Aviation Security

6 imams, Aviation Security, CAIR

Shut up or CAIR will sue you into poverty

by  • 

On their blog yesterday, USA Today published an editorial deriding the inclusion of “John Doe” as a defendant within the lawsuit filed against US Airways by the 6 flying imams. In part, USA Today wrote (all emphasis added is mine):

“If you see something, say something.” Since the terror attacks of 9/11, that common-sense message has been displayed prominently worldwide for obvious reasons.
…
Their lawsuit, filed earlier this month, accused the airline and Metropolitan Airports Commission of anti-Muslim bias. That was expected. What’s unique and especially troubling, though, is the effort to identify an unknown number of passengers and airline employees who reported suspicions so they might also be included as defendants. For example, the imams want to know the names of an elderly couple who turned around “to watch” and then made cellphone calls, presumably to authorities, as the men prayed. This legal tactic seems designed to intimidate passengers willing to do exactly what authorities have requested — say something about suspicious activity.
…
It shouldn’t have to come to that, especially if a judge has the wisdom to throw out the complaints against the “John Doe” passengers before they’re identified. As for ethnic profiling — the reprehensible practice of discriminating solely based on ethnicity — this incident doesn’t qualify. The imams were tossed off the plane because of suspicious behavior, which obviously can’t be ignored. Suing passengers who merely report such behavior threatens everyone’s ability to travel securely.

In part, Arsalan Iftikhar, the national legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, responded:

The lawsuit by the imams is seeking damages from US Airways for their alleged discrimination. It is not against any passengers who reported “suspicious” activity in good faith, even when that “suspicious” behavior includes religiously mandated prayers.

However, political cherry-pickers insinuate that the lawsuit punishes travelers who report suspicious activity. Nothing could be further from the truth. American Muslims are committed to the security of our nation. The six imams are signatories to an Islamic fatwa (religious decree) that states: “It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.”

Reporting suspicious criminal activity to law enforcement authorities does not absolve anyone from the responsibility to be factual. False reporting is criminal. We want to find out whether these “John Does” made other false claims against the imams — not just that they were praying, however ignorant complaining about that might be.

Once allegations are made, it becomes the responsibility of the airline to discern between peaceful prayers and passenger endangerment. Government officials have repeatedly stated that racial profiling is an ineffective law enforcement technique.

As Americans, we deserve security based on intelligence and evidence — not paranoia, false reporting, bigotry and witch hunts at 32,000 feet.

In other words, anytime someone reports suspicious activity that involves a Muslim and authorities do not criminally charge the reporters with filing a false report and publicly identify them, CAIR will promote and bankroll an exploratory lawsuit.

What is odd about CAIR’s response is they forgot to mention that last year CAIR received a $50 million dollar grant from Dubai “to help promote the image of Islam in America.” CAIR missed an opportunity to drive the point home by telling everyone they have all the money they need to sue you into poverty.

6 imams, American jihad, Aviation Security, CAIR

Legislation in response to 6 imams’ lawsuit

by  • 

Would protect airline passengers who report, in good faith, suspicious activity

While apparently the behaviors of the 6 imams aboard US Airways Flight 300 on the November 20, 2006, only resembled those of the 9/11 hijackers, were the passengers and crew supposed to only pray that there was no danger?

House Republican Steve Pearce, of New Mexico, does not think so. On Thursday, he introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007. The Washington Times reports the measure was introduced:

“…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…
…
Mr. Pearce called the lawsuit “an injustice against Americans who were simply trying to protect themselves…These brave citizens should be recognized as heroes for their efforts to report suspicious activity, particularly activity that has been associated with previous terror attacks.”

The bill is co-sponsored by: Rob Bishop of Utah, Dan Burton of Indiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky, Trent Franks of Arizona, John Kline of Minnesota, Thaddeus G. McCotter of Michigan, Howard McKeon of California, Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, Lynn A. Westmoreland of Georgia and Frank R. Wolf of Virginia:

“…This lawsuit makes me wonder exactly what CAIR and the imams are looking to do with their suit,” Mr. Shuster said. “The inclusion of bystanders as defendants in this lawsuit is a clear indication that the imams don’t want to right a wrong; they want to make a statement.”

The statement by the 6 imams’ lawyer makes obvious the lawsuit aims to intimidate passengers from reporting suspicious activity:

Omar Mohammedi, a member of CAIR and the imams’ attorney [said], “The imams have the right to face their accusers if they purposely made false reports with the intent to discriminate against the imams.” *

* Author’s note added 3/25/07: The 6 imams were held for questioning for a few hours and released without charge so they were never “accused” of anything. If they had been charged and went on trial, the right to face their accusers would be applicable. Nor do they provide factual evidence in their lawsuit of “false reports” for none of the witnesses have been crimimally charged with that offense.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said yesterday:

“As a Muslim, this is not the way to approach our civil rights; this is not the way to build bridges. It’s the most anxiety-laden area in the world right now, the airports and the gates. It is the frontline in the War on Terror. It is not a right to fly; it’s a privilege. The airlines have a huge, huge burden, especially the captain. He has to make some immediate, quick decisions as to whether the flight is safe. And he [speaking of the captain of the November 20, 2006, US Airways flight 300, who is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit] acted upon some things. The imams claim this was about prayer. You know people are not used to or had that much contact with Muslims. Certainly, it is important for people to get educated but to intimidate people and to push your faith in front of them and then to demand equality is completely ignorant about how to build bridges… This is not about prayer. Nobody said anything before they went on the plane.”

We loudly applaud the bill’s introduction yet note it does not extend similar protection to the flight crews. Still, the measure is a tremendous first step and we thank Representative Pearce and the bill’s ten co-sponsors.

If someone acts like a terrorist — even if it is only an act — they ought to be treated like one. The witnesses to such behavior and those responsible for security, like witnesses and authorities testifying about a crime after the fact, must be protected from civil liability.

The crew and passengers who tackled and subdued “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid did not stop to consider his civil rights, thank God.