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.

I think you are reading way too much into this. The delay of that plane, by those men, cost far more to the airline than losing them as passengers. Furthermore, either they lacked the commense to know not to act so gregariously, or purposefully intended to have themselves removed. Why should the airline take the risk of having it happen again? They have no guarantee those men will not do the same thing. They are not worth the cost, so the airline refuses them service. It has nothing to do with their stated religion. It has everything to do with their actions.

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.

Well if the imams are sueing the airlines....then "they" (the imams) will have to provide proof on the supposed discrimination, now won't they?

"I have asked you repeatedly to be more specific when decrying the 'loss of basic rights' involved in this particular case, because flying on an airplane is not a "right" no matter how loosely you interpret our Constitution."

Correct, flying on an airplane in not a right guaranteed under the constitution. However practicing your religion is. That's the reason they were detained along with other "suspicious activity", namely, being Muslim.

"a private transportation refusing service"

The airlines are a privately owned service, yet if they go on strike and disrupt service, they would be impressed into military service for the nation. I believe that would make them a public utility similar to power companies, water companies, roadways, railroads, noticing the transportation theme? Ronald Reagan has done it? Am I wrong on that?

I said.

"Sounds Nazi, Soviet, and pretty damned dangerous thinking, stacked up to the concept of freedom, which our citizens seem to feel is the guiding light of this nation."

You said

"Hmm, a private transportation refusing service due to criteria you personally disagree with being compared to genocide, gas chambers, mass starvation, and the privations of both life under facism and communism is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think?"

My point was not about being denied service on airlines, but thinking that that sort of treatment of people is acceptable in society and the slide in attitude people take towards segments of the population. Treating people with extra scrutiny, and then criminalizing their actions in your mind, which by the way, were neither morally or legally wrong, is wrong. Whip they did nothing wrong, admit that.

The "terror" argument is BS, you only have terror when people commit acts designed to hurt or harm others and display that. People praying or asking for a seatbelt extension or to upgrade their seat, or hold a political discussion, those aren't terror acts. Would you not agree? In combination suspicious yes if you look at it from the perspective of "hunting for terrorism" and nothing but, then yes I agree "suspicious"

However, not only did they do nothing that could be considered "terror" in nature, but there is no ability or credibility to do so on an airplane. ADMIT THAT! If unwilling, provide a single weakness and ability anybody, not just terrorists but anybody has to cause any harm on an airplane that still exists? I see none available. Nothing except irrational fear.

I'm all for fighting terrorists, and anybody who would do harm to people for no reason or even for a reason that isn't just. But I'm not for denying people their rights because of irrational fears, that includes Muslims.

The reason I bring up history and incorporate some of the lessons learned is simple. History allows us to see rights and wrongs real clearly.

In Germany what crime were the Jews guilty of? What crime had they committed as a people that was so egregious that they were rounded up and exterminated?

No crime.

I'm not saying or implying that the same thing (rounding up and extermination) is happening by our government, but if it was, how would anyone know? People can be deemed a terrorist for any reason, or without reason under current law, held without being brought to trial, indefinitely, in the United States.

That's the Soviet part, until, during, and after world war 2, Stalin had millions of "political prisoners" arrested under for "suspicious actions"

Like you've said you've seen people being kicked off planes for far less. Well in the 1930-1940's Soviet Union, people were arrested, jailed, detained, never brought to trial, for no reasons either. Do you not see the similarities of the situation between how even American citizens not 'are' but 'can possibly' be treated, and Germany and the Soviet Union? The similarities in which the laws of our country have been altered since 9/11? How about the similarities in societal change, between our acceptance of the ostrization and denial or rights of Muslims in our society.

The reason I speak up for them (Muslims) is they are us (Americans). Rights taken away from them are rights taken away from us. If you lose the right to pray in an airport, as a Muslim it won't be long, as history has shown, before it is another part of your life and then another and another, an "inalienable freedom" that is taken away, if you give it away. If you allow a government to do that it certainly can happen. Even in the government "of the people, by the people, for the people" this can happen if the people are not protected from the government. Which do you believe is more valuable? The people or the government? The founders believed it was the people. As of right now this government can legally declare any one of us an enemy, and hold us indefinitely, without trial, without any evidence, there to be, to protect the government and of course "the rest of us".

So again, what was "suspicious" in this situation led to the denial of other Muslims rights to pray in an airport....BECAUSE... They were de-boarded because they were praying. In the future Muslims may be forced to give up their daily rituals, because we have accepted that treatment in society rather then rejecting it. If they don't they can be expected to be de-planed. I'll admit that as of right now this is a 'potential sacrifice', their ability to ride on an airplane. Is that a just reason to deny their rights to religious freedom?

I don't agree that is it just, nor do I agree that holding anybody, by our government, American citizen or not, indefinetly without bringing them to trial to face the evidence against them, is an idea concieved in liberty either. I think it's an idea conceived in fear, in anger, and in power.

I also firmly believe that any government taking away the "inalienable" rights of citizens isn't worth having around, nor is any citizenry willing to have those rights taken away.

Certainly not under the premise of all mighty "terrorism" which at this point on airplanes in the United States is a guise of real terror and merely an irrational fucking fear.

"Certainly not under the premise of all mighty "terrorism" which at this point on airplanes in the United States is a guise of real terror and merely an irrational fucking fear."

Until there is an attack. Then people like you rail to the heavens and have congressional hearings about why something wasn't done about people who were so "obviously" terrorists. You, and folks like you, firmly believe whatever suits your outrage at the moment, in my opinion.

The airlines are a privately owned service, yet if they go on strike and disrupt service, they would be impressed into military service for the nation. I believe that would make them a public utility similar to power companies, water companies, roadways, railroads, noticing the transportation theme? Ronald Reagan has done it? Am I wrong on that?

Yes, you're wrong. The "only" section that even comes close to what you're saying are Air Traffic Controllers. If an airlines goes on strike (which btw has happened before) it's no big deal to the country. However if the controllers go on strike it IS a very big deal to the country. Especially since they control the air traffic for the entire nation. Ronald Reagan has done it. Reagans deal "only" extended to air traffic controllers, not an airline.

Link



Link

"Then people like you rail to the heavens and have congressional hearings about why something wasn't done about people who were so "obviously" terrorists. You, and folks like you, firmly believe whatever suits your outrage at the moment, in my opinion."

"Until there is an attack."

There has been one major terrorist attack on American soil from Al Qaeda.

This attack exploited a very poorly motivated and inept and insufficient security system. The conducted attack, was designed to cause massive civillian casualties, destroy the symbolism of American strength rather then liberty, and to kill. AQ's MO has been to target civillians and get on into the media and use the media against the nation to "force multiply" fear. Irrational fear, such as that of being struck by lightning, or hit by a meteor, is the very similar in scale to this type of terrorism. Their only advantage is a media one, because the world media's job is to make money rather then tell the story truthfully all the time, if headlining over and over, the message Islamic exremism is out to end the world, and it sells more advertising, then lesser significant statements or time spent on the coverage.

They will sell whatever messages sells the most viewers into buying it.

"Then people like you rail to the heavens and have congressional hearings about why something wasn't done about people who were so "obviously" terrorists."

Why was the FBI file tracking several different names of UBL not merged into one?
Why was NORAD unable to track a domestic jet inside our borders?
Why was the national air defense system setup to shoot down a civillian airliner in case of hijacking?
Why was the CIA actively engaged in an effort to rid the world of UBL, and degrade AQ's ability to attack any nation, including ours, and then the operation's plug was pulled before the mission could succeed?
Why was Richard Clarke denied a meeting with the president repeatedly before 9/11 when he was actively screaming about the warning signs?

You are right we do spend time and effort in our country fighting real threats, and finding out wtf went wrong when we missed the ball. Obviously 9/11 was a preventable situation.

What happened on this airplane was these guys we de-planed, checked out by three federal agencies in addition to the local law enforcement. None of them were issues so much as a "disorderly conduct fine". Released and then denied a re-board.

They are not terrorists. If there was any evidence to suggest they were they wouldn't have been released.

"You, and folks like you, firmly believe whatever suits your outrage at the moment, in my opinion."

You are correct. I am absolutely outraged that any American citizen can be denied their constitutional right to practice their religion in public because others have an irrational fear of them. How can I say this? Well basically if you are Muslim, and you get caught praying in an airport terminal you are scrutinized for your legal and ethically correct conduct. That's not right. You allow the KKK to practice their belief's yet they advocate lynching of people of a different skin color. Neo-Nazism is also tolerated yet it's founding idealism, Nazism, that of the master race, and extermination of races deemed inferior is their preaching.

Islam, or the guys that were trying to fly home, is not a religion or ideology, are not a group of people, that threaten our way of life or our existence to any degree.

Islamic extremists that take the name of Islam's teaching to the extreme and advocate violence and death and destruction are. They are also in the minority.

There is a clear distinction. When 9/11 occurred, there was not a massive influx of terrorists into the United States even though we had no way of defeating them. There also wasn't a massive terrorist operation inside our borders by Muslim Americans. Nor were there suicide/homicide bombings across this nation in every drugstore or bar, or Walmart. To suggest that our country is or was in that zone, at that level of a danger of daily attacks by Muslims, the general Muslim, is incorrect, and bigoted.

What happened on 9/11 was a tragedy, a human failing, and a crime against humanity. It's an evil added to the history of evils that have occurred between peoples in this reality on this world. But don't elevate it to something its not, it's not the end of free society. Not the end of being free, or the end of Americans being a freedom loving people. Unless we choose to give that to them. Unless we choose to give the fucking terrorists what they want, which is to look on our neighbor as a stranger, or criminal, rather then just another one of us. You give it to them, when you give into the irrational fear.

I could agree with you, that Muslims and Islam would be dangerous, as dangerous, more dangerous to us then other ills of history, but it's not the majority but the minority that perpetrate the crimes and violence.

I can't change anyones minds, nor am I looking to do so, if you harden your hearts and minds, if you think and feel try to live against what is true in every one of us. We all desire freedom, and security, and happiness, and a better life for our children. I don't want to live in a country where people are forced to practice their religion underground. That battle has been fought before in history, and it is very true that history repeats itself.

If you choose to give up your freedom, you may find that life, isn't as valuable to you as you once thought. That is the real tragedy of 9/11. That those who struck the towers, planned, ordered, and executed, obviously don't value life. Every religion on Earth by design has been created in one form or another to enrich and guide people on the path of their lives. Not to end it. To suggest otherwise is to contradict the ways of both nature and the universe in general.

Do as you say though, the world of course, is flat.

"Yes, you're wrong"

I conceded it. I am wrong on that. I was pretty young in the 80's, remember the details vaguely.

Oh wait, no no I'm right.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action

"The Railway Labor Act bans strikes by United States airline and railroad employees except in narrowly defined circumstances."

"The federal government most recently invoked these statutory provisions to obtain an injunction against a slowdown by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in 2002."

For economic reasons.

"Especially since they control the air traffic for the entire nation. Ronald Reagan has done it. Reagans deal "only" extended to air traffic controllers, not an airline."

For economic reasons.

There has never been a strike, you are correct on that, yet if an entire airline would strike, especially one of major airlines, with a significant chunk of air travel, the economy is too dependent on their services. Basically, this act can make it illegal to strike in situations where the national economy could be threatened or where the strike is just deemed illegal.

The injustice is not with the airlines, but with their policies, as well as the intolerance of Muslims in society. Forcing people to not pray in order to get a plane ride is the injustice.

You are all right, there is no law ensuring the rights of plane travel. But there is a law of ensuring air travel doesn't strike.

Good God... no one was prevented from practicing their religion. IS spreading out in twos on the plane part of their religion? Is demanding unused seat belt extensions and openly talking about 9/11 so loud it disturbed other people part of the Islamic faith? I must have missed that part in World Religion class.

Do you think people prevented from going in abortion clinics and praying are prevented from practicing their religion? If you went to Oklahoma City and went into a government building with your pals and loitered while talking very loudly about the ATF and black UN helicopters, would you be victimized when you were tossed out?

Come on.

P.S. There was another terrorist attack in '93 on US soil. The 'al Quaeda' part is just a way for you to minimize a threat that had previously been negligently minimized. Anyone with half a brain would be hesitant to minimize any threat at this point.

Oh wait, no no I'm right. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action "The Railway Labor Act bans strikes by United States airline and railroad employees except in narrowly defined circumstances." "The federal government most recently invoked these statutory provisions to obtain an injunction against a slowdown by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in 2002."

No you're not right! Nothing of which you provided links for gives the government the powers that you're suggesting. At "most" under the RLA the employees can be fired.

The airlines are a privately owned service, yet if they go on strike and disrupt service, they would be impressed into military service for the nation

You better go back and read what you quoted. Even under the RLA the airline personel can strike.

Bargaining and strikes under the RLA Unlike the National Labor Relations Act, which adopts a less interventionist approach to the way the parties conduct collective bargaining or resolve their disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements, the RLA specifies both (1) the negotiation and mediation procedures that unions and employers must exhaust before they may change the status quo, and (2) the methods for resolving "minor" disputes over the interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements. The RLA permits strikes over major disputes only after the union has exhausted the RLA's negotiation and mediation procedures, while barring almost all strikes over minor disputes. The RLA also authorizes the courts to enjoin strikes if the union has not exhausted those procedures. On the other hand, the RLA imposes fewer restrictions on the tactics that unions may use when they do have the right to strike. The RLA does not, unlike the NLRA, bar secondary boycotts against other RLA-regulated carriers; it may also permit employees to engage in other types of strikes, such as intermittent strikes, that might be unprotected under the NLRA.

P.S. There was another terrorist attack in '93 on US soil. The 'al Quaeda' part is just a way for you to minimize a threat that had previously been negligently minimized. Anyone with half a brain would be hesitant to minimize any threat at this point.

"P.S. There was another terrorist attack in '93 on US soil. The 'al Quaeda' part is just a way for you to minimize a threat that had
previously been negligently minimized. Anyone with half a brain would be hesitant to minimize any threat at this point."

I didn't minimize any threat. I agreed with the airlines decision to de-plane them for any reason of suspicion. I disagree with their decision to do it again the second day with no cause, when the Imams were cleared of any involvement in wrongdoing. That's all.

As for terrorist attack in 1993, yes it happened, it did not involve Imam's on an airplane.

"And if the KKK tried to board a plane wearing the full regalia of hood and robe, while loudly praying for the extermination of all niggers and loudly praising those who have killed niggers...should they also be allowed on the plane?"

No they should not, not if they pose a danger to the passengers. If they do pose a threat then they should be de-planed. If in the course of their conduct they used racial slurs and verbally assaulted other passengers then they would have been charged with disorderly conduct. The Imams made no such racial or ethnic remarks. If you have evidence to suggest they did, i.e. an audio recording I'll gladly yield and slap ya on the back for getting it right. From what the police report says, they were holding a political discussion and cooperative when told to de-plane.

Until then I stand where I stand. If you firmly believe, they and other Muslims unafraid to practice their religion, have not been denied their rights by the actions of the airline, then we should expect to see more stories like this in the news in the future. As more Muslims continue to pray, and more Americans continue to consider that a threatening gesture, and airlines remove them.

"The Railway Labor Act bans strikes by United States airline and railroad employees except in narrowly defined circumstances."
Yep. They also can't force you to work, however if you strike you lose your job, so in other words you don't strike. If there was a major strike that stopped air travel, they would be impressed or whatever you want to call it, just like police on the streets, air travel is a critical industry, critical to the economy of the United States. Just like if you stopped rail transit, or gasoline deliveries. Come on lets stop getting side tracked.

If you want me to admit I was wrong, fine. I'm wrong on airline strikes. Happy Dr.?

"IS spreading out in twos on the plane part of their religion?"

"Is demanding unused seat belt extensions and openly talking about 9/11 so loud it disturbed other people part of the Islamic faith?"

Have you looked at the police report? The conversation was about Saddam Hussein verdict. Can you prove the booking of the airline didn't seat them that way? Can you further prove that it was anything more then coincidence? Why would you suggest otherwise unless you were specifically looking for "terrorists" as the passengers were. Irrational fear.

"Do you think people prevented from going in abortion clinics and praying are prevented from practicing their religion? If you went to Oklahoma City and went into a government building with your pals and loitered while talking very loudly about the ATF and black UN helicopters, would you be victimized when you were tossed out?

Come on."

No you come on, this isn't about abortion or praying inside of them. This is about being on public property and freely expressing religious views, and about being able to hold a political discussion while being Muslim and without being labeled "terrorist"

This isn't about the being de-planed on suspicion, again for the tenth or so time, I am in firm agreement that being de-planed and questioned by law enforcement for praying on a plane in this time is going to happen, and if you don't exercise a little more tact you can come to expect it as a Muslim. What this is about is being denied boarding the second day, after being interviewed for hours by three different federal agencies and local law enforcement and not being held on suspicion or charged or locked up or anything. The reason they were de-planed in the first place were the circumstantial things involved as well as "praying in the terminal" That decision to de-board them had been made even before they boarded the plane. So you've got Muslims being de-boarded for praying. Then you have them being denied a flight because they are Muslim.

But your right. That's fair, thats just. We should just let this happen. If anybody is different or wrong, or Muslim, we should just shun them, deport them, make them go away. If our society or individuals see fit to make any Muslim out to be a terrorist whether or not there is evidence more then just suspicion we should just go with it. Fuk due process, fuk the fact the cops have nothing, fuk the fact we are spending billions of dollars annually to track each and every one of them sneaky terrorists. Yea we don't need that, we don't need no facts, we can just look at someone and know. "That's a terrorist"

Your right. Any 230 some years of the pursuit for freedom for all and equality, justice, liberty; Fuk that too right?

www.rcfp.org/places/notallpublicpropertyisapublicforum.html

I think it's somewhat clear that the Supreme Court has said that people should be allowed to exercise their freedom in an airport.

"I've told you this before and I'll say it again. Ever hear of the "right" to refuse service? You doubt it's validity? Try walking into a restaurant in America without shoes on your feet.

Weren't you the one complaining about losing rights?"

The Imam's were wearing shoes, and they were denied boarding, according to the police report, because they were praying in the terminal. In the most sarcastic way I agree with you. Let's deplane everybody who does anything suspicious, or ever bothers us. Not just on airplanes but in every facet of society. Let's never let them fly again. In fact lets lock em up. We don't need any evidence, just suspicion. Lets never bring them to trial or charge em with anything. Well just keep anybody who isn't like us from ever being able to hurt us. Am I beginning to sound rational to you yet? Or do I need to burn a few more freedoms from the constitution.

That's the reason they were detained along with other "suspicious activity", namely, being Muslim.

"Along with". That is all that is needed. The first part of your statement then is non sequitar. And the Airlines need nothing else.

Besides, "Practicing Your Religion" is a right, but not ANYWHERE you want to do it. Pagans cannot sacrafice goats in an airport.

or Catholics have a mass in a Synagogue.

"Can you prove the booking of the airline didn't seat them that way?"

No, I haven't seen the police report, and neither have you. You've seen what someone portrayed to be the police report, just like it was portrayed over and over that they talked loudly about bin Laden. Every single news show I've seen has cited them spreading out in seat they weren't assigned to. Is the police report you've seen any more substiantiated?

Can you "prove" these people exist at all? Can you prove it ever really happened? I always find it funny when people use that argument online. They come at me with a lot of points about a situation, then demand I "prove" something. Can you "prove" anything, Dan? Nope, you can just point to second-hand information just like the rest of us.