Posted on 03/12/2007 3:08:46 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
Six Islamic leaders who were removed from a US Airways flight say they'll sue the airline for discrimination. The Council on American-Islamic Relations says it will provide details on the lawsuit tomorrow at a Washington news conference.
Six imams returning to Phoenix from a religious conference in November were taken off a plane in Minneapolis, handcuffed, and questioned.
They had prayed in the airport before the flight, and after they boarded, a passenger who considered them suspicious passed a note to a flight attendant.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
"Deport them for barratry."
Yes. That is a brilliant suggestion.
And one that should be used more often. But certainly here.
Countersue these muzzie bastards AND ban them from flying anywhere in US.
Muslims Protest Arrest of Iraqi at L.A. Airport
A man wearing wires and concealing a magnet inside his rectum triggered a security scare at Los Angeles International Airport. The man, identified by law enforcement officials as an Iraqi named Fadhel al-Maliki, set off an alarm during passenger screening.
"He was secreting a suspicious item in a body cavity and that was a great concern because there were also some electric wires associated with that body cavity," said Larry Fetters, security director for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at the airport.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) denounced the arrest as “one more example of anti-Muslim hysteria.” “The police are saying Maliki’s behavior was bizarre,” said Irun Amuk, a vice-chairman for the California chapter of CAIR. “This just shows their ignorance and insensitivity. These are customary accessories for the modern Muslim man.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has offered its services to Maliki should he desire to sue the LA Airport and/or the TSA. “This is another case of knee-jerk racial-profiling,” ACLU spokesman Bertram Petty said. “How a person chooses to carry his personal possessions is no business of the state. Many people believe that magnets have healing powers. Perhaps Mr. Maliki has a medical reason for putting a magnet in his anal cavity.”
“And I see many people walking around with wires hanging from their ears,” Petty continued. “The fact that Mr. Maliki had wires hanging out of his pants cannot excuse his being singled out. There might be many valid reasons for a person to hot-wire his underwear.”
Petty declined to offer any examples of a valid reason for such wiring, saying “We will reveal these reasons if and when Mr. Maliki’s case goes to trial.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Wasn't that the point of this little exercise to begin with?
No, the money is incidental to them because they have unlimited resources available from Saudi Arabia. THE point was to intimidate ALL airlines with the lawsuit, thus causing ALL airlines to ignore future incidents of the same construct, including THE one that will finally bring down a dozen or so planes and/or buildings filled with people. I can assure you that the attorneys for ALL airlines are advising their clients AGAINST singling out Muslimes in any manner whatsoever because of fear of a lawsuit. The lawyers reign in our country not 'the people'.
We should post the attorneys who represent them.
a jury is going to flush this one down the toilet if it gets that far
I disagree. First, it will never go to trial - lawyers always advise settlement. Second, if it did go to trial the case would be decided along very narrow lines that would include statistical analysis of the airline's general and past practices. The airline would be unable to show that the same actions were taken against any other 'group' and the case will be decided for the Muslimes, hands down.
Technically you must be the master or crew for barratry.
Boy how misleading! They didn't pray. They yelled "Allah Akbar" every time a passenger's name was called by the boarding gate, they loudly praised Saddam and Osama Bin Laden, they unlawfully changed seating assignments to mimick the 9/11 hijackers, they demanded double size seatbelts when they weren't obese, and on and on and on. MANY passengers were upset and suspicious...NOT just one. Bring on the trial. I hope US Airways fights these Muslim vermin 'till the bitter (for CAIR) end.
I think they would not fly on a plane with adult beverages on board or ham sandwiches.
It is only a matter of time before the airlines have 'special needs' sections in which ham sandwiches and alcohol will not be available/mentioned. And no, I am not kidding.
"Is Phoenix in the 9th district?
If you mean the "Ninth Circuit", Yes, it is.
That is the most hilarious thing I have heard of in quite awhile.
Good for laughs.
"Surprise", NOT!
Of course you meant this sarcastically, but I don't. I don't because it isn't funny, sarcastically or otherwise. I don't because it isn't solely a testament to the predictability of canniving calculation and therefore it isn't, for a reason to be plainly set forth below, good fodder for a joke.
The suit is the function of american submission and cowardice. The flying Imams know the airline won't hit back.
The Airline has a counterclaim for delay of travel, lost revenue, conspiracy to tortuously interefere with contactual relations, etc... but they will never and would never dare to bring it. So, goes the thinking, "why not sue the Airline"? After all, they don't hit back.
If you don't beleive the airline has a counteclaim, you are wrong. And it is not just them. Anyone on that flight has a counterclaim or direct claim for any number of things. Here are but a few of the causes of action: intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, assault, breach of mutual reciprocal covenants, .. and I could name many more. The burden of proof is a mere preponderance(more likely than not) for most of these. And the idea that one can't make the case, per a perponderance of the evidence, that the imams were engaged in a conspiracy or conduct to test the limits of impermissible or suspicious permissible conduct on an airplane is ludicrous.
All you have to show is that they knew, or should have known, that their conduct, individually, or in concert, might delay the flight or might cause anxiety among the passengers. That is it.
If you allow people to hit at you, to strike at you, without fear of reprisal, then you deserve to get hit and get struck.
Not for its legal definition. Jesse Jackson could be locked up for the same offense, but don't look for these laws to be enforced.
"Deport them for barratry."
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, neat word!
Well isn't that special. Our gov't is helping drive the stake thru the heart of our country by asking Keith Ellison to help these people make nice-nice with us as they take over our country. I could scream.
A couple of thoughts. First in a few weeks this will be a subject for a "Law and Order "show, where we will see how badly these poor misunderstood Imams were treated and how those awful airlines profiled them and of course they will win the suit on TV for Millions.
My next thought is that any decent court would see this case for what it is, and refuse to even hear it.
Sure and it looks like Mpls/St.Paul is their testing place. I read in a local paper yesterday that there are no other cabbies around the country having a problem transporting people with liquor. Only those at the Mpls Airport.
Even their Somalian spokesperson said as such. Of course, he probably won't be saying too much more since they issued a fatwa against him.
Sure and it looks like Mpls/St.Paul is their testing place. I read in a local paper yesterday that there are no other cabbies around the country having a problem transporting people with liquor. Only those at the Mpls Airport.
Even their Somalian spokesperson said as such. Of course, he probably won't be saying too much more since they issued a fatwa against him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.