US Airways Passengers Who Reported 'Suspicious' Imam Activity May Be Sued

[03cavPA]

Looks like the Imams who were kicked off the USAir flight are talking about suing the passengers who reported them for suspicious activity.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259263,00.html

NEW YORK — Six Muslim imams who were forcibily removed from a US Airways flight last year and are now suing the airline for discrimination may also be suing some passengers who were aboard the flight.

In the lawsuit filed last week, the imams say that unnamed "John Doe" passengers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport reported that they engaged in "suspicious" behavior — praying in the terminal — before they boarded the plane on Nov. 20.

Omar Mohammedi, the imams' New York-based lawyer, said that the imams have not yet decided whether to pursue this complaint, but if they do it would affect only those passengers who were prejudiced in their suspicions.

"I think there is a difference between someone reporting suspicious activity and someone making false reports about a fact that did not exist," Mohammedi said. "We are not saying that people should not report; we are saying people should not abuse that process just because someone was praying or someone looked religious."

He said that if the passengers were suspicious based only on the imams' appearance, "then they should be liable . . these people should be careful not to abuse the process and be responsible." ........................

And the beat goes on.....

[taranaki]

You cannot sue someone for being an ignorant racist.

[03cavPA]

Apparently you can sue them for paranoia and a desire for inflight safety.

I'm not that eager to assume they were racist in their views, but your response doesn't surprise me. I wasn't there, neither were you. They were uneasy enough to go to the crew with their concerns. They did what they thought necessary in light of the situation.

Personally, I think it was a publicity stunt for the Imams. But, it's just my opinion, like many others expressed on this forum.

[taranaki]

A group of nuns pause and say a prayer before boarding a plane. Would it cause the same 'concerns'? Of course not. People are being conditioned to equate Muslim faith with terrorism. This has NOTHING to do with inflight safety, it's as clear cut a case of race hate as anyone could imagine. I hope they sue, and in any other country,I would expect them to win.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Personally, I think it was a publicity stunt for the Imams. But, it's just my opinion, like many others expressed on this forum.

how is it a publicity stunt?
Their religion has them pray five times a day. If they're at an airport waiting for a flight, chances are they will have to pray. They then get removed from the flight because some dumb, ignorant american thinks something is wrong; damn right they have a right to sue.

[BNaylor]

The OP should have at least referenced the older thread where we discussed this issue in the past.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=650386

They may have a right to sue but prevailing on a lawsuit filed in U.S. Federal District Court on the claim of "abuse of process" and whatever else raised will be very difficult. I wish them luck.

[03cavPA]

My bad. I just checked, the original article is still accessible:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,233958,00.html

And I'm sure it won't be hard to google more stories from different news agencies. I have no allegiance to any of them, the story was easy enough to find.

I said they were full of shit then, and I say they're full of shit now. They weren't removed just for praying before the flight.

Thanks for the reminder, bnaylor.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by bnaylor

They may have a right to sue but prevailing on a lawsuit filed in U.S. Federal District Court on the claim of "abuse of process" and whatever else raised will be very difficult.

now I don't know the details/precedence of that previous ruling but lets look at the basic situation here; if a group has been unfairly treated because they were exercising their right to practice their religion, then they should be able to at least put up some sort of protest, no?
I'm not convinced that it is an abuse of process because as I said in my earlier post, their praying was misunderstood by someone who was/is blatently ignorant of their religion and their practices.
Let's ignore the fact that IF they really were terrorists, do you think they would openly advertise themselves by laying out their carpets and going through their proper prayer ritual in full view?

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

now I don't know the details/precedence of that previous ruling but lets look at the basic situation here; if a group has been unfairly treated because they were exercising their right to practice their religion, then they should be able to at least put up some sort of protest, no?
I'm not convinced that it is an abuse of process because as I said in my earlier post, their praying was misunderstood by someone who was/is blatently ignorant of their religion and their practices.
Let's ignore the fact that IF they really were terrorists, do you think they would openly advertise themselves by laying out their carpets and going through their proper prayer ritual in full view?

Well, since they filed the lawsuit that is a form of protest but the courts will decide. From the article it appears that their lawyer is pursuing that tort claim on their behalf. From what I saw the article mentioned that as one of the claims. The first legal element to prove based on a preponderance of the evidence concerning abuse of process is a perverted or illegal use of a process or system in place such as filing a false police report, etc that caused harm (like malicious prosecution) and the second part damages either monetary or could be mental anguish and emotional distress as a direct and proximate result. No way to really tell unless we have the complaint they filed in front of us and in the end evidence to prove their case.

I'd rather not pre-judge until we know all the facts in the case. There is probably more to this than meets the eye.

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Thanks for the reminder, bnaylor.

No problem 03cavPA. Funny how I still remembered it.

Shahin said he's never been taken off a flight. He said the only other problem he had flying as a Muslim cleric was in El Paso, Texas, where security officials questioned him and another imam after they prayed. Still, they made their flight.

This is an interesting revelation concerning one of the Imams in a past incident. Hard to say which way that will go. The Plaintiffs will probably use that to help prove their case and the Defendants will probably use that incident against them claiming they were troublemakers and have an agenda.

I say let Judge Judy decide.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

They weren't removed just for praying before the flight.
.

So why were they removed?

[03cavPA]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,233958,00.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2902-7522r.htm

Witnesses' statements and the police report said they behaved very much like the 9/11 perps. Many felt they deliberately did so in order to create a media opportunity.

The threat of a lawsuit is no surprise in that light.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by bnaylor

Well, since they filed the lawsuit that is a form of protest but the courts will decide. From the article it appears that their lawyer is pursuing that tort claim on their behalf. From what I saw the article mentioned that as one of the claims.

Sorry, i thought that you meant that there was already a precedent set by a previous ruling but i also see your point about whether or not this is a valid lawsuit or if it falls under abuse of process.
then again, can you really sue someone for being ignorant and uneducated?


the other matter that covers old ground.

let's go over that again.
the other suspicious activity:

praying before flight - are they not allowed to excercise their religion?
calling of "allah" very loudly - as is prescribed by their religion
asking for seatbelt extensions - what is wrong with this?
talking about saddam hussein - so you're not allowed to talk about current affairs?
one way flights - isn't this the point of cheap national flights?
sitting separately - the only strange behaviour in my view but then again, there's six of them. How are seats arranged on their plane? Could all six sit together or would it be 3+3? were there that many seats available all together? 2+2+2 seperated like they were, might've just been what was available so that there isn't anyone sitting by themselves. But that's just me post-rationalisating. One thing though, again, like I said before, if they were terrorists, would they really behave in the exact manner that would get them noticed? you could say that they might've been stupid terrorists....

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

asking for seatbelt extensions - what is wrong with this?

Reports say the men didn't use them, but placed the seatbelt extensions on the floor at their seats, and that seatbelt extensions can be used as a weapon.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

One thing though, again, like I said before, if they were terrorists, would they really behave in the exact manner that would get them noticed? you could say that they might've been stupid terrorists....

Well, trained security personnel and US Air Marshals thought it was enough to take action.

From the Wash. Times:

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."
A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

So, they were either stupid for acting like terrorists, or they knew exactly how to act to arouse the most suspicion, and now they want to get the best mileage they can out of it. IMO, the threats of lawsuits only reinforces the statements made at the time by those involved.

These aren't stupid men; they knew exactly what they were doing. I hope they get their asses kicked in court, if it gets that far.

If no one had done anything, and it really was a terrorist action, some would be screaming about nothing being done. Like we said before, damned if ya do, and damned if ya don't.

[drunken monkey]

the thing about seat belt extensions; one of my older aunts doesn't speak very good english, when ever someone asks if she wants/needs anything, she says "yes".
again, this is me applying my own experience to things.
In the UK, Imams are often imported into the UK and their english isn't always that great and the traditional practice is that Islam is taught in Arabic and so english isn't "neccessary" to be a good Imam.

seatbelt extension used as a weapon.
you're kidding right.
Plane full of people, against 6 guys not all of whom has seatbelt extensions. Tell me again, how a person armed with a seatbelt extension can prevent, let's say five people, from getting to the doors?
And let me get this right, airport security passed them to fly and they were at the gate awaiting to board the plane. Everything was ok up until someone fingered them?

Again, the seating arrangement can be taken both ways.
On the flights I am on, the usual empty seats are the ones at the front and at the rear.
Exit aisles are not always prefered by people because there is an extra "responsibilty" and for larger people, the door gets in the way and so these are often empty.
2 people sitting in a 3 person bay is always preferable to 3 people sitting in a 3 person bay. I have moved to the rear of a plane away from my main party just so that I can have nice empty seats next to me. When I fly with my aunt+cousins we often move into where-ever is free to get 2 people to 3 seats.
Without knowing all information regarding the seating arrangements, who these people were
(if they were flying on official business, the flights would be paid for by the organising body who may/may not have afforded 6 first class flights - hence, two most senior sits in first)
we can say whatever.

once again, this is me post-rationalising because you are so set on it being a publicity stunt and can't see it any other way.
To me, it is a case of ignorant american passenger.

I don't think it was deliberate.

Lawsuits mean that they did it deliberately?
So if you were wrongfully taken off a flight you would just sit there and say nothing?

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

we can say whatever.

once again, this is me post-rationalising because you are so set on it being a publicity stunt and can't see it any other way.
To me, it is a case of ignorant american passenger.

Absolutely. It's incredibly ignorant to be watchful for behavior that looks exactly like the actions that preceded the 9/11 crashes. No one has any reason to keep their guard up. Air crews, pilots, and US Air Marshals in the wake of 9/11 are poorly trained, and always exercise very poor judgement.

At least these guys found out that security personnel actually DO pay attention to behavior. That was mentioned as one of the possible reasons for their behavior. It's called probing.

This one will make some good press if it ever goes to court. I'm betting there is plenty of information that didn't make it to the media.