News The Imams removed from US Air flight - the real story?

[Anttech]

This is about how the real reasons for the Imams removal from the plane were not fully disclosed at first. The Imams claimed they were being persecuted for saying silent pryers, which is NOT the reason at all. We know now there were other much more disruptive behavior that was the cause.

I am still to see any evidence that what was said about them was true, (not sitting in proper seats, etc etc) or what they said was true. Seems this discussion is dead in the water until we know for sure what happened. Imams are very religious people, and the majority of them don't lie. In fact IMO more people hate Islam and would slander law abiding Imams, out of prejudiced than Imams would Lie. Yes there a few Bigot Imam's who preach Hate and Jihad, same as there are a few Bigot Christians who would slander someone of a different Faith...

If this was a Orthodox Priest, in his full attire I wonder what would have happened, or a bunch of Nuns..

 

[Evo]

I am still to see any evidence that what was said about them was true, (not sitting in proper seats, etc etc) or what they said was true.

Anttech, there was an eyewitness interview of a passenger posted in the CNN link. This has also been verfied by an investigation by the airline (see Washington Post article).

 

[kyleb]

Could you please quote whatever says they were not sitting in their proper seats? I don't recall such information being disclosed in either of the sources you mention.

 

[daveb]

The Washington Post article says nothing about the airline verifying that they didn't take their seats. It only says

a spokeswoman for US Airways, said yesterday that the airline has completed its investigation of the incident and has concluded that the flight crew was justified in its actions.

This doesn't mean what was written in the WSJ article (an opinion piece I might add) was true, nor that the Post's article was telling the truth in saying that they wouldn't take their seats. The same goes for the seatbelts and everything else. All we know at this point is 1) They were praying, and 2) This somehow created a disruption, which caused them to be ejected from the plane. Until US Airways comes out and says "they didn't take their assigned seats and this is why they were ejected" (or something like that) I tend to, as Rach3 pointed out, assume them innocent until proven guilty (OK, that's for criminal matters, so let's only go with a preponderance of the evidence). The fact the airline, as far as I've seen, has not issued any such statement makes me believe the Imams version of things. However...

It is true that a captain has the authority to remove anyone from his plane if he perceives they are being disruptive. I tend to go with the captain, and that he believed it was being disruptive somehow. What is troubling is that the airline subsequently denied passage (though being a business, that is also their right).

As to whether someone praying in a public space should be banned or not, there are dozens of things thers do every day in public spaces that annoy the crap out of me. I don't believe they should be banned, cause I guarantee there are things I do that annoy the crap out of others.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm not sure of details. However, it seems that the plane never left the ground. That could explain why the seatbelt extenders were not engaged.

 

[Evo]

"Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

"According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061128-122902-7522r.htm

The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.

A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.

"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.

"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."

The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.

"If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."

http://wpherald.com/articles/2303/2/Strange-behavior-grounded-imams/Imams-attended-religious-conference.html

Now of course these are just eyewitness accounts from people that were there.

And as the article points out "Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents. "

It's a shame that a group of respected, well educated men could make such bad decisions. Perhaps there is some reasonable explanation for their actions, so far they haven't offered any.

 

[MeJennifer]

I am not sure why there is all this fuss about the Imams.

I think that whenever people act strangely in a plane, Imams or not, the pilot and security personnel has an obligation to question the situation and take any action they deem necessary.

 

[kyleb]

"Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

"According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061128-122902-7522r.htm

The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.

A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.

"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.

"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."

The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.

"If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."

http://wpherald.com/articles/2303/2/Strange-behavior-grounded-imams/Imams-attended-religious-conference.html

Now of course these are just eyewitness accounts from people that were there.

Yet the articles don't name anyone who was there, so we are completely at the mercy of the author to as to the legitimacy of those accounts, the same author in both articles, and in both articles presented by Moonie publications no less. Also, I'm still at a loss as to find anything in the CNN link or Washington Post article back the claim of the Imans were not sitting in their proper seats, despite your previous suggestion to the contrary.

 

[Evo]

Yet the articles don't name anyone who was there, so we are completely at the mercy of the author to as to the legitimacy of those accounts, the same author in both articles, and in both articles presented by Moonie publications no less. Also, I'm still at a loss as to find anything in the CNN link or Washington Post article back the claim of the Imans were not sitting in their proper seats, despite your previous suggestion to the contrary.

The CNN article was changed, here is the most recent "Once on board, Knocke said, the six split up into groups of two and did not sit in their assigned seats."

Also there is video of a passenger describing the Imams changing seats.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed/

"

 

[russ_watters]

Yet the articles don't name anyone who was there, so we are completely at the mercy of the author to as to the legitimacy of those accounts, the same author in both articles, and in both articles presented by Moonie publications no less. Also, I'm still at a loss as to find anything in the CNN link or Washington Post article back the claim of the Imans were not sitting in their proper seats, despite your previous suggestion to the contrary.

Did you watch the video clip and see/hear the eyewitness accounts?

How about this one: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed/index.html

It gives direct quotes from named and unnamed DHS and airline officials.

 

[Anttech]

I like this part:

The passenger thought the imams -- who were speaking in Arabic and English -- had made anti-U.S. statements before boarding and "made similar statements while boarding," said Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.

How to evoke an emotional response right from the get off

Anttech, there was an eyewitness interview of a passenger posted in the CNN link. This has also been verfied by an investigation by the airline (see Washington Post article).

"We do not tolerate discrimination of any kind and will continue to exhaust our internal investigation until we know the facts of this case and can provide answer for the employees and customers involved in this incident," the airline said in a written statement.

This part is from the Airline, from the CNN Link they are admitting they don't know all the facts. Why are you trying prejudge what happened, without all the facts?

I will reserve the right to not judge these people until I know exactly what happened. To not do that Smacks of Discrimination IMHO. And I still believe this discussion is dead in the water until we know for sure what happened, because we dont.

 

[verty]

I will reserve the right to not judge these people until I know exactly what happened. To not do that Smacks of Discrimination IMHO. And I still believe this discussion is dead in the water until we know for sure what happened, because we dont.

Then express your judgement contingently. Say "if they refused to take their assigned seats, they were rightly removed". You needn't suspend judgement; doing so seems to me to indicate that you don't want to criticize a potentially wrong action because Muslims are involved.

 

[russ_watters]

This part is from the Airline, from the CNN Link they are admitting they don't know all the facts. Why are you trying prejudge what happened, without all the facts?

Wonderful cop-out. We can never know all the facts about anything.

We know a lot of the facts here. Enough to make educated judgements.

Right now, we have two categories of arguments here:

1. Arguing against facts.
2. Arguing that there aren't enough facts.

You guys are both refusing to make a judgement based on what are clear and well-documented facts. Rediculous.

 

[Anttech]

We know a lot of the facts here. Enough to make educated judgements. <snip>You guys are both refusing to make a judgement based on what are clear and well-documented facts. Rediculous.

Clearly the airline disagrees with you, considering they are reserving judgement. There is a case that they were being discriminated against, I won't jump on the bandwagon and condemn them until that angle has been investigated

 

[Anttech]

Then express your judgement contingently. Say "if they refused to take their assigned seats, they were rightly removed".

If they refused to take their assigned seats, and there isn't some reason why they couldnt, they would have been rightly removed if they failed to comply to reasonable requests of the crew.

happy?

 

[Evo]

This part is from the Airline, from the CNN Link they are admitting they don't know all the facts. Why are you trying prejudge what happened, without all the facts?

Clearly the airline disagrees with you, considering they are reserving judgement.

Wrong. "Valerie Wunder, a spokeswoman for US Airways, said yesterday that the airline has completed its investigation of the incident and has concluded that the flight crew was justified in its actions."

It would really help if you would read through the thread to make sure your point is correct before posting, I have answered this aat least twice now.

This was linked in the Washington Post article on the first page. The Airline did finish their investigation and have decided that the airline personnel acted appropriately and are standing behind them. Because the Imams have filed a law suit, which is what this thread is about, there is nothing more that the Airline can say at this time.

 

[russ_watters]

Clearly the airline disagrees with you, considering they are reserving judgement. There is a case that they were being discriminated against, I won't jump on the bandwagon and condemn them until that angle has been investigated

The airline is gathering as much information as possible, as well they should, for legal reasons. However, you are incorrect in saying that they are reserving judgement: they have stated explicitly that they support the actions of their pilots, while they of course have the right to expand/change in the future.

You, on the other hand, are an individual who has individual judgements and prejudices and like all individuals, you are capable of making judgements on whatever facts you have available. And you are not constrained by what prevents the airline from stating a clear conclusion (beyond that they support their pilots). It seems clear from your unwillingness to even acknowledge clear evidence, much less discuss it, that have formed an opinion, absent any factual basis.

 

[russ_watters]

If they refused to take their assigned seats, and there isn't some reason why they couldnt, they would have been rightly removed if they failed to comply to reasonable requests of the crew.

happy?

It is a start. Could you acknowledge that it is a fact that they did not take their assigned seats?

Could you acknowledge that it is a fact that they asked for and received seatbelt extensions they did not need or use?

 

[BobG]

Wrong. "Valerie Wunder, a spokeswoman for US Airways, said yesterday that the airline has completed its investigation of the incident and has concluded that the flight crew was justified in its actions."

It would really help if you would read through the thread to make sure your point is correct before posting, I have answered this aat least twice now.

This was linked in the Washington Post article on the first page. The Airline did finish their investigation and have decided that the airline personnel acted appropriately and are standing behind them. Because the Imams have filed a law suit, which is what this thread is about, there is nothing more that the Airline can say at this time.

I would tend to agree that the most likely truth is that the imams intentionally provoked the issue. Every individual action they committed was legal, but the combination of all the actions together are what made the flight crew's actions reasonable.

It is an effective way to embarrass the airline - the fact that there is no crime to prosecute lends credibility to the imam's story. It gives the tilt that they are indeed being persecuted for being Middle Eastern Muslims - and it's entirely likely that their ethnic origins played some part in the flight crew's decision.

There's precedence for racial and ethnic fairness taking precedence over risk, as well. Taxi cab drivers failing to pick up blacks or hispanics or refusing to take blacks or hispanics to certain parts of town because of a perceived increase in the risk of being robbed or assaulted is a pretty controversial topic. (http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Classes/PPA786/Readings/taxi.htm )

Interestingly, searching for the topic of taxi drivers and race, another controversy popped up in the search pages. Over 50% of cab drivers serving the Minneapolis-St Paul airport are Muslim. One of the controversies affecting Muslim taxi cab drivers is the American Disabilities Act, which requires operators of public transportation to allow service animals (i.e. - seeing eye dogs) to accompany disabled passengers (http://www.adainfo.org/publications/newsletter/2003_vol8_num2.asp ) and whether some Minneapolis Muslim taxi drivers have to pick up passengers carrying alcohol whether open or closed. I'm not sure if the controversy is anyhow related or just a coincidental side issue, but it does raise some separate issues about race, religion, and public transportation.

 

[Evo]

Good points BobG.

Anyway, I think all the threads on these subjects have worn themselves into the ground. Time to say goodbye.