The change proves their lawsuit was always about 6 imams and their Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) lawyers intimidating passengers into silence by accusing them of discrimination and suing them into poverty. The Washington Times reports this morning that:

A group of imams suing US Airways for discrimination amended their lawsuit this week to target only the “John Doe” passengers who they say are racist and falsely accused them of behaving suspiciously.

The six imams were removed from a flight in Minneapolis in November for disruptive behavior reported by passengers and members of the flight crew.

The lawsuit filed earlier this month targeted “passengers who contacted US Airways to report the alleged ‘suspicious’ behavior of plaintiffs performing their prayer at the airport terminal.”

The Becket Fund received an “extended response” to their original letter to CAIR, as the Washington Times report states. Becket Fund President Kevin Hasson answered the “narrowed” focus of the suit:

We are not taking sides in the lawsuit itself, nor do we think it is improper to have filed it. In fact I believe I noted in my initial letter that the airlines were “fair game” to such a suit. So, of course, is the government. I have no idea whose version of the facts is correct, or who will therefore prevail, but the idea of such a lawsuit is not outside the civil rights tradition.
…
The is no way Mr. Mohammedi [Omar Mohammedi is the 6 imams’ CAIR supplied lawyer] can possibly determine whether the John Does “knowing made false reports” against his clients “with the intent to discriminate against them” without taking their testimony under oath, at least during pretrial discovery. That prospect alone, of being dragged into costly court proceedings, will certainly provide a great disincentive for other citizens to come forward with their own suspicions.

This is all the more true when the only example the complaint continues to give of a John Doe “who may have knowingly made false reports against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them” is of the elderly gentleman who observed them praying while talking on his cell phone. There are no indications whatsoever that anyone falsely accused them of say, carrying weapons, wearing shoebombs or the like. And in any event, any such extreme, false claims would surely be investigated and prosecuted by a government that takes even jokes about such things very seriously. No, the behavior Mr. Mohammedi seems bent on at least investigating under oath is simply that of ordinary people voicing their suspicions, as both the government and the airlines are repeatedly exhorting everyone to do.

Let’s take a look at what the imams’ lawsuit says (still), specifically:

On or about 4:20 p.m. in time for the Maghreb (early evening / dusk Muslim prayer), Plaintiffs decided to pray togeher. Plaintiffs Faja, Sadeddin and Shqeirut decided not to pray and instead watched over everyone’s belongings. As they were seated, Plaintiffs Faja, Sadeddin and Shqeirat noticed an older couple who were sitting behind them and purposely turning around to watch the other Plaintiffs as they prayed together the gentleman (“John Doe”) in the couple facing Plaintiffs at gate C9 picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray… Defendant John Doe moved to a corner near gate C9. While observing the Plaintiffs discreetly, he kept talking into the cellular phone.

Think of their description of the waiting area. In order for them to have noticed “an older couple… sitting behind them… purposely turning around to watch the other Plaintiffs as they prayed together” Faja, Sadeddin and Shqeirat would have had to purposely turn around and look at the older couple themselves. While they had no way of knowing what that call was about, the 3 over-watching imams kept their eyes on “John Doe” as he moved about the gate area. Why? Obviously they had their mark. The 6 imams’ hunt began on November 20, 2006, in the gate area in Minneapolis-St. Paul’s US Airway terminal.

But one “bigot” does not add weight to a lawsuit; the 6 imams had to do more. After they boarded the plane, passengers had to see some of them in seats they were not assigned, moving about the cabin, and seated in a manner reminding the wary of reports of the seating taken up by the 9/11 hijackers. They had to be overhead disparaging American foreign policy and the treatment of Saddam Hussein. One imam, reportedly weighing about 175 pounds, had to be overheard asking for a seatbelt extender “since the seatbelts did not fit” [Ed.–Two more asked for seatbelt extenders. The largest of the 3 is 235 pounds. And the seatbelt extenders were never used as all were found rolled up on the floor under the 3 imams’ seats].

Prejudging passengers as bigots, arousing their suspicions, and provoking them to report their concerns to a commercial airliner’s crew sounds like the intentional creation of a hostile environment. In the workplace, the creation of a hostile environment based upon race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion, or disability would invite both a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a discrimination lawsuit. Yet in public and in this age of litigation, it is the victims that must match CAIR’s lawyers, dollar for dollar, and see their reputations put on public trial.

The police cannot read minds. They could only examine the passengers statements, look at the physical evidence available to them, and interview the suspects. In the end, the authorities decided a false report had not been made and no threat existed. No one was charged and no further investigation was planned.

If a federal law protecting passengers (who act in good faith and report suspicious behavior) from civil liability shuts down their lawsuit, the 6 imams and CAIR will be left looking at the real bigots in this incident, the ones in the mirror.