RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events 6 Imams Removed From Twin Cities Flight

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
Those poor Muslims! How will they ever get to commit acts of terror if we keep thwarting them!?

"Airport profiling "???

It was not boy scouts, nor was it little old ladies, nor was it
college students who crashed the planes that day.

It was Muslim men.

It's like they're saying to us, " We want to destroy you all, why do you hurt us by resisting? "



(And yes, this graemlin is VERY appropriate!)

---

Quote:

---

dogbert said:

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
Those poor Muslims! How will they ever get to commit acts of terror if we keep thwarting them!?

"Airport profiling "???

It was not boy scouts, nor was it little old ladies, nor was it
college students who crashed the planes that day.

It was Muslim men.

It's like they're saying to us, " We want to destroy you all, why do you hurt us by resisting? "



(And yes, this graemlin is VERY appropriate!)

---

So does that mean that any time someone (or even many someones) from a certain race/ethnic group/religion/etc. commits a crime or act of terrorism, we should assume that every single member of that same race/ethnic group/religion/etc. wants to do the same?

---

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:

Quote:

---

dogbert said:

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
Those poor Muslims! How will they ever get to commit acts of terror if we keep thwarting them!?

"Airport profiling "???

It was not boy scouts, nor was it little old ladies, nor was it
college students who crashed the planes that day.

It was Muslim men.

It's like they're saying to us, " We want to destroy you all, why do you hurt us by resisting? "



(And yes, this graemlin is VERY appropriate!)

---

So does that mean that any time someone (or even many someones) from a certain race/ethnic group/religion/etc. commits a crime or act of terrorism, we should assume that every single member of that same race/ethnic group/religion/etc. wants to do the same?

---

No, but from what I read about the incident, the paranoia was appropriate at the time...

---

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
No, I was not saying all muslims are terrorists.

I was saying, however, that, in an airport, if muslim men are behaving in a manner that is suspicious, it is better to be safe than sorry.

---

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
Yeah, I hear you, Klint, but not all Muslims are terrorists...

But then, how do we know for sure which Muslims are friendly, and which ones want us all dead?

It gets very tricky.

---

Quote:

---

klinton said:
This isn't the voice of fear here. It's about self respect. Like it or not, I am more or less a part of a Christian society (and I honestly do like it...despite some particular philisophical disagreements, I see more or less eye to eye with the average Christian individual). It is who I am, and part of that society is to turn the other cheek and forgive up to 77 times...

But there is a line. There has to be. And why is it that we as a culture are conceding to them...and accepting the fact that these people grow more and more demanding daily? Why do we allow women to walk our streets in blatently sexist garb (the hijab/nijab...ect) and then turn and accept the fact that the pope is not allowed to pray in certain churches, and forced to prostrate as a lesser man (I forget the word...and the article in the "Globe and Mail" is pay per view online...) when on thier turf? Why must the concessions come at our expense?

It comes down to the fact that if we keep treating them like thier shit doesn't stink...they'll go on believing it.

---

I pretty much agree with klinton. How many concessions do we have to make before these people are satisfied? We've already heard it from their own mouths - they want it all. I'd rather concentrate on peacefully coexisting with people who are actually interested in peacefully coexisting.

Six Muslim imams who were forcibily removed from a US Airways flight last year and are now suing the airline for discrimination may also be suing some passengers who were aboard the flight.

In the lawsuit filed last week, the imams say that unnamed "John Doe" passengers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport reported that they engaged in "suspicious" behavior — praying in the terminal — before they boarded the plane on Nov. 20.

House Republicans are pushing legislation to protect airline passengers from lawsuits for reporting suspicious behavior that might be linked to a terrorist attack.

Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007 on Thursday, a week after a lawsuit was filed by a group of Muslim imams who were taken off a US Airways flight in November.

It is "unconscionable" that those who report suspicious activity could be "terrorized in our own court system in our own country," Mr. Pearce said on the House floor yesterday afternoon.

The lawsuit asserts that the imams were discriminated against by US Airways, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission and "John Doe" passengers to be named later.

A public interest law firm that fights against religious discrimination publicly condemned the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) yesterday for supporting a case it calls "legal terrorism" and said it will file a brief with the court on behalf of the passengers.

"This is a first for us," Kevin Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, wrote in a letter to Nihad Awad, president of CAIR. "We have never opposed someone else's claim for religious discrimination.

"But this tactic of threatening suit against ordinary citizens is so far beyond the tradition of civil rights litigation in the United States that we must oppose it to defend the good name of religious liberty itself," Mr. Hasson said.

A U.S. Islamic group is offering to pay to defend “John Does” being sued by six imams who were removed from a plane in Minneapolis for suspicious behavior.

The suit arose from an incident last November in which passengers and crew reported the men aboard a US Airways plane were disruptive, did not take assigned seats, loudly criticized the war in Iraq and shouted about al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. They were removed from the flight, interrogated and later released.

They have since filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination by the airline, the airport authority and the “John Does” who reported them, The Washington Times reported Wednesday.

However, M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told the Times his group will raise money for the unnamed peoples’ defense. He said anti-Muslim “backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears.”

Quote:

---

The civil rights lawsuit, filed earlier this month, has so alarmed some lawyers that they are offering to defend the unnamed "John Doe" passengers free of charge. They say it is vital that the flying public be able to report suspicious behavior without fear of being dragged into court.

"When you drive up the road towards the airport, there's a big road sign that says, `Report suspicious behavior,'" said Gerry Nolting, a Minneapolis lawyer. "There's no disclaimer that adds, `But beware if you do that, you might get sued.'"

The Muslim clerics say they were humiliated, and are seeking unspecified damages from the airline, the Minneapolis airport and, potentially, the John Does.

Omar Mohammedi, the New York City attorney for the imams, said the intent is not to go after passengers who raise valid concerns about security. But he suggested some passengers may have acted in bad faith out of prejudice.

"As an attorney, I have seen a lot of abuse by the general public when it comes to members of the community creating stories that do not exist," Mohammedi said.

He denied the imams were talking about Saddam, and said that their seats were assigned and that they requested extenders because their seat belts didn't fit.

Some fear such lawsuits could weaken what has become the first line of defense against terrorism since Sept. 11 — an alert public. At airports and train and subway stations around the country, travelers are routinely warned to watch for unattended bags and suspicious activity and to notify authorities.

Ellen Howe, spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees security at all U.S. airports, would not comment specifically on the imams' lawsuit. But she said the TSA counts on passengers to help the agency do its job.

"`See something, say something' is certainly a common mantra in this day and age," Howe said. "We would always remind passengers to be both vigilant and thoughtful."

In reaction to the imams' lawsuit, Congress has taken steps to legally protect passengers who report suspicious activity. Earlier this week, the House approved an amendment to a rail transportation security bill that would make passengers immune from such lawsuits, unless they say something they know is false.

Mohammedi said he has not yet identified any of the complaining passengers. An airport police report listed a passenger and two US Airways employees as complaining about the imams. All three had their names blacked out before the lawsuit was filed by invoking a Minnesota law that allows it, airport spokesman Pat Hogan said.

Nolting said he has been contacted by several potential John Does.

Passenger Pat Snelson, who lives in a Twin Cities suburb, said he and his wife were not among those who reported suspicious behavior. But he said his wife noticed the men praying, and he saw them moving around the cabin while others were boarding.

"These guys were up to no good," Snelson said. "We think the airport people did a real good job in taking care of it."

Bomb-sniffing dogs examined the men and their baggage. FBI agents and other federal law enforcement officers questioned the men for several hours before releasing them.

Billie Vincent, a former director of security for the Federal Aviation Administration, said he is troubled by the mere attempt to identify the passengers who raised concerns.

Airline passengers "are your eyes and your ears," said Vincent, who now owns an aviation security company. "If attorneys can get those names and sue them, you put a chilling effect on the whole system."

---

The lawyer representing six imams who are suing an airline and unknown "John Doe" passengers should be removed from his position as a New York City commissioner on human rights, said a state assemblyman.

"When it comes to suspicious or potentially terrorist activity, New Yorkers are encouraged to say something if they see something," said Rory I. Lancman, assemblyman from Queens.

Mr. Lancman has asked Mayor Michael Bloomberg to demand that Mr. Mohammedi to resign his seat.

Stu Loeser, Mr. Bloomberg's spokesman, said Mr. Mohammedi is an unpaid employee on the commission and has the right to choose his clients.

Mr. Bloomberg in 2002 appointed Mr. Mohammedi to the commission, which enforces the city's human rights laws, holds hearings and investigates complaints of racial, religious and ethnic discrimination. It also is empowered to make recommendations to the mayor.

• Rudy Giuliani yesterday blasted Democrats in Congress for blocking a measure that would protect from civil lawsuits citizen tipsters who report suspected terrorist activity.
  
  Giuliani, the Republican 2008 presidential front-runner, charged it's another example of Democrats being soft on terrorism.
  
  The proposed amendment to anti-terrorism legislation, sponsored by Long Island Republican Rep. Peter King, would provide immunity to citizens who alert authorities to suspicious behavior that turns out to be unfounded.
  
  The measure, known as the "John Doe" amendment, was spurred by a discrimination suit filed by six Muslim clerics in Minnesota who were removed from a plane last November after passengers reported suspicious behavior. They were cleared of wrongdoing.
  
  "This is a terrific idea. And we absolutely need it," Giuliani said

• People who tip off authorities to potential terrorists would be shielded from lawsuits under new anti-terrorism legislation that has won agreement from key lawmakers.
  
  The so-called "John Doe bill" would protect the tipsters as long as they acted in good faith and didn't knowingly make false statements.
  
  Democrats agreed to add the provision in negotiations over a House and Senate-passed homeland-security measure, which also implements many 9/11 commission recommendations.