Let me see, here.
IANAL and I did not read all the posts to this thread. I was stunned at the, to me, overt bigotry and racism displayed on this thread. We really aren't that far removed from barbarians.
To the person(s) who complained that I "baited" people into defining "suspicious activity", I can understand a little bit how you got that. It was not my intention and I am sorry you or anyone else got that slant.
Our country makes a clear line, a distinction, if you will, about the rule of law and how it is applied. That is what allows us to act as a shining beacon for all. When we decide to lower ourselves by retreating from our Constitutional principles, in many cases "because they did it first", the beacon dims.
Assuming the article was correct in two charges, "suspicious activity" and the seat belt extension exercise, and there were no others, then I would council US/HP to settle before a trial, because any limp attorney is going to make mince-meat over what is "suspicious activity" and with any brains at all, will be able to show racism led to the Imams removal.
Doesn't your training department spend any time at all on how to handle such passengers? Maybe not. Someone informed me you have to pay for your own unarmed combat training. That sucks.
I would have thought, I've seen it happen enough times, even on your aircraft, a trained FA could confront a rogue passenger and rather than using a vague charge like "suspicious activity", they would be trained to guide the individual into simple commands that would "stick" such as "Sir, return to your assigned seat" or "Sir, sit down now". If they disobey, then you have a solid charge and the authorities would not be inclined to release the individuals so quickly, at least without a hearing before a judge or magistrate.
Again, IANAL, but it seems to me all their attorney needs to do is get the FA making charges on the stand and badger them into defining "suspicious activity" for the court, in front of a jury, if possible. It would be tossed salad, for sure.
On the seat belt extension, an inevitable question will be, "if you thought they did not need an extension then why did you give it to them" line which, again, might make for some interesting revelations, the airline the loser.
The fact that those two reasons for removal are perhaps? quoted from a police blotter, makes this case, in my mind, potentially, very expensive for US/HP. Had the FAs proper training, as I suggested, it is possible that no one would have noticed the removal. After all, newspapers are all about news. Removing someone from a flight for disobeying a FA is hardly noteworthy, but removing them for "suspicious activity" is front page stuff.
YMMV.
