Flight Club: How to be naughty on a plane

[Sidhe]

I think they did us a favor.

An unknown group of muslim men boarded a plane and acted suspiciously. It is a great test of our security protocols and no one was ever in any real danger.

That's a very wise view point, also very moot, but I kind of agree in an odd way.

 

[warpus]

Somehow I don't think that the next major terrorist attack carried out on U.S. soil is going to be perpetrated by six muslim men praying loudly.

 

[skadistic]

If this is true, lawsuit won.

NO that had squat to do with the actions taken by these men on the plane. It was the [pasengers and flight crew who grew suspicious by the actions of these men. That had nothing to do with the meeting they had or the notification of law agencies.

 

[Katheryn]

This is from the local paper in Minneapolis:

Katherine Kersten: The real purpose behind the imam publicity blitz
By Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune
Last update: December 14, 2006 – 11:17 AM

On Dec. 1, a curious report on the grounded-imams incident at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport appeared on the website of the Iranian Quran News Agency. The report quoted extensively from Madhi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation. The foundation is the American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, "the world's most influential Islamic fundamentalist group," according to the Chicago Tribune.
Bray's initial statement about the incident had an all-American, see-you-in-court ring. He demanded "large financial compensation for the imams," adding, "We want US Airways and any other airline displaying this type of behavior against Muslims to be hit where it hurts, the pocketbook."

The report echoed statements made by the imams themselves. Omar Shahin, their spokesman, has portrayed the incident in a way that's consistent with a lawsuit and a public relations offensive. He's called for a Jesse Jackson-style boycott of US Airways, and applied classic civil-rights rhetoric to the incident: "This is prejudice; this is obvious discrimination," the Star Tribune quoted him as saying. "I cannot change the color of my skin," he told Newsweek.

But the report on the Iranian website, which has appeared on a variety of Muslim websites worldwide, had a larger primary focus. After the imams incident, it quoted Bray as saying Muslims want "new, broad-sweeping legislation that will extract even larger financial and civil penalties for any airline that participates in racial and religious profiling."

The report is optimistic that Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, will lend his support to new legislation. Ellison, it says, has expressed his opposition to "such racial and religious profiling." Ellison, through a spokesman, declined to comment.

One piece of legislation in the works is the End Racial Profiling Act. It is an important priority of Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, whose district includes one of the largest Muslim populations in the country. Conyers introduced the bill in 2004 and 2005, but it went nowhere. Now the alignment of forces may be changing. Conyers will probably be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes next month.

Nancy Pelosi, who called herself a "proud" cosponsor of the Profiling Act in 2004, is the incoming House speaker. And in January, Ellison, who represents the district where the imams incident occurred, will take his seat in Congress.

The act, although it doesn't as yet impose large penalties, would bar any federal, state or local law enforcement agency from "relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities." That would include questioning, searches and seizures.

One of the act's central features is its definition of illegal profiling. Under it, if airport security personnel question passengers who are disproportionately Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent, this alone would constitute a presumptive violation of the law. Law enforcement agencies would bear the burden of proving that discrimination was not the cause.

What would the effect of such a law be?

"A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety," said Daniel Horan of the Los Angeles Police Department in an interview. He worked at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues for 6 years.

In the past few weeks the public relations campaign for the Profiling Act has moved into high gear. On Tuesday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations advised American Muslims to beware of the dangers of "flying while Muslim." In light of recent allegations of "airport profiling," it said, the council has set up a toll-free hotline for pilgrims traveling to Mecca for the hajj, or annual pilgrimage, who believe that their rights have been violated.

The End of Racial Profiling Act has languished until now. What did it need to reinvigorate it? New congressional leadership, and that's coming in January. But it needed something else in this media age: a high-profile incident to jump-start it.

What better than the media circus at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on Nov. 20?


Katherine Kersten • kkersten@startribune.com


Join the conversation at my blog, Think Again, which can be found at www.startribune.com/thinkagain.

 

[emzie]

Somehow I don't think that the next major terrorist attack carried out on U.S. soil is going to be perpetrated by six muslim men praying loudly.

Ding ding ding!

 

[Katheryn]

Ordering imams off flight was a reasonable act

By Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune

Last update: December 06, 2006 – 11:56 PM

US Airways' treatment of the six imams on Flight 300 on Nov. 20 is being widely portrayed as a discriminatory act against pious men who were just practicing their religion. The imams' only mistake was "flying while Muslim," charges the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation. "If up to now [Americans] don't know about prayers, this is a real problem," said Omar Shahin, one of the six and president of North American Imams Federation, whose conference the group had attended in Bloomington.
But the incident involved far more than prayers. A "suspicious" pattern of behavior unfolded that day, according to the airport police report, handwritten witness statements attached to that report and US Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader.

Based on what they knew at the time, the crew and law enforcement officials made reasonable decisions to safeguard the passengers in their care.

The incident began with the imams praying very loudly, almost shouting, according to Rader and a witness statement attached to the police report. (The report does not name any witnesses.) One passenger on Flight 300 observed something else. The imams "seemed angry," and had a "heated discussion" by the ticket counter, he wrote in his statement. The men spoke about the U.S. and "killing Saddam," and two of the men then swore under their breath.

The imams' demeanor changed markedly when boarding was called, the passenger reported. "The men then chanted, 'Allah, Allah, Allah!'," he wrote in his witness statement. "They walked in line for the flight, composed and calm, very different than they had been behind the wall/screen of the desk."

A second passenger, who wrote in his statement that he often travels to the Middle East, also found the imams' conduct "atypical for my experience with Muslims, including ... the way in which they observed their prayers."

But while many passengers observed the imams at prayer, not one passenger refused to board the plane, or apparently even mentioned the matter to US Airways personnel at the time, according to Rader.

Once the imams were on the plane, the crew noticed some of them switching seats. Two sat in first class, though a gate agent had, according to a statement, earlier rejected Shahin's request for a second first class seat, since none were available. One imam "stood at row 4C and pretended to be blind" in an apparent effort to persuade another passenger to switch seats, an off-duty flight attendant wrote in a statement. (The imams claim that he is blind.)

The imams ended up spread out: two in the front of the aircraft, two in the middle, and two in the rear. The 9/11 hijackers used this configuration, which potentially allows control of the area around the cockpit door and all the exit rows, according to Rader. Shahin, the group's leader, sat in seat 1D, closest to the cockpit.

As time passed, several passengers, including an Arabic speaker seated near one of the imams, approached the crew to report suspicions.

Three imams requested seat belt extensions, which increased the crew's concern. "I did not see they actually needed them," one off-duty flight attendant said of two of them in a statement. "They were not overweight."

The extensions are used by people who can't make the regular belts fit. The three imams who requested extensions weighed in, according to the police report and Rader, at 6 feet 1 inch and 201 pounds, 5 feet nine and 170 pounds, and 6 feet and 230 pounds.

An extension is a belt with a heavy buckle that can be turned into a weapon by being wrapped around a fist or used as a noose to take a hostage, according to Rader. After the imams deplaned, crew members discovered extensions -- not affixed to the seatbelts, but rolled up and placed beneath the seats, Rader said.

One passenger, whom the police report describes as "clergy," purposely struck up a conversation with an imam seated next to him. "I travel to Turkey frequently and know many Muslims personally," he wrote in his statement. The imam "expressed views I consider to be extreme Muslim fundamentalist views." The man discussed the problems of countries that don't observe sharia (Islamic law). "He indicated that it was necessary to go to whatever measures necessary to obey all that's set out in the Qur'an," the passenger wrote.

Clearly, pilot John Howard Wood had to weigh many factors in deciding to ask the imams to get off the plane. He consulted with his flight crew, the US Airways ground security coordinator, and the airline's security office in Phoenix. All thought the imams' behavior was suspicious, according to Rader. The captain learned during these discussions that three imams apparently had only one-way tickets and only one had checked luggage -- suspicious factors after 9/11. The subsequent investigation suggests that they may have changed their reservations, which wouldn't have been apparent at the time, says Rader.

Airport police and a federal air marshal were dispatched to the gate. Officer Brad Wingate wrote in his report: "[T]he request for seatbelt extensions, the prior praying and utterances about Allah and the U.S. in the gate area and the seating configuration chosen among the traveling group was suspicious." The FBI instructed airport police to detain the imams for questioning, according to Wingate's report, and the Secret Service participated.

The imams deny engaging in suspicious behavior. But "we are absolutely backing this crew," says Rader.

The airline's pilots' union agrees. "The crew's actions were strictly in compliance with procedures and demonstrated overall good judgment in the care and concern for their passengers, fellow crew members, and the company," said Captain Barry Kendrick, chairman of the pilots' Air Carrier Security Committee.

Thousands of Muslims pray and fly in America every day. The incident on Flight 300 wasn't about prayer.

So, as you can see, it was a ruse.

Their goals:

Anti-racial profiling legislation
Money settlement from lawsuit

 

[Adamb0mb]

Pay who for their services? The Imams want the airline to pay them a cash payout of millions of dollars as an alternative to a lawsuit. Why "should" they pay them?

I think they did us a favor.

An unknown group of muslim men boarded a plane and acted suspiciously. It is a great test of our security protocols and no one was ever in any real danger.

My point was we should take this as a lesson and not get too worked up and overreact.

You did not read the Business Investor's Weekly article. They have legislators that have already created the legislation. John Conyers, the article said. He is pretty high up now in the Democrat party. He has the ability to do it.

I read the 'article'. Its an opinion piece and a poor one at that:

They want to kill the Patriot Act and prevent the FBI from profiling Muslim suspects in terror investigations. They also want to end the use of undisclosed evidence against suspected Arab terrorists in deportation proceedings.

And the 77-year-old Conyers has vowed to deliver those changes for them.

"..." he growls.

Conyers led the defense of Bill Clinton in last decade's impeachment hearings and is clearly out for blood. So are many of the constituents he serves.

An obviously biased and inflammatory editorial. I like the image of the congressmen growling though.

 

[Katheryn]

I might agree with this:

#21
Sidhe
Dreamin' of Memphis




Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 7,468 Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamb0mb
I think they did us a favor.

An unknown group of muslim men boarded a plane and acted suspiciously. It is a great test of our security protocols and no one was ever in any real danger.

That's a very wise view point, also very moot, but I kind of agree in an odd way.
__________________

... except for the fact that the mainstream media has not reported anything except to show the Imams were discriminated against. Paula Zahn called the Imams a contemporary act of ROSA PARKS, the woman who started the Civil Rights Movement when she refused to be segregated on a public bus in the 1960s.

Haven't heard any retractions to that, has anyone else?

 

[Katheryn]

My point was we should take this as a lesson and not get too worked up and overreact.



I read the 'article'. Its an opinion piece and a poor one at that:



An obviously biased and inflammatory editorial. I like the image of the congressmen growling though.

The best reporting can be read here:


http://www.startribune.com/191/story/866867.html


That is the local paper where the incident happened.

And I think it is a pretty important incident, seeing that legislation may be put into the U.S. laws which will make it illegal to keep our airplanes safe, legislation that was implemented because of this BOGUS incident.

 

[Sidhe]

I might agree with this:





... except for the fact that the mainstream media has not reported anything except to show the Imams were discriminated against. Paula Zahn called the Imams a contemporary act of ROSA PARKS, the woman who started the Civil Rights Movement when she refused to be segregated on a public bus in the 1960s.

Haven't heard any retractions to that, has anyone else?

You are right of course. I think it's horrible what they did, but in an odd way, it would help security on planes, sorry if I gave any other impression, I think there are better ways to advocate discrimination and these guys went beyond the pale.

 

[warpus]

Their goals:

Anti-racial profiling legislation

I hope that we can all agree that racism is bad. mmkay

?

 

[skadistic]

I hope that we can all agree that racism is bad. mmkay

?

Racism and racial prophiling are not the same....

 

[warpus]

Racism and racial prophiling are not the same....

Racial profiling is a form of racism.

 

[Katheryn]

I think they did us a favor.

An unknown group of muslim men boarded a plane and acted suspiciously. It is a great test of our security protocols and no one was ever in any real danger.

They are not unknown.

These are Imams that are associated with the same mosques where the 9-11 hijackers fellowshipped. It is in the Star Tribune article.

All six were at the Imam Conference that day, where the new Congressman Keith Ellison was speaking. Ellison spoke the very morning at the Imams of America Conference. All six are Imams of large mosques in the area.

Now, CAIR has a hotline, where the encourage Muslims to call and make complaints during the holiday season.

It is expected to be a very difficult flying season.

The Washington Post described these links in a 2002 article. "Tucson was one of the first points of contact in the United States for the jihadist group that evolved into al Qaeda," the Post reported. And the ICT? It held "basically the first cell of al Qaeda in the United States; that is where it all started," said Rita Katz, a terrorism expert quoted by the Post.

ICT members have included high-profile terrorists. Wael Hamza Jelaidan, the mosque's leader in the mid-1980s, was identified by the U.S. government as a " 'co-founder' of al Qaeda and its logistics chief," the Post reported.

Another former member, Wadi Hage, served as Osama bin Laden's personal secretary after leaving Arizona, the Post said, attributing it to government sources. Hage established a bin Laden support network in Arizona and "this network is still in place," Emerson wrote in his book "Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.," citing a 2002 Senate Intelligence Committee Report. In 2001, Hage was convicted of plotting the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The best-known terrorist with apparent (according to the Post and Emerson) connections to the ICT is Hani Hanjour, who piloted the plane that flew into the Pentagon on 9/11. Hanjour took aviation lessons in Tucson in the late 1990s.

http://www.startribune.com/191/story/866867.html

 

[skadistic]

Racial profiling is a form of racism.

Yea sure it is.

 

[Adamb0mb]

I might agree with this:
... except for the fact that the mainstream media has not reported anything except to show the Imams were discriminated against. Paula Zahn called the Imams a contemporary act of ROSA PARKS, the woman who started the Civil Rights Movement when she refused to be segregated on a public bus in the 1960s.

Haven't heard any retractions to that, has anyone else?

The mainstream media's purpose is to infrom the general public and apparently they think the public is more interested with the 'civil rights slant' on the story than the 'national security slant'. Either way the story gets out and the public more informed than before. I think a better debate would be encouraged if the media took the latter stance but this isn't a discussion about the media, this is a discussion about a specific incident on an airline.

That being said, the general public does not determine security policy. I would hope that the people that do are better informed and I am sure they are looking at this chain of events with an eye for inproving public safety.

 

[Katheryn]

I hope that we can all agree that racism is bad. mmkay

?

It is not a racial issue.

Islamic people come from all races.

Unfortunately for all Islamic people, EVERY time in the last 20 years that a plane has down during an act of terrorism, the words, ALLAH AKBAR are yelled aloud in the plane.

This is one of the things that these Imams did, called out "Allah Akbar" very loudly as they walked down the aisles of the plane.

That was one of the criteria for asking the Imams to leave the plane. I heard on the radio yesterday, from an airline stewardess, that that particular act takes the incident to a 'LEVEL ONE'.

 

[warpus]

Yea sure it is.

Racial Profiling: the consideration of race when developing a profile of suspected criminals; by extension, a form of racism involving police focus on people of certain racial groups when seeking suspected criminals

 

[Adamb0mb]

They are not unknown.

These are Imams that are associated with the same mosques where the 9-11 hijackers fellowshipped. It is in the Star Tribune article.

I am sure they are well known by now. At the time of the incident though, I would suspect they were relatively unfamiliar to the passengers and airline crew.

 

[warpus]

Call it what you want, singling out individuals due to their skin colour, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. is not something we should be doing.