Flying Imams’ lawsuit “appears to be the latest component in a national campaign to intimidate airlines and government agencies from acting prudently to ensure passenger safety”
In “The Real Target of the 6 Imams” Discrimination Suit” in the Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten repeats what I have maintained from the beginning: that the entire Flying Imams incident is an attempt to get religious profiling outlawed, thus giving jihadists a free hand in airports — no matter how suspiciously they are acting, officials will be afraid to question them.
Note also that the Flying Imams’ lawsuit wants to sue the passengers who complained about their activity also.
Their lawsuit appears to be the latest component in a national campaign to intimidate airlines and government agencies from acting prudently to ensure passenger safety. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is advising the imams, is also calling for congressional hearings and promoting federal legislation to “end racial profiling” in air travel. If the legislation passes, airport personnel who disproportionately question passengers who are Muslim or of Middle Eastern origin could be subject to sanctions.
But the most alarming aspect of the imams” suit is buried in paragraph 21 of their complaint. It describes “John Doe” defendants whose identity the imams” attorneys are still investigating. It reads: “Defendants “˜John Does” were passengers “¦ who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged “suspicious” behavior of Plaintiffs” performing their prayer at the airport terminal.”
Paragraph 22 adds: “Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants"] liability “¦ at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same.”
In plain English, the imams plan to sue the “John Does,” too.
Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as “an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch” as they prayed. “The gentleman (“John Doe”) in the couple “¦ picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray,” then “moved to a corner” and “kept talking into his cellular phone.”
In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.
The imams” attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security. Average folks, “John Does” like you and me, initially observed and reported the imams” suspicious behavior on Nov. 20. Such people are our “first responders” against terrorism. But the imams” suit may frighten such individuals into silence, as they seek to avoid the nightmare of being labeled bigots and named as defendants.
Ironically, on the day the imams filed their suit, a troubling internal memo came to light at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The memo revealed that our airport is at particular risk of terrorist attack because of its proximity to the Mall of America, its employment of relatively few security officers and other factors. The memo advised heightened vigilance to counter “this very real and deliberate threat.”