| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Now they are, now they aren't. It hardly matters at this point if they end up not suing the passengers: their threat to do so has gotten so much publicity that the chilling effect on reporting suspicious behavior will set in anyway. But according to this, they are backing down because of the new immunity provision, as flawed as it is. From KSTP.com (thanks to all who sent this in):
Six imams removed from a U.S. Airways plane said they would not sue the passengers whose concerns led them to being kicked off a flight in November.In federal court Tuesday, the attorney for the imams said, "We don't contemplate naming any private passenger as a defendant."
After being removed from their flight, the imams sued the airport, the airline and 'John Does,' which left open the possibility of suing anonymous passengers.
The attorney for one of the passengers says the imams' offer comes only as congress is about to give immunity to those reporting suspicious behavior.
"The offer is only made after congress passes the immunity provision with the threat of assessing fees and costs against parties suing those making reports in good faith," Gerry Nolting said.
Posted by Robert at August 1, 2007 7:56 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
And if they had gone ahead with the suit we may have learned a bit more about their meeting with Keith Ellison in that motel.
Apart from this immunity legislation (watered down as it is) the US needs to move to the British concept of loser pays in the courtroom. Trivial law suits like this one simply don't happen under that system. And there aren't any down sides - except for lawyers.
Posted by: Brett_McS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 1, 2007 8:16 AM
Robert captures the essence of the multicultural ethos at FPM today:
"The cognitive dissonance regarding Muslims since 9/11 is ultimately what has given birth to 9/11 conspiracy theories, Reichstag fire analogies, and the like. Muslims can’t be responsible, because they are non-white, non-Christian, non-Westerners. It must be something we have done."
Posted by: Cornelius at August 1, 2007 8:17 AM
Their noisy and prolonged threat of suit, however, no doubt has caused severe emotional stress to those passengers who had been-- rationally -- suspicious of them and reported them. In such circumstances, should not there be a lawsuit against the six imams for that very threat, and the way it continued until the very last, when Congressional legislation about those "John Does" was coming to the rescue?
Posted by: Hugh at August 1, 2007 8:18 AM
Re: Imams not suing flight passengers
I think they are pretty stressed out by the knowledge that there is a good chance that their lies are going to be exposed on You-tube. I'll bet there were more Sky Marshals on that flight with video cameras than anyone can possibly imagine. When the public sees the videos they will be outraged at what these guys did on that plane. The Flying Imams may even sing to the FBI and give them details about CAIR and others role in the set-up to save themselves from going to jail. Then they will be known as "the Singing Imams".
If they were telling the truth they would be eager for publicity. Instead, their lawyers want to keep the public out of court proceedings. Eventually the Flying Imams are going to star on Candid Camera and everybody will know why they have been so "stressed" (to use the word their lawyers to describe their state of mind) at a recent hearing that tried to bar the public from the courtroom in the matter.
at August 1, 2007 8:39 AM
Cornelius, from my own attempts at trying to reason with leftists, what it often comes down to is:
Muslims can’t be responsible because there are 1.2 billion of them.
The sheer scale of the problem creates the cognitive dissonance, in my opinion.
Isn't that, in essence, so often what Islamic apologists like Dinesh D'Souza are saying?
There are too many of them; don't make them mad.
at August 1, 2007 8:43 AM
"Muslims can’t be responsible because there are 1.2 billion of them.
The sheer scale of the problem creates the cognitive dissonance, in my opinion.
Isn't that, in essence, so often what Islamic apologists like Dinesh D'Souza are saying?
There are too many of them; don't make them mad."
-- from a posting above
Yes, and acute. The apologetics and wilful misunderstandings of the particular example you cite, however (Dinesh D'Souza) likely has other promptings.
at August 1, 2007 9:08 AM
The bottom line is...
they knew they pushed their luck to the point of risking jeopardizing their "religion of peace" BS, and knew the limits of American patience had been reached...and they knew they risked a lot more than just bad PR.
Just goes to show this site, which was among the first (if not THE first) to shed the light of truth on those cockroaches, is instrumental in exposing the lies, fraud and deceit of said islamists, and calls their words and actions into account whenever and wherever they are encountered...which is the REAL reason douggie the druggie hoopty...ooops, I mean hooper, is so unhinged...he can't continue his racketeering and hucksterisms with impunity anymore.
Get used to it, hoopty...your fraud is finished.
Posted by: jcom972 at August 1, 2007 9:12 AM
MIKE_W: "The sheer scale of the problem creates the cognitive dissonance, in my opinion."
RESPONSE: No question. If Islam were a religion practiced by a few thousand Bedouin in the hinterlands of the Arabian desert, it would be seen for what it is, a bizarre, misogynist cult. Instead, it commands respect as "one of the world's great religions."
MIKE_W: "The sheer scale of the problem creates the cognitive dissonance, in my opinion.
Isn't that, in essence, so often what Islamic apologists like Dinesh D'Souza are saying?
There are too many of them; don't make them mad."
RESPONSE: I once had a conversation with an intelligent but politically-correct librarian in which she inadvertently corroborated everything you just wrote. She was touting the validity and necessity of multiculturalism, not necessarily because it rests on sound ethical and logical principles, but because if it fails to tame the 'other,' "we're all screwed" (her exact words)...i.e., 'we're best off pretending Islam is peace, lest our worst fears are realized.'
Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it better.
Posted by: Cornelius at August 1, 2007 9:19 AM
The imam's suit will go down in flames. CAIR will be further exposed. Spencer and Co. will plod along, undaunted by the false accusations by Islamists and Islamist apologists alike.
Life is good.
Posted by: awake at August 1, 2007 9:34 AM
from Hugh:
"In such circumstances, should not there be a lawsuit against the six imams for that very threat, and the way it continued until the very last, when Congressional legislation about those "John Does" was coming to the rescue? "
In the way the lawsuit was styled the Imans, in addition to naming the airline, named several UNIDENTIFIED "John Does" as defendants. The specific identities of future defendants were persons to be named later.
Any action filed by the persons who reported the Imans (these "John Does") would require they identify themselves by legal name. The Imans will immediatly respond that any "John Doe" who claims they are entitled to damages, costs and fees, incurred those damages fees and costs out of speculation that they would be named. Until the Imans specifically identified those persons by name and included those names in the lawsuit and served papers on each one of them, the damages incurred by John Does were incurred by quessing they would be named defendants.
On a related note though, the story ends with this:
"The offer is only made after congress passes the immunity provision with the threat of assessing fees and costs against parties suing those making reports in good faith,"
I must have missed something when this statute passed weeks ago. Is there a provision in that statute for recovery of fees and costs against one who sues someone who reported the suspicious activity in good faith?
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at August 1, 2007 9:34 AM
Here's your hat, and dont let the door slam you on the way out, you lying perverse people.
The only way these imams should be flying is if we catapult them into the air for target practise.
Is there an award for venality (mostly for their lawyers) ?
Posted by: dgene at August 1, 2007 9:42 AM
Maybe the passengers should sue the immams and the TSA / Gov. for not arresting these suckers who were in violation of many protocols.
at August 1, 2007 12:53 PM
The Washington Times reported back in March ("Moderate Muslim Group to Help Defend Airline Passengers in Flying Imams Suit") that the AIDF, offered to defend the "John Does" at no cost. BTW- before you reflexively dismiss this, you should note that the AIDF is an organization that is apparently endorsed by Spencer et al, if you bother to check the posted links over to the left.
"Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy -- a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site -- told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams."
The article has been removed from the Times web site, but is reproduced in full on Wizbang.
Apparently, the defendants will no longer be needing Dr. Jasser's help?
Posted by: zzazzeefrazzee at August 1, 2007 3:22 PM
The Washington Times reported back in March ("Moderate Muslim Group to Help Defend Airline Passengers in Flying Imams Suit") that the AIDF, offered to defend the "John Does" at no cost. BTW- before you reflexively dismiss this, you should note that the AIDF is an organization that is apparently endorsed by Spencer et al, if you bother to check the posted links over to the left.
"Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy -- a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site -- told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams."
The article has been removed from the Times web site, but is reproduced in full on Wizbang.
Apparently, the defendants will no longer be needing Dr. Jasser's help?
Posted by: zzazzeefrazzee at August 1, 2007 3:23 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)