| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| US Airways, Minneapolis Airport "We want a jury!" | |
| 2008-01-04 | |
| H/T Hotair US Airways and Minneapolis airport officials are demanding a jury trial in a civil rights lawsuit filed by a group of Muslim imams who were removed from a flight for suspicious behavior. The airline and Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), which oversees Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, are also claiming immunity for their employees named in the suit, citing a "John Doe" law passed by Congress last year that, among other things, protects people acting in an official capacity to prevent terrorist attacks. "We believe the police officers acted appropriately and that it is important that airports across the nation be able to take action when there is a reasonable belief that travelers could be threatened," said Patrick Hogan, MAC spokesman. "In this case, there were travelers and flight crew members who raised concerns, and we worked with federal authorities who interviewed the imams," Mr. Hogan said. "We believe the process worked as it should to protect the traveling public." Frederick Goetz, the imams' lawyer, declined to comment on the lawsuit, which was amended Dec. 14 and now names six airport police officers as defendants. The suit says the officials engaged in "intentional discrimination" when they removed the imams from the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight in November 2006. In its Dec. 20 response, the commission said: "MAC police officers took reasonable action in good faith upon reports of suspicious behavior."
Information provided by the flight crew led the captain to suspect that the imams "may have posed a risk to the security of the flight," the airline's response said. The "decision to deny transportation was based upon the legitimate, non-discriminatory business purpose of ensuring flight safety," the airline said. U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery denied motions to dismiss the suit in November, but has not ruled whether she will hear the case or assemble a jury. The imams say that the police officers' "acts and conducts were solely motivated by their intent to discriminate against [the imams] based on their race, color, religion, ethnicity," and that their activities were not probable cause to assume they planned to commit a criminal act. The imams say they were placed under arrest and "did not consent to the arrest." The airport commission says the imams were not arrested but detained by airport police and questioned by federal officials, including the FBI and Secret Service. | |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #5 These scum planned this lawsuit attack and Saudi funded Muslim terrorist supporting PR CAIR is paying for the lawers. Good for US Airways! It's high time someone other than Michael Savage takes these Islamic Jihadist to court. Because our Minnesota & Federal Dhimmits will not! |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2008-01-04 14:52 |
| #4 Wonderful. It's past time to fight back. The Muzz has stated their express interest in undermining our cultural values in our court system. They are funding scholarships for American Muzz offspring to a number of law schools such as Berkeley,etc. for the express interest of creating their own cadre of lawdogs. Speaking of dogs, wouldn't it be awful if a big dog bit the sellout Goetz on the ass or some other unfortunate accident were to ensue. The airlines, thankfully, are privately owned business concerns not gov't owned. PC behavior is not the rule. Prudent business practices are. If action isn't taken to protect flying passengers, said passengers will depart and business will suffer mightily. Also, if I had my own plane and someone threatened me, their dumb ass would be on the runway faster than the fool could sneeze. The same right prevails for US Airways, United, etc. They are merely a larger version of my little plane. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2907 2008-01-04 13:13 |
| #3 Good. Push this into the public view and hold their lying feet to the fire. Good job US Airways and MAC! |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-01-04 13:07 |
| #2 "did not consent to the arrest" Who does? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-01-04 12:34 |
| #1 They're not caving into them. That's a good sign. And I'd take my chances with a jury. Next time, avoid all this and toss them off while in flight... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-01-04 12:23 |