US Airways To Flying Imams; “Fuck You, Tell It To The Judge”
I believe these pukes planned this whole thing out, and you know what? Let them tell their story in court is right…there isn’t a jury in America (although there may be a few judges, unfortunately) that would side with these idiots. In a post 9/11 air transportation world…you go yelling “Allahu Akbar” and moving from your assigned seats, and asking for seat belt extensions that you don’t need, fuck that.
I personally would have got in their faces right there on the plane reminding them of 9/11 and pulling crap like that on a plane these days is akin to yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater…probably worse.
The last line of this story cracked me up…
The imams say they were placed under arrest and “did not consent to the arrest.”
From today’s Washington Times:
US Airways and Minneapolis airport officials are demanding a jury trial in a civil rights lawsuit filed by a group of Muslim imams who were removed from a flight for suspicious behavior.
The airline and Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), which oversees Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, are also claiming immunity for their employees named in the suit, citing a “John Doe” law passed by Congress last year that, among other things, protects people acting in an official capacity to prevent terrorist attacks.
“We believe the police officers acted appropriately and that it is important that airports across the nation be able to take action when there is a reasonable belief that travelers could be threatened,” said Patrick Hogan, MAC spokesman.
“In this case, there were travelers and flight crew members who raised concerns, and we worked with federal authorities who interviewed the imams,” Mr. Hogan said. “We believe the process worked as it should to protect the traveling public.”
Frederick Goetz, the imams’ lawyer, declined to comment on the lawsuit, which was amended Dec. 14 and now names six airport police officers as defendants. The suit says the officials engaged in “intentional discrimination” when they removed the imams from the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight in November 2006.
In its Dec. 20 response, the commission said: “MAC police officers took reasonable action in good faith upon reports of suspicious behavior.”
US Airways filed its response Dec. 26 in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota and denied more than 200 complaints levied by the imams. US Airways “denies that it engaged in any unlawful discrimination or violated any federal or state law,” the airline stated.
The airline is demanding that the imams provide “strict proof” on 97 of its claims to be decided by a jury.
The lawsuit was filed by Ahmed Shqeirat, Mohamed Ibrahim, Didmar Faja, Omar Shahin, Mahmoud Sulaiman and Marwan Sadeddin. The men were returning home from the North American Imams Federation conference on Nov. 20, 2006.
Passengers and the flight crew said the men were disruptive and did not take their assigned seats. Some of the men asked for seat-belt extensions that they did not need. According to passengers, the men criticized the war in Iraq and President Bush and talked about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
The airline says John Wood was in charge of Flight 300 on Nov. 20, 2006, and as captain was acting within the scope of his employment when he made the decision to deny transportation to the imams.
Information provided by the flight crew led the captain to suspect that the imams “may have posed a risk to the security of the flight,” the airline’s response said.
The “decision to deny transportation was based upon the legitimate, non-discriminatory business purpose of ensuring flight safety,” the airline said.
U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery denied motions to dismiss the suit in November, but has not ruled whether she will hear the case or assemble a jury.
The imams say that the police officers’ “acts and conducts were solely motivated by their intent to discriminate against [the imams] based on their race, color, religion, ethnicity,” and that their activities were not probable cause to assume they planned to commit a criminal act.
The airport commission says the imams were not arrested but detained by airport police and questioned by federal officials, including the FBI and Secret Service.
The imams say they were placed under arrest and “did not consent to the arrest.”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Since the scumbags at CAIR can’t grab a hint that sane Americans (which eliminates the anti-AmeriKKKan left) aren’t going to tolerate the B.S., it is obvious that the American form of sharia law must now be invoked.
Line up these six imams and their dog lawyer and I will personally administer 40 lashes to each of their asses with airline seat belt extenders.
Their scars will serve them as reminder to get their asses back to that cesspool of a country from which they came. The lawyer can crawl back into the hole where he resides.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:31 amAnd another thing. Since when do you consent to being arrested? Can I tell Mr. Police Officer that I ain’t going to jail because I don’t consent to doing that?
That kind of stupidity alone is worthy being clubbed to death.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:37 amI have one word for what should be done.
Countersuit.
If not the airline and employees that are being sued then the passengers should sue for emotional distress for the concerns/worry caused and financial harm due to any flight delays caused by their shenanigans.
Hit em back harder than they intend to hit. That’s the only thing that these, stuck in the 5th century, pukes understand.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:44 amI’m sick of these filthy-nightshirt wearing bastards and their phony piousness. I say deport all these bastards until they become westernized. Pray in the closet like Jesus said and not in the friggin’ airport lobby like a bunch of freaks.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:39 amWe need to start profiling!! what’s the alternative? you can’t arrest a terrorist until you KNOW AND CAN PROVE he a terrorist (which you won’t until after he blows up our people)
January 4th, 2008 at 11:46 amConsent to an arrest? LOL Now, who came up with that bit of stupidity? Making up laws as they go along aren’t they? Fook these punks. We should give them to Natalie or give them to me. I’d wait till spring and introduce them to the beauty of nature in Florida: red ants and aligators.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:55 amDan, you infidel. I’m glad somebody else caught that. LOL.
I was just thinking if I was in some type of legal law enforcement and a Mullah is raising hell and tells me “I don’t consent to being arrested”, they immediately get tasered, followed by using head for a battering ram into the paddy wagon.
And to introduce them to an Oklahoma style jurisprudence, I’ll throw Mr. Mullah into the cage with a mama sow and a couple of her squealing litter tied to his back. When she rips a chunk of his ass off, maybe he will realize we ain’t asking him to consent.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:16 pmCan’t wait for the discovery phase!!!!
I believe that the Muslim Representative from MN was at one of the post-incident meetings with the imams…..can’t wait to see the paper on that!
Let’s get it done! Way to go US Airways!
January 4th, 2008 at 12:17 pmisn’t an airport a public place where ostentatory religious signs shouldn’t be allowed ? ya need to enforce your laic laws,
hey, “aceinhole”, funny pseudo
January 5th, 2008 at 2:55 am