Posted on 10/20/2009 5:50:32 PM PDT by machogirl
So if I get on a plane, openly praise Osama bin Laden and get kicked off, I’m being denied my “civil rights”.
But if I try to talk at an Ivy League school about violent Islam overrunning the world, I would be committing “hate speech”?
I don’t get it.
thanks. it bothers me that they received anything at all.
I really don’t want to be the TSA operator screening for “butt bombs”.
How do you determine by xray whether you have a huge doodie or some plastic explosive?
I think that you’ve got it. Makes perfect sense in the “obama age”. ;(
Coming to an airport near you, "box cutters for justice".
If the religion fits, box cutters are acceptable.
"... Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Nominated by William J. Clinton on November 27, 1995..."
The puts other passengers in the situation of weighing the value of their own lives when then get on. They get on - you get off or you take your chances. Your government will not protect you.
Sadly, you are right.
Chill. They won’t be using commercial airlines. This is distraction.
We have another “winner” nominated by Dems. Thank goodness algore didn’t win in 2000 or “Vietnam-decorated-veteran” kerry in 2004.
We’d have two more libs on the Supreme Court and doomed even faster.
USA submits to Islam.
I agree with you. They probably got somewhere between $10, 000 and $50,000 apiece (50k was the insurance limit)
I just reviewed the court decision (over 40 pp) and for the most part it is well written, but at the crucial points, the court ruled against the defendants (one of whom was an FBI agent) and held that the imans were “arrested without probable cause”. sheeesh!
the judge also used a procedural technicality to exclude a portion of the defendants’ theory for the purposes of the motions.
the facts are fairly interesting, (another passenger wrote a note to the airline personnel about their suspicious behavior, and that is what started this chain of events).
the false arrests claims were dismissed, but the U.S.C. 1983 claims were not.
I get the feeling this judge voted for Franken.
It continues to amaze me how such educated people (some judges) can be such total idiots.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. It’s the only explanation.
“The Frankenstein”? Anyone that could have voted for him after seeing that pic of him in a diaper posted all over the net, has to have a screw loose.
with respect to the lawsuit, the only good thing that came out of it was that the passengers weren’t allowed to be sued, this time.
Right at the International Bridge where I live, we had an incident of Dearborn, Michigan Muslims taking pictures of the bridge. This was October 2001. Said they were tourists. I was told by a security guard they were acting "very suspiciously". On entering the USA from the Canadian side, certain staff called the FBI. Nothing could be done. They had been underneath the bridge stanchions where there are footpaths.
It seemed obvious they were trying to provoke and upset good citizens. People that just like to go "over the river" and have lunch or go to the casino. Well, they succeeded.
Does the judiciary try to kow tow to these people? Others have been sharply reprimanded to know their manners, for less disturbance.
“with respect to the lawsuit, the only good thing that came out of it was that the passengers weren’t allowed to be sued, this time.”
***
Yes, for sure. The judge wrote that it was the first time that that part of the statute was going to be interpreted by a court in a case, and she did make the correct decision on that point.
I strongly suspect that the insurer waited for the outcome of the motions, and when the judge left a good part of the case standing, to be decided by a jury, they went into settlement/damage control mode.
...the case of the six imams, or Islamic religious leaders, who said their rights were violated in 2006 when they were removed from a US Airways flight in Minnesota and arrested.Hey, they stopped the plane first, quit bitchin'.
thank you for the analysis, even with my “legal” (if you can say that) background, i don’t like reading most of the stuff.
This makes me think of the “video” that the DHS has had each state make, 8 Signs of Terrorism.
Surveillance is one of those.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
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.