Infinite MonkeysTuesday was a bad day for John Doe. God help him if, in this busy travel season, he sees suspicious behavior among the purveyors of the religion of peace.
U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery ruled against the patriotic citizens who, one year ago this month, observed the so-called flying imams engage in what looked in today's post-9/11 world like a dry run for the next 9/11.
Six Muslim imams arrested on a U.S. Airways jet in Minneapolis last November after a passenger raised suspicions about their pre-flight prayers and boarding activities won an early victory Tuesday in their federal lawsuit against the airline and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery's opinion and order rejected almost all of the defendants' arguments for dismissal. She said the question of whether airport officers had probable cause to arrest the men must be determined by the objective facts they had available at the time.
... Frederick Goetz, one of the imams' attorneys, praised the judge's decision, saying "This has always been a straightforward civil rights case. You had six individuals ... doing absolutely nothing wrong. They prayed in the airport and got arrested. That's unconstitutional, and they deserve redress."
Yeah. They were just "praying." Goetz, the slip-and-fall lawyer, forgot to mention the other details that weren't so innocent. The House, if you remember, passed a bill in March that would make sure these scheisters never get their CAIR-pushed "redress." But, unfortunately, the Senate is still dragging its feet. The World's Greatest Deliberative Body has still not moved the bill out of committee, a full eight months later.
As a paper in the Inland Empire put it a while back:
The passengers of US Airways Flight 300 did nothing wrong in November. In fact, the passengers did exactly what the federal government encourages travelers to do: report strange or suspicious activity. The six flying imams drew the attention of passengers and the flight crew by praying loudly, moving about the cabin in pairs and asking for seat belt extenders. Eventually, airport security officials determined that the imams posed no threat, but not before removing them from the flight.Federal government expects the public to sacrifice some liberty at airports for the sake of better security. The government should reward that sacrifice with protection from intimidating lawsuits.
Well, the government is not. And we're in big trouble if the courts keep fighting the war on terror for us.
Posted by Dr. Zaius at November 21, 2007 12:58 AM | TrackBackEr, actually, Zaius, the John Does are no longer part of the lawsuit. The lawyers for the imams agreed to drop the Does in August. Also, Congress finally passed the John Doe immunity legislation, which would have applied retroactively.
So it might be better to say that it was a bad day for airlines and their employees who listen to John Doe and do the responsible thing in an era of heightened vigilance.
Contrary to what Judge Montgomery wrote in her ruling -- which was the first of many rulings in this case -- I can't imagine that the imams have much of a chance to prevail in the long run.
From the story: "Montgomery, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, said the facts they alleged "support the existence of an unconstitutional custom of arresting individuals without probable cause based on their race."
Since when do Islam or religious ritual have anything to do with "race"?
Posted by: Ben at November 21, 2007 08:33 AMSince when do Islam or religious ritual have anything to do with "race"?
Despite the inescapable Orwellianism, the plain answer to the question posed is: "Since it became convenient."
It matters not how many times this is pointed out. Of course, I'll join you in the chorus, but we are like Cassandras.
Posted by: Monkey Brad at November 21, 2007 11:21 AMEr, well. Yes. I should read more carefully. My attempt at posting late at night and with speed failed.
However, if I read it right, I wouldn't have been able to write such a compelling headline.
And, as it is, this does effect future John Does. What good does it do for a John Doe to report suspicious behavior if the airlines will be scared to do anything about it because of the troubling progress of this lawsuit.
I wouldn't be so sure, Ben, about the scant chances of the plaintiffs here. A lot of mischief is afoot when the actions of the presiding judge is described as "most favorable to the plaintiffs."
Posted by: Dr. Zaius at November 22, 2007 10:29 AMMark my words: the imams will lose. Maybe not at trial, but certainly on appeal.
Posted by: Ben at November 22, 2007 11:02 AMIt should have been dismissed outright. That it has gone this far is a travesty.
Posted by: Dr. Zaius at November 22, 2007 11:17 AM