of the thousands who were murdered -- in the name of the religion they preach -- on September 11, 2001 would have gladly changed places with them, to be merely handcuffed and released later. And how dare these "holy" "men" even bring up the notion that "flying while Moslem" is an even remotely acceptable idea when, I am sure, at least nineteen men would have proudly held themselves out to be doing just that even as they deliberately piloted their planes into buildings in order to commit murder.

God pardon me for questioning the moral status of would-be Moslem aviators and excuse the hell out of me for having zero sympathy for any who are merely led away from a flight in handcuffs -- after making total asses of themselves.

It is not religious persecution for airline security personnel to make sure a Moslem isn't going to turn an airline flight into a huge bomb. It is common sense, reason applied to the limited evidence one has available at the moment. To begrudge a man of that is to declare moral bankruptcy.

It is both reason and evidence that these imams want you to ignore any time their religion can be brought up on even the remotest pretext. This is why Moslems behaved violently after the Pope criticized their faith -- for condoning violence. They were not really "offended". Whatever we infidels think is beneath contempt to them. They want to intimidate us to the point that we quit thinking whenever they want us to, so when they say "Jump!" we'll ask "How high?" if we dare say anything.

This act of unmitigated gall is no blow for civil rights. No. In this case, a real blow for the only rights that exist -- individual rights -- would be to stand up proudly for US Airways and its other passengers. Forgotten in this controversy are the property rights of US Airways to deny service to anyone they please, and the right to life and liberty of everyone who acted rationally in an effort to prevent another atrocity like those that occurred on September 11, 2001.

-- CAV

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002134.html

[Qwertz]

I looked all over for the thread on the Flying Imams, but I couldn't find it and I'm beginning to think that maybe there wasn't one.

The Flying Imams are now the Suing Imams.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/13/imam.suit/index.html

True to form, CNN fails spectacularly to tell us anything substantive, aside from recounting the original story.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly the claim is. If anyone knows, do tell.

[softwareNerd]

According to the Houston Chronicle, they "have filed a lawsuit claiming the airline discriminated against them and violated their civil rights".

And, here is the press release from CAIR.

The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, claims US Airways' alleged discriminatory actions were based on the imams' "perceived race, religion, color, ethnicity, alienage, ancestry, and/or national origin." It goes on to state: "Because of Defendants' discriminatory acts, Plaintiffs were denied the right to make and enforce a contract, subjected to unlawful discrimination by a recipient of federal financial assistance, denied equal treatment in a place of public accommodation, and falsely arrested and detained by law enforcement officers."

CAIR said the imams' legal complaint, which cites federal statutes, the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also alleges: "Defendants, with the intent to cause harm to Plaintiffs' reputation, maliciously, recklessly and without regard to their privacy and integrity, defamed and made false reports against Plaintiffs to justify their illegal action."

And, for an in depth understanding, check out the text of the complaint.

Edited March 14, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Moebius]

I don't think there's anything wrong with what they did, at least LEGALLY speaking. Praying really loudly? Sitting in the front, middle, back of the air planes? I mean I think they illustrated their point pretty well that the only reason they were arrested for doing what they did was because they were muslim.

[softwareNerd]

... I think they illustrated their point pretty well that the only reason they were arrested for doing what they did was because they were muslim.

What do you mean "illustrated"? Are you implying that they purposely did what they did in order to attract attention and make a point?

Are you also implying that an airline ought not to have the right to tell anyone: "you guys are scary, we will not let you fly!"

[Qwertz]

My thanks to SoftwareNerd for being twice better at finding things on the Internet than I.

¶21 - Plaintiffs have named as John Doe Defendants all the passengers who complained about their suspicious behavior.

¶22 - Plaintiffs have asked leave to amend the complaint (presumably at some point after they've used discovery to get a passenger list) to name the John Doe Defendants.

Claims: 1981, Title VI, 1983, false arrest, IIED, NIED, defamation (from allegedly false statements made by US Airways to the press), a separate negligence claim (that claims the same injuries as the IIED and NIED claims), failure to supervise, conspiracy, invasion of privacy, a slew of state claims, and a claim under an obscure little common carrier law, 49 USC §41705, prohibiting airlines from discriminating on the basis of handicap (one of the Plaintiffs is blind).

I think the term 'scattershot' fairly applies. The IIED, NIED, and negligence claims all seem to claim the same injuries, and some of those are also claimed under the defamation claim. I don't know enough about 1981, 1983 and Title VI to say much about them, but at least as to Defendant US Airways, Plaintiffs might have difficulty proving State actor or "under color of State law." False arrest won't fly. [sorry for pun.]

If "non-objective law" means any law where an actor is unable to determine the legality of an act prior to acting, then 49 USC §41705 is a non-objective law, by virtue of the word 'discriminate.' So are 1981, 1983 and Title VI insofar as they can be applied to private actors.

It will be interesting to watch.

-Q

[softwareNerd]

I have a sneaky feeling that the guys from CAIR would be pretty pleased if non-Muslims in the US started to really turn on random Muslims, and if the latter then felt persecuted enough to gather into the fold.