Imans strike back

[ussnark]

Right! You do not have a "constitutional right" to fly; but you do have a "statutory right" to make and enforce contracts like white people can... and yes, that includes the "contract of carriage" you enter when you buy an airline ticket.

Indeed. Just like "white people"........ perhaps that is their point?

That "statutory right" however, is subject to the Airline's right and broad discretion to remove passengers for safety reasons.

So far, I have yet to hear of a safety reason aired for their removal.

 

[A330US]

So what. No we are supposed to feel sorry for these types. I don't think so. Let us not forget what these people from the Middle East did to us on September 11, 2001.

You cant say that ALL middle east people WANTED to do this, i am pakistani, you could call me middle eastern if you want but i definately did not and wouldnt not want anything like this to happen, i am a proud american, and who isnt, should leave this country

 

[ussnark]

The basis of the defense is that the actions of the crew was reasonable under the applicable circumstances. The fact that the authorities saw fit to detain the individuals for extensive questioning provides ample proof of the reasonableness of the actions despite the fact that they were eventually released.

"The fact that the authorities saw fit to detain the individuals for extensive questioning.." has nothing to do with proof about anything.

The only proof one could glean from that is that the "authorities" were simply doing their job trying to understand the situation and getting the Imams side of the story. It isn't even rational to think your way, though it seems that using fantasy to "prove" something seems to be in vogue these days.

In fact, as you noted but did not credit, the Imams were released to fly the next day, which would argue that the crew actions perhaps were not considered reasonable.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

So far, I have yet to hear of a safety reason aired for their removal.

The airlines only need a "perceived" safety reason... such as suspicious behavior. The airline doesn't actually need to be correct in its assessment of a safety risk.

As long as the airline's decision has a rational basis for safety and it is not arbitrary or capricious, it will be deemed an appropriate action.

However, the discretion of the crew, although broad, is not unlimited. Although the crew can remove a passenger for suspicious activity, the law does not provide absolute protection to disclosures of suspicious activity. For example, if a crew removed a person because another passenger told security personnel, based entirely on the passenger's race, that the passenger was dangerous, this would clearly be reckless as to the truth or falsity of the statement and would not sheltered by the law. If, however, the decision by the flight crew was not arbitrary or capricious, then the actions will be appropriate.

This is what the case will likely turn on if it is not settled: Whether they were removed solely on the basis of race, or was there a non-arbitrary or non-capricious safety reason, such as abnormal and suspicious behavior, that led to the removal.

 

[ussnark]

This is what the case will likely turn on if it is not settled: Whether they were removed solely on the basis of race, or was there a non-arbitrary or non-capricious safety reason, such as abnormal and suspicious behavior, that led to the removal.

Thank you. As you can tell IANAL and therefore cannot quote law. However, I can see logical errors (the law is rarely logical, IMHO, as it is seemingly based mostly on precedent).

I still like someone to quote a safety related reason for having them removed.

As I said, it should be interesting, especially as to what is considered "abnormal and suspicious behavior".

 

[hp_fa]

"The fact that the authorities saw fit to detain the individuals for extensive questioning.." has nothing to do with proof about anything.

The only proof one could glean from that is that the "authorities" were simply doing their job trying to understand the situation and getting the Imams side of the story. It isn't even rational to think your way, though it seems that using fantasy to "prove" something seems to be in vogue these days.

In fact, as you noted but did not credit, the Imams were released to fly the next day, which would argue that the crew actions perhaps were not considered reasonable.

Come on, be real. The crew and supervisor had minutes to make a decision, not hours. They clearly acted reasonably, especially since there was an existing question of the safety of flight that includes all the negative reactions of all the other customers on the flight. Remember they were also agitated by this point by the situation and that needs to be figured into what occurred and the decision that had to be made relatively quickly.

This is as close to an open and shut case as you will see. No jury, if it gets that far, is ever going to find the airline responsible for the actions taken on the day of the incident. Any liability that may attach will come from what happened the following day.

 

[ussnark]

Come on, be real. The crew and supervisor had minutes to make a decision, not hours. They clearly acted reasonably, especially since there was an existing question of the safety of flight that includes all the negative reactions of all the other customers on the flight. Remember they were also agitated by this point by the situation and that needs to be figured into what occurred and the decision that had to be made relatively quickly.

This is as close to an open and shut case as you will see. No jury, if it gets that far, is ever going to find the airline responsible for the actions taken on the day of the incident. Any liability that may attach will come from what happened the following day.

I am being real.

I was hoping you would see the light. I guess it will take more time with you.

I don't see that the crew acted "reasonably". It is likely the FAs contributed to any anxiety. The captain acted reasonably, and not for the reasons you imply. Ask him.

I have yet to see your assertions of "negative reactions" (I only have read one passenger had such) and specifically, what agitations were evident? Your sweeping generalizations derived from little or no specifics would argue, BS. In capital letters, it virtually screams, lie.

Open and shut? Only if you want to sweep American's storied inability to discern activities, terrorist or otherwise, under the carpet.

Paranoia is exactly what a terrorist lives for. Is that how you wish to live the rest of your life? or, would you rather live your life like Ben Franklin, the one who stated that those who wish to sacrifice their freedoms for a little more security, deserve neither. I wonder what terrorist events occurred that would cause him to think that, and would that imply that there was terrorism way back then?

This event reveals more than racial problems. It shows a command and control problem that got way out of hand until the captain was forced to intervene and resulted in a less than satisfactory resolution. Not necessarily the captains fault, but, he will get the blame.

 

[Awa Contract]

Along these lines I would like to know why a member of our training department met these people in phoenix when they arrived - spoke out to the media in favor of them on camera for the local news (which means against the airlines) and is still employed here -

 

[Fly4Free]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_...zOr3JoO_NNG2ocA

I guess we will see what the Ministry of Love thinks about removing people from aircraft for praying in public .......

Don't be a moron, they were removed for suspicious activity on the plane.. and it was supported by local law enforcement.

 

[ussnark]

Don't be a moron, they were removed for suspicious activity on the plane.. and it was supported by local law enforcement.

Please define suspicious. Please let us know what constitutes "suspicious activity", because, I am curious whether your definition is even remotely the same as mine.

The local law enforcement did not support anything other than to comply with the wishes of the captain. My understanding is that they then got the stories of the Imam(s) and finding they did no wrong, released them for flight.

Um, think you should read every message on the thread, first. Then you are free to go about demonstrating your mental disabilities in real time.

 

[Fly4Free]

Please define suspicious. Please let us know what constitutes "suspicious activity", because, I am curious whether your definition is even remotely the same as mine.

The local law enforcement did not support anything other than to comply with the wishes of the captain. My understanding is that they then got the stories of the Imam(s) and finding they did no wrong, released them for flight.

Um, think you should read every message on the thread, first. Then you are free to go about demonstrating your mental disabilities in real time.

Okay, so you're not a moron, you're a scum-sucking leech moron. You obviously do not know what the hell you're talking about, so STFU and go troll some other forum.

 

[ussnark]

You obviously do not know what the hell you're talking about, so STFU and go troll some other forum.

Oh, that is certainly an intelligent response. Can't handle third grade english so you tell a person to go somewhere else.

Since I started this thread, since merged with another, perhaps, you might consider that you, sir, are the troll.

In plain, not nasty english, perhaps you could explain why you think that "law enforcement" thought the Imam(s) were in the wrong yet they did not toss them into jail and in fact, released them to fly the next day?

Perhaps you could explain why the FAs gave a relatively rare piece of equipment, seat belt extensions, to people who obviously did not need them. In fact, the FAs did not even ask why those passengers wanted the extensions.

You do not even know if the Imams are US citizens or not.

Wouldn't you be jumping the gun, just a little bit?

 

[ilg30/7]

Please define suspicious. Please let us know what constitutes "suspicious activity", because, I am curious whether your definition is even remotely the same as mine.

The local law enforcement did not support anything other than to comply with the wishes of the captain. My understanding is that they then got the stories of the Imam(s) and finding they did no wrong, released them for flight.

Um, think you should read every message on the thread, first. Then you are free to go about demonstrating your mental disabilities in real time.

Link:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110009348

Now tell me again about how the Imams did nothing at all suspicious. Is this normal behavior? Is this something that flight crews should just.... what.... ignore? That's one hell of a game you are playing with other peoples' lives.

I have no doubt that these Imams got exactly what they wanted. Now they have a lawsuit that provides them a pulpit from which to decry their "persecution." If it is summarily thrown out of court, as it should be, they will then decry the injustice of the legal system for Muslims.

I really don't care what your agenda is. This is no theoretical excercise for the people that work our flights every day. It's real life, and they are the ones who will pay the consequences if they are wrong just once. Not you.

 

[N965VJ]

<SNIP> Perhaps you could explain why the FAs gave a relatively rare piece of equipment, seat belt extensions, to people who obviously did not need them.

Because they asked for them.

 

[Fly4Free]

Oh, that is certainly an intelligent response. Can't handle third grade english so you tell a person to go somewhere else.

At best your English was third grade level.

Since I started this thread, since merged with another, perhaps, you might consider that you, sir, are the troll.

In plain, not nasty english, perhaps you could explain why you think that "law enforcement" thought the Imam(s) were in the wrong yet they did not toss them into jail and in fact, released them to fly the next day?

PLEASE READ THIS.

US Airways Group Inc. has said prayer was never the issue. A passenger reported overhearing anti-U.S. statements, and the men got up and moved around the airplane, the airline said. The men said they had done nothing to arouse suspicion.

The airline released a statement saying that it had not seen the lawsuit, but that its initial position had not changed: that its employees "acted appropriately, and we continue to back the actions of our crew and ground employees in this case."

The airport commission was included in the lawsuit because it employs the officers who removed the scholars from the plane.

Commission spokesman Patrick Hogan denied the claims in the lawsuit, saying "the airport commission believes that airport police acted appropriately in responding to US Airways request for assistance."

Perhaps you could explain why the FAs gave a relatively rare piece of equipment, seat belt extensions, to people who obviously did not need them. In fact, the FAs did not even ask why those passengers wanted the extensions.

You do not even know if the Imams are US citizens or not.

Wouldn't you be jumping the gun, just a little bit?

Bottomline, the airline consulted with FBI and local enforcement before taking them off the plane. A plain-clothes FBI agent went to the back of the plane first, then the police came and escorted them off. They were not handcuffed until 30 minutes later.