Friday, March 30, 2007
"The John Doe Manifesto"
Note: Earlier this month, six publicity-seeking imams filed a federal lawsuit against US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission in Minneapolis/St. Paul. The Muslim clerics were removed from their flight last November and questioned for several hours after their suspicious behavior alarmed both passengers and crew members. Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten reported last week that the imams, advised by the grievance-mongers at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, also plan to sue "John Does" — innocent bystanders who alerted the authorities about their security concerns. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., has introduced legislation to protect John Does who report suspicious behavior from legal liability. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; talk show host Michael Reagan; Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; and Minnesota lawyer Gerry Nolting have all stepped forward to offer free representation to the imams' targets.
Well, those vigilent "John Does" now have a manifesto, sort of a manifesto for the "army of Davids." Read it all. (For background, dig through these posts at Power Line.)
The court should deny the motion to add these John Does to the lawsuit on grounds of public policy. It is an obvious attempt to intimidate and therefore weaken the vigilence of our citizenry, which is by far our most important defense against the Islamist insurgency. Vigilent airline passengeres should not have to deal with process servers, hire lawyers, or pay any price whatsoever for alerting authorities to the outrageous antics of the "flying imams." Rather, anybody who flies -- regardless of religion or appearance -- owes it to their fellow passengers to do everything possible to put them at ease. A jetliner is no place for demonstrations, manufacturing test cases, or "speaking truth to power." The passengers are "prepackaged hostages," and the device itself is a weapon of enormous destructive power. Disruptive behavior in that envrionment is inherently dangerous. How could it be otherwise?
The flying imams were -- at best -- deliberately provacative, pushing the boundaries of civility in order to provoke a response. That may be legitimate dissent in the public square, but it is totally unacceptable on an aircraft.
11 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Fri Mar 30, 07:16:00 AM:
pushing the boundaries of civility in order to provoke a response
It was a probe to see exactly where the limits were.
By 
, at
Fri Mar 30, 10:29:00 AM:
The objective of terrorists is to scare the s--t out of as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. As a result of one brilliant act, the imams have: 1. threatened the very existence of the airline industry and flying public, and 2. tying our juducial system in knots rendering it less able to function properly.
Not bad for a days work......
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 30, 03:51:00 PM:
I wonder if there is a case to be made that all overt praying in a large airport is illegal, since all major airports are financed with public money (typically raised with municipal bonds with a city, state or county being the issuer), and that therefore there is a separation of church and state issue here. There is no prayer in a public school, or in a municipal building of any kind -- why in an airport? Where is the ACLU when you need them?
Could they be on the other side of this case?
Silent and unobtrusive prayer would be exempt from such a prohibition, I would think.
Of course, it was the conduct of the Imams on the airplane itself (more so than at the gate) that was so provocative and troubling.
Give these guys credit for being smart enough to hoist us on our own petard of political correctness (bending over backwards to accommodate other cultures, as opposed to the idea that people new to this country should assimilate to some extent and adopt "American" habits and attitudes, as was the case a generation or two ago).
Their behavior was a bit too over the top, and ultimately that will weaken their legal case, I believe.
Most Muslims are rather private in their prayer (unless at Mosque, which is obviously a public place of prayer). Asking for the belt extenders on the airplane was just too much and has no reasonable explanation, and that act by itself will kill their case.
Maybe next year we'll hear of a case of 10 really fat Imams walking on a plane and asking for belt extenders, and it would then seem more reasonable.
What a bunch of jerks these guys were. If that ever happened at a gate that I was waiting at, it would be pretty tempting to a) first ask them to quiet down and stop disturbing the peace, and b) if/when they failed to do (a), firmly place them under citizen's arrest, and then maybe go a little Sipowicz on them if they resisted.
By , at
Fri Mar 30, 05:38:00 PM:
I'm no lawyer, but I do believe that an airliner is a special case where you are subject to special rules. If you need to face Mecca and pray, do it before you board the airliner. If not, don't get belligerent when you're told to chill out. The same goes for drunks, people who don't obey the fasten seat belt signs, shoe bombers, and other assholes.
There are few recent cases of such activists who are trying to make whatever fool point they might believe is their right ... they deboarded in body bags. 9/11 changed things. While the debate will rage, with Dems crying about civil liberties and all that crap, I figure my fellow passengers can count on me, and I fly a lot. I'd rather face a frivilous lawsuit for kicking the crap out of some clown than face my maker prematurely (because I was too cowardly than to stand up and do the right thing).
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Mar 30, 08:37:00 PM:
and that therefore there is a separation of church and state issue here.
What religion does an airport endorse?
Its freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Mar 30, 09:12:00 PM:
Many airports have chapels of some sort. I even attended Mass at DFW once. I was traveling on business and I had a long layover, and I heard the announcement that Mass would begin in the chapel located near to where I was, and I had plenty of time.
However, praying loudly in the seating area, and then continuing with very suspicious behavior once you are on the plane goes too far. I'm glad the airline hasn't backed down on this (at least I haven't heard of any backing down).
I haven't flown since probably the fall of 2004. I can't say that I miss it, especially now with the additional restrictions resulting from last summer's trans-Atlantic terrorism scare...
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 30, 11:06:00 PM:
Purple + Ladybug -
Sorry I didn't make it clear that was tongue-in-cheek. There are some nice chapels in large airports, and not just for those who have fear of flying.
The restrictions are a pain in terms of carrying on fluid. I was at a Bed, Bath & Beyond this week, and they sell a kit with a zip lock and a bunch of plastic containers for $10.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Sat Mar 31, 01:45:00 AM:
I used to travel for business. I changed jobs in Dec 2004, and now I'm a teacher, so the only travel I do now would be recreational, and I can't yet afford that, since I just graduated with my M.Ed. in December and am not yet teaching in my own classroom - that should begin next school year...
By Tom the Redhunter, at
Sat Mar 31, 12:19:00 PM:
As some commenters have noticed, the lawsuit by the "flying Imams" is an attempt at intimidation. CAIR is an apologist for jihad.
If we give an inch these guys will take a mile. It's like the taxi drivers at the Minneapolis airport who are refusing to pick up passengers carrying alcohol, or the cashiers at Target refusing to swipe pork products.
Muslims in Europe are not assimilating into our society, they are demanding that we assimilate into theirs.
By JorgXMcKie, at
Sat Mar 31, 07:44:00 PM:
IANAL and I don't play one on tv, but perhaps some of the passengers could sue the imams and their respective mosques for harassment, and some sort of suit for deliberately provoking fear in an airplane. Maybe they'd end up owing a mosque and could convert it to a lard factory or something.
I really do think that enough civil counter suits could suck a lot of money out of the provocateurs and it might stop.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Apr 01, 12:09:00 PM:
I have no professional legal background to assess the probability, but I agree with Jorg's idea of retaliation. If each one of those accused passengers counter-sued for intimidation, harrassment, or extortion or whatever terms best fit the situation, I strongly suspect that the law would land on their side every time.
