I would say the lesson to be learned is once you start taking away freedoms, tolerance of the lack of existence of those freedoms becomes more and more acceptable, over time society and way of life changes.

Sounds suspiciously like the discredited 'domino' theory to me.   

Also, the Imams suffered no 'loss of freedom' at all - they were temporarily inconvenienced, to be sure, but many others were temporarily inconvenienced, to the point of feeling threatened, by their behavior. To argue that what the Imams were 'subjected to' amounts to a loss of freedom or somehow threatens my freedom to conduct my life as I choose is disingenuous at best. After all, the Imams' freedom extends only to the point it infringes on others' rights and freedoms. There would be nothing wrong with them choosing to behave in a way that is not known to be suspicious or threatening - it would not infringe on their religious or personal freedom and would certainly make it less likely that they would draw unwanted attention to themselves. What would they have to gain by behaving so conspicuously, other than notariety? Or knowledge, perhaps, while having a built-in surefire media-savy cover story?

Since when did getting kicked off a plane for alarming the other passengers become a violation of one's civil rights?

I've never said that being de-boarded for suspicious actions was a violation of a civil right. What I did say is that if you allow certain segments of the population to be discriminated against that's akin, to Nazism under Hitler and Soviet practices under Joseph Stalin.

The entire flight was de-boarded, cleared through security again, and allowed to re-board, these guys were de-boarded, after clearing security the first time, and then again clearing security the next day, however the rest of the passengers were allowed to fly out. These guys were denied a flight on that airline, with no wrong doing. That's the discrimination. It's wrong in my opinion.

"so let me say in (temporary)closing...the sky isnt falling, chicken little, no matter how often you declare it is."

Good for you, I haven't declared any of those statements at all. Whats your point just to take the opposite perspective on anything I say at all? Ok Whip why don't you start with my hypothesis that the world is round.

"Ever hear of the "right" to refuse service?"

I agree with the right to refuse service, not discrimination based on religion. The only thing that changed from day 1 to day 2 was that these guys were admittedly Muslim. Their money was good enough on day 1 but not day 2. Again its for a court to decide.

"After all, the Imams' freedom extends only to the point it infringes on others' rights and freedoms."

So as long as an Imam, or any Muslim, doesn't ask for a seatbelt extender, or have a political discussion, or look Muslim, or practice their religion in public, then it's ok for them to exist? At what point did they do anything to infringe on anybody else's "rights and freedoms"?

They have been charged with no crime, so evidently their only crime is being Muslim. Well that's not an American way of looking at it right. That's Nazi, the only crime of the "Jews" was that they were "Jews", nothing but.

Ever read rise and fall of the Third Reich? I have read it four times, I worked at a gas station for a while and had the opportunity to read some good books.

"Not many Germans lost sleep over the arrests of a few thousand pastors and priests or over the quarreling of the various Protestant sects .." It was this apathy and moral indifference in Germany that empowered Hitler and fueled his military juggernaut that was poised to roll inexorably over Europe." William Shirer wrote that.

I'm not saying the same thing is happening in America, but I do see a lot of apathy towards Islam/Muslims, certainly the idea of rounding up Muslims, and deporting them all to somewhere has been suggested to be more credible then that guy calling for the extermination of white people yet, both ideas are as cranky and far out there. Right now you can be declared an enemy combatant and held without trial or communicating with anyone, indefinitely. How would any of us know whether or not this was happening in our country as a result of 9/11?. Nobody trusts Muslims, to the extent they'll let them fly even if they clearly are not a threat.

What exactly constitutes a credible threat? There is no way to get a bomb on board a plane with security screening looking for that, there is no way to hijack an airliner in the air with reinforced cockpit doors, Marshals on planes, civilians who will fight to the death to prevent a hijacking, Nothing that can be used as a weapon, gun armed captains and flight lieutenants, flight attendants with black belts. I mean WTF are you afraid of? Terrorists are a limited fund operation and have to strike stealthy, not through middle aged men having a debate about the Saddam Hussein verdict. . Likely suspects my ass.

You have a much higher chance of dying in a car accident driving to a gas station where you have a much higher chance of being killed or raped in the commission of a crime, then you do of being struck by lightning, or dying in a terrorist attack, 9/11 is a one time deal in the country for the next 50 years. If they were going to be able to do anything further they would have done it already, Sure another bad terrorist attack will happen eventually, but so will crime in general. I'm not saying ignore threats, but don't allow yourself to trade your rights or anybody elses because of fear. If you want to surrender to fear, this country is in much greater danger of that act, then from any occasional terrorist threat.

"Sounds to me that they were either up to something or they were intentionally trying to get kicked off in an effort to put pressure on US airlines to weaken security."

So either they were trying to hijack the plane by sitting in first class as well as the other areas, or they were trying to get kicked off the plane in order to make a political statement. It was the airlines decision to not board them the second day after they had been cleared by security, and three federal agencies of any wrong doing. Secret Service, FBI, US Marshals.

Face it, there is no danger from terrorists on American airplane rides ok folks. Statistically, practically, intelligently, there is nothing there but the fear. When children are young they are afraid of dying, but eventually you grow out of that, and take risks, you do things that are risky, you live life. Life is all about risk, and beating the odds, but the odds are not exactly stacked against you in a plane ride. Its the safest way to travel.

Just because some ass clowns were able to pull off something nobody was looking for doesn't mean you can't let certain people on board planes anymore.

If a terrorist bombs himself on a Ferris wheel. Are we going to ban Muslims from the carnival? If I side with the rest of this crowd the answer is already yes.

If a person causes a disturbance on a plane the odds are very good that they will not be allowed to remain on that plane or re-enter that plane regardless of religion. There was recently a case where a woman and her husband were kicked off a flight because the woman was breast feeding an infant and when asked by a flight attendant to cover herself with a blanket she refused and caused a disturbance.

She wasn't Muslim.

The simple fact is that the airline does not have to provide service to anyone who causes trouble regardless of their religion.

You're right, Dan, we shouldn't be talking about rights & freedoms because this involved neither. How you can perceive it as somehow akin or parallel to Kristalnacht is beyond me.

They behaved in a way that they knew could easily be perceived as suspicious, unless they'd all been sleeping under a rock somewhere for the past 5 years.

Ever hear of the "right" to refuse service?" I agree with the right to refuse service, not discrimination based on religion. The only thing that changed from day 1 to day 2 was that these guys were admittedly Muslim. Their money was good enough on day 1 but not day 2. Again its for a court to decide.

Have you "proof" of this? I don't think so which is why their lawsuit will fail.

The simple fact is that the airline does not have to provide service to anyone who causes trouble regardless of their religion.

I agree with that, the facts though as they show in the police report indicate that the decision to de-board these guys was made even before they boarded the plane, in the terminal because some of them were praying and one of them had asked to upgrade his friends seat.

"Have you "proof" of this? I don't think so which is why their lawsuit will fail."

No I don't but neither does anyone suggesting they were "up to something". I'm not a lawyer just expressing my opinion. Which is these guys were just looking for a ride home. There money was good enough for the first day or service, but not on the second. Even after the airline had inconvenienced them, and offered their own apology for that inconvenience, yet denied them a re boarding even after they were cleared of any involvement in any wrongdoing.

"How you can perceive it as somehow akin or parallel to Kristalnacht is beyond me."

This situation has nothing to do with Kristalnacht. The acceptance of the treatment of Jews in German society in 1930's-1940's, subsequent support for Hitler and his absolute power after his ascension of power, the same can be said for executive orders which have detained Muslims overseas without cause. I'm not saying this is happening on a wide scale but even the fact that it can happen, in any possible way, by an American government, that this is acceptable under any circumstances, is the parallel.

What crime had the Jews as a people committed against the Germans?
What crime have the Muslims as a people committed against Americans?

If the only crime that was the validation for extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, and the only crime of Muslims, validation for their indefinite detainment, is that they were and are Jewish, and Muslim, respectively then what does that say about our justice system?

"They behaved in a way that they knew could easily be perceived as suspicious..."

Granted, and the airline made the right decision on the first day. Yet the second, even though they were suspicious, clearly they had done no wrong, nor were affiliated with any wrong doing, nothing legally chargeable, yet were not allowed to board. If it simply was a case where they refused service because of the trouble caused, I accept and support and respect that, however the airline hasn't made that case. Further, suspicious behavior does not make you guilty of a crime.

"You're right, Dan, we shouldn't be talking about rights & freedoms because this involved neither."

How is freedom not involved, when a person cannot exercise their right to practice their religion in public, and because of that, be considered "suspicious", and subsequently be referred to law enforcement, be cleared of any criminal activity, and then denied service? I agree with you all that it isn't a right to fly on board an airplane, but it is a right to be free from religious persecution, and ostrization, because of the crime free methods of religious practice, praying, asking for a seat upgrade. This country, even before it was a country, was begun by people leaving their former homes because of religious persecution. This is because they didn't want to be told which faith to follow, since then our form of freedom has spread throughout many parts of the world, through direct and indirect means. It is precisely the reason why areas of the world resistant, to freely thinking people, take up arms and whatever means are available to them, to fight against us. But that doesn't mean that every person in our country who is Muslim is "suspicious" nor should it ever mean that. We also believe that until someone has committed a criminal act, not whether or not they are predisposed to do so, but up until that point they are as innocent as you and me until proven guilty.

None of these guys, yelled bomb, had a bomb, carried anything on board that was unlawful whatsoever. What they did do is scare people who just as guilty of allowing themselves to be scared, to give into their fears. You think I'm disgusting or misinformed for challenging the idea that these guys were "up to something" or that I have no right or reason to question the actions for a service provider selectively denying service to Americans. Americans who are as American as you or I. But it is I who question your acceptance of your fellow American, beyond that, your acceptance of people in general. I question whether you can see beyond the media terror craze that gets the ratings and has bombarded those of you who think this kind of conduct by corporations is fair and just.

It's obvious that sometimes mistakes are made, but admitting those rather then denying them clears the way for release of the resentment, and hate. If you want to insist that there was "something up" here. How about providing some evidence, that shows these guys were involved in a terrorist plot? That they flying was something more then a plane ride home?

Have you "proof" of this? I don't think so which is why their lawsuit will fail." No I don't but neither does anyone suggesting they were "up to something". I'm not a lawyer just expressing my opinion. Which is these guys were just looking for a ride home. There money was good enough for the first day or service, but not on the second. Even after the airline had inconvenienced them, and offered their own apology for that inconvenience, yet denied them a re boarding even after they were cleared of any involvement in any wrongdoing.

So sorry to inform you. But the "right" to refuse service requires no proof to be shown.

How is freedom not involved, when a person cannot exercise their right to practice their religion in public, and because of that, be considered "suspicious", and subsequently be referred to law enforcement, be cleared of any criminal activity, and then denied service? I agree with you all that it isn't a right to fly on board an airplane, but it is a right to be free from religious persecution, and ostrization, because of the crime free methods of religious practice, praying, asking for a seat upgrade. This country, even before it was a country, was begun by people leaving their former homes because of religious persecution. This is because they didn't want to be told which faith to follow, since then our form of freedom has spread throughout many parts of the world, through direct and indirect means. It is precisely the reason why areas of the world resistant, to freely thinking people, take up arms and whatever means are available to them, to fight against us. But that doesn't mean that every person in our country who is Muslim is "suspicious" nor should it ever mean that. We also believe that until someone has committed a criminal act, not whether or not they are predisposed to do so, but up until that point they are as innocent as you and me until proven guilty.

Again, unless you have proof of this, try something else. You're "still" talking religous persecution for which you have "no" basis in fact.

So you think it was perfectly acceptable for them to refuse service the second day? On what grounds Dr?

So you think it was perfectly acceptable for them to refuse service the second day? On what grounds Dr?

You "still" have not quite grasped the concept yet. Please feel free to try again. The airlines DO NOT need a reason to refuse service. I don't happen to have one of their tickets in hand. But I'd be willing to bet that "somewhere" on that piece of paper would be the line...."We reserve the right to refuse service." And whether or not you'll admit it....The "right to refuse service" is federally granted "right".

The right to refuse service By George J. Bryjak August 24, 2005 Next in line to purchase the latest "Harry Potter" tale, the cashier informs you that the stories of J.K. Rowling are replete with black magic, wizards and warlocks, a masterpiece of Satanic deception designed to lure children into the occult. As selling these books runs contrary to her moral convictions, you leave the store empty handed. If you believe this scenario is wildly unrealistic, think again. "Refusal" clauses currently apply to both medical and non-medical personnel and institutions including physicians, nurses, hospitals, clinics, universities and insurance companies. Declining service is allowed on the basis of personal conscience, moral conflict and moral values.

Link

We reserve the right to refuse service... So the trick is to create an environment where people understand what's expected of them as far as limits to their behavior, and then get out of the way unless they violate those limitations. the user has the right to use a service in the way that makes them happy as long as the owner gives them access to the service. the owner has the right to refuse to allow a user to use a service if the way they use it is against the owner's wishes. the owner has the responsibilty to deineate those rules and restrictions as simply and understandably as they can, and an implied responsibility to not set unneccessary and arbitrary restrictions. users have the responsibilty to accept and abide by restrictions or not use the service.

"misbehave" so now the Imams' were misbehaving. So much so that they were referred to law enforcement and not charged with disorderly conduct. According to the facts in the police report, they were praying, and cooperative when asked to de-board the aircraft. How do you equate that to "misbehave"?

"This little stunt was just that, a stunt designed to test limits and generate the exact type of publicity and 'sympathy' that people like you are all to willing to give."

If equal treatment under the law both civil and criminal as well as ethical treatment is the 'sympathy' that you so describe I am guilty as charged. If existing in society, and abiding by the laws of the nation and customs of your religion is a crime, then you are correct. However this is not a crime. Nor were their actions as you describe.

"their behavior disrupted air travel, alarmed other passengers, and created a national 'scene,' I can't say I blame the airline for wanting nothing more to do with these jerks."

Their behavior was both legal and consistent with their religious beliefs, lawful conduct and freedom of religious expression/practice are two things our country was founded on. If you are willing to freely give up your rights to free expression of your speech and religion, fine, I am not, nor am I willing to yield someone else's. The airline is responsible for not allowing them to fly on the second day even after they were cleared of any wrongdoing. So either the airline de-boarded them for expressing their religious beliefs through prayer, which is unacceptable, or because of the suspicious behavior. If the for the second reason, and they were cleared that day, by three federal agencies and the local law enforcement, i.e. never charged with anything, not even disorderly conduct, because it was the flight attendents/passengers who freaked out, and with some reason I'll add, not the Imam's, however it was the Imam's who were denied a re-board by the airline. Why?

What possible reason could be acceptable in a society where we believe that religious expression is acceptable and in fact not just acceptable but inalienable as a right to men and women? If they were denied flight because of the suspicious, well when the suspicion was cleared up they should have been allowed to re-fly. Anybody with making a reasonable effort to examine the facts and circumstances can see these guys had neither the intent to cause any "terrorist harm" nor the means. Yet "The religion of peace update for the week concludes Imams up to something."

They were up to trying to get home after a conference. Having a conversation that was nobody's business.

"alarmed other passengers"

The other passengers allowed themselves to be alarmed. Which has been the case for lots of Americans since 9/11. Good cause but a single terrorist success inside the United States, doesn't make for a very convincing threat anymore given the time money effort and energy invested thus far in the counter-measures. Though their behavior may have been disruptive, the facts seem to be a little less consistent in the police report between the sources of information gathered. Certainly the media reported the most obscure things, "they offered resistance" "had to be dragged off" the article post itself talks about how they were talking about "Osama Bin Laden", rather they were discussing the Saddam Hussein verdict.


Which is is Whip, these guys are criminals or they are not? Why haven't they been charged if they are not as innocent as you and I?

"behaving aggressively or obnoxiously towards airline employees"

Irrelevant... These guys were fully cooperative, and perhaps disruptive in the eyes of others, acting legally, the reason stated in the police report was... they were de-boarded was because they were praying in the terminal. I believe religious prayer is a protected form of religious expression... no? Suspcious yes, protected yes, a crime no.

"Of course, any reasoning about why they refused service the second day is just speculation, on your part and ours, so why you continue to harp on it is beyond me. We seem to be repeating ourselves over and over here, yet without further evidence little more can be said."

I agree. I'm defending my statements, if you don't care what I have to say, why are you asking me?

I've asked for anybody with anything that denies or refutes or damages the credibility of the police report or the logic of my posts to come forward and present it. To date, there has been nothing but opinion. In my eyes, anybody with reason and a lack of bias would be hard pressed to side with anyone saying the Imam's were at fault for the circumstances or did wrong.

If security is more valuable to freedom to you, perhaps you'd prefer to live in another part of the world or another nation, to me freedom reigns and should be protected at the cost of security not the other way around.

Call that straw man if you want or straw woman, but anyone who argues that the Imam's or anyone should be suspicious merely because they are praying and having a political discussion, rather then someone who is suspicious, screaming "BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB" and running with sharp objects in hand, well you get the picture.

"their behavior disrupted air travel, alarmed other passengers, and created a national 'scene,' I can't say I blame the airline for wanting nothing more to do with these jerks." Their behavior was both legal and consistent with their religious beliefs, lawful conduct and freedom of religious expression/practice are two things our country was founded on. If you are willing to freely give up your rights to free expression of your speech and religion, fine, I am not, nor am I willing to yield someone else's. The airline is responsible for not allowing them to fly on the second day even after they were cleared of any wrongdoing.

You are so wrong I can't even believe you don't see it.

Airlines are private entities. They can kick people off the plane for any reason they choose.

People here on JU blacklist people from their blogs for all kinds of reasons. Should they be sued if the person they black listed "did nothing wrong"?

In a post 9/11 world, the airlines who are smart will take more account into the considerations of the majority than worrying about the minority. That's business. 

The Imans were most certainly pulling a stunt or they were incredibly stupid. There have been countless articles on-line that have gone into detail about the things they did. Were they illegal? I doubt it. But it's irrelevant.

A business has the right to decide who it allows to use its service. I have the right to choose for any arbitrary reason who uses my blog site. A blogger on JU has the right to choose for any reason who can comment on their articles.

It's called freedom.

"Airlines are private entities. They can kick people off the plane for any reason they choose."

That's iffy, and I mourn it alongside you. The problem is something called "common carriage". Back in the civil rights era we decided that owners of private businesses that serve the public were forbidden to discriminate based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, yadda yadda yadda.

Me? I think that's an extension of the putrid band-aid that Lincoln put on the problem, devising oppressive ways to force people to not be racist at gunpoint. All it does is allow for people like these imams to behave on the edge of acceptability and then extort money from the airline when they are tossed off. It effectively makes any "private business" that serves the public a target.

Common carriage is being extended now to pharmacists that don't want to sell particular drugs, telecommunications, homosexual rights, churches, everything. It sickens me. I find it repulsive that people would block a black man from a lunch counter, but the repulsive part is the racism, not a business owner being able to decide who he wants to serve. Taking our freedom away isn't going to help anything.

"Airlines are private entities. They can kick people off the plane for any reason they choose." That's iffy, and I mourn it alongside you. The problem is something called "common carriage". Back in the civil rights era we decided that owners of private businesses that serve the public were forbidden to discriminate based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, yadda yadda yadda

Yes you are correct baker. However can you "show" us where the airlines refused them service because of their race "or" religion? Because if you can't then the "common carriage" scenario carries no weight.

That's not how it works, unfortunately doc. The oppressive legal standard set up during the civil rights era has basically left us forcing the accused to prove that they WEREN'T being racist. Every 'whites only' golf club and fraternal order had some sort of non-racial excuse, so we built a system that was sharpened to cut through any excuse.

That's what's happening here, isn't it? We're having to list all these reasons and face all this scrutiny from bleeding hearts? Now imagine yourself a business owner, and across the table is the ACLU or CAIR with a bottomless legal war chest and an inept, activist-oriented judiciary standing in judgment over the two.

You really think it is innocent until proven guilty? Hardly.