Imams' lawsuit

[414Flyer]

What about the dumba$$ A rab cab drivers in Minnie?

The ones who refused rides to gringos who had liquor with them. What about them?

Who is going to sue them? I say Fak the imams. If they don't like it, get the fak out!

This effin country is going downhill, because everybody and their (terrorist) mother is hiding behind the constitution. "The imams rights were violated, blah blah blah...."

Let's see whose rights are going to be violated when the next blow up happens.

Quit your fakking whining and deal with it. This is the world YOUR (the imam's) people created!

Even worse than not carrying people who might have alcohol, are the ones who will not carry blind people with guide dogs.

I am not so sure these people will get much sympathy, they really overreached when they decided to go after the passengers too on that flight.

Or maybe that was the intent, to get passengers to shut up

 

[avbug]

The Imams are not after money. They're after publicity.

When a suicide bomber explodes himself in a crowd, he's not after deaths. he's after publicity.

What the Imams did to get them expelled from the airplane was done for one reason, and one reason only. Publicity.

The Imams are unlikely to win their case, but we shall see. Win or lose, they get what they wanted, which is...everybody say it together now...publicity.

Now you may be saying to yourself that the only publicity that these gents will be getting will be bad...but not so. They're not seeking sympathy in the eyes of non-muslims. Martyrdom is a staple of Islam. By losing at the gate and losing in court, they become martyrs and an inspiration to others in their cause.

By prompting the attitudes we see here in this thread, which are really what one should be hearing from the mouth of a 14 year old...they've won. Your bile supports their cause.

The worst thing anyone could do to them is turn their back, ignore them, and walk away. Doing so takes away their prize and their power. When you try to understand Islam through western eyes, you'll always miss the mark. Their motivations and definitely not the same as your own.

 

[Jafar]

And on a similar note, there's this

How much more can we placate these lunatics?

 

[Seadogrun]

Doesn't the Capt. have the reglatory right to refuse anyone he wants?

 

[avbug]

No. The captain has the final authority regarding the safety of the flight, and holds the responsibility for ensuring the safe outcome of the flight, but no regulation provides that the Captain chooses who rides and who doesn't. This is implied in his responsibility to ensure the safety of the flight. In addiion, in an emergency the PIC may deviate from the regulation only to the extent necessary to meet the specifics of that emergency, in ensuring the safe outcome off the flght. So much for the regulation, which doesn't mean diddly squat to most of the free world...including the passengers, or a court of law.

FAA regulation is administrative law, a tiny nearly imaginary paper world in which the FAA has authority over things that regard the FAA. Enter civil law...where people sue people and everybody is beholden and open to civil action...now who has the right to decide and do what...rests in the hands of a judge and jury.

The Captain is responsible under 14 CFR 91.3(a); as the pilot in command, he or she is the final authority regarding the operation of the aircrft. That does not mean the captain has carte blance to act against one's civil liberties, rights, or privileges, nor does it offer any excuse or relief under the law. The captain's reponsibilities are regulatory in nature...part of the Code of Federal Regulations. The CFR applies to specific parties, or those who associate with specific parties. Part 91 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, for example, applies to the FAA and those who act under the privileges granted by the FAA, as spelled out in the regulation.

The United States Code, on the other hand, is what you might normally think of as law. Regulations are rules within the government, whereas the USC is the law of the land, such as criminal staute. In between, beholden to the criminal statutes and also to anything else deemed applicable by authority (judges, for example, and in many cases, even juries)...is the civil court...which is where the law suit in question takes place.

Does the captain have a responsibility to oust someone he feels is a threat to the safety of the flight? Of course. Who gets to decide that in retrospect? Not the captain. Not the company. Not the FAA. It's decided by a group of strangers, almost certainly none of whom will be pilots, and the expertise of whom extends only so far as what they're told and convinced by paid attorneys for either side in the case...the jury. While the captain has certain lattitude in making such decions, the PIC doesn't enjoy any protection or authority outside the cockpit, and is always open to being questioned after the fact.

Personally, I don't think the Imams have a leg to stand on. But as I said before that's really irrelevant to their action. By getting publicity, they win, and they get what they want. The decision of a judge and jury is meaningless and entrirely irrelevant to their cause.

 

[AC560]

The Imams are not after money. They're after publicity.

That and getting people to be silent. Notice they are also suing passengers who will more then likely have to pay to defend themselves out of their own pockets, whereas the Imam's have deep pockets. Don't think the intent is also to make it so passengers in the future think twice before reporting suspicious behavior for fear of being sued.

 

[AerroMatt]

This was posted by Dangerboy on another thread, but I think it applies here Re: Political Correctness.

Got this in an email the other day...I think it's spot on.

Define "political correctness":

"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional illogical liberal minority & rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous liberal press which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

--This definition has been attributed to students at Texas A&M University.

The Imams are picking up on the game here, and the Press and ACLU are playing right into their hands!

Does anyone care to wager how much of the millions of the settlement will go to Al Queda?

 

[ACT700]

Like I said, this country is going downhill; unless the government stops catering to all these looney tunes.
But, wait, that would be unconstitutional.

 

[avbug]

You might wait until the battle's been fought before giving up so quickly.

 

[Swass]

You might wait until the battle's been fought before giving up so quickly.

Spot on.