The police report does not say they were ever handcuffed. Passengers have gone on record specifically stating the Imams were never cuffed. AFAIK no-one but the Imams has said they were ever handcuffed.
They are, and they did:
From the Washington Times article:
Once again the thing about the Times that they can not be trusted, I will wait for confirmation for that because it is likely the Imam was mistaken, but not at the level the Times is reporting, there was more than one agency interrogating them.
Being the Times, I would not be surprised other agency did help the Imam, but never mind, the Times can report just that and make the Imam look foolish, If you ask me if a man of faith can be foolish you will find no problem with me. But I have more problems trusting the Washington Times that already jumped in with a terribly biased report before the latest one.
Speaking of the latest “report” by the Times (still an opinion piece), I can see the passenger were they base their bit of news was still wrong thinking the seating arrangements were like 9/11. The belt extension concern sounds really lame when you consider the airline had them available, did not deny them to them, and the reports of the extender not being used and lying on the floor are there, but after the Imams were pulled out of the plane.
Bottom line: The airline and passengers were wrong in their assumptions. All right wing sources I have seen here fail to report one of the Imams is blind. Authorities interrogating the Imams had access to the complaints of the passengers, being released shows those complaints were found to be unfounded. There was then no reason for the airline to deny service after they were found not to be terrorists, had no weapons, and one was blind.
Ah, I see. a direct quote from a named agent in a news story is unreliable because it appears in the Washington Times, but on the other hand “Democracy Now” is a bastion of unimpeachable purity.
:rolleyes:
The Imam said the FBI made a call; not “some agency,” the FBI. The FBI says he didn’t.
If you think any news source is going to make up a quote from a named agent out of whole cloth, you’re a fool. Spin is one thing, and they all do it. Making up quotes is a whole 'nother matter, and nobody who ever wants a press pass or an off-the-record interview again does it.
I found this late last night and posted it in the wrong thread. Here it is now in its correct place. It is from a site called Pajamasmedia, which I am completely unfamiliar with, but it seems informative.
Gigo, you been quite critical of what can be correctly described as biased websites, but for you to discount The Washington Times and then cite Amy Goodman and Democracy Now, sheeze, what the hell are you thinking? :smack:
:rolleyes:
That was the Imams talking, I am not assuming they have purity, it was an interview so one has to then find out if what they say is correct.
The Times is unreliable because I have seen the Times selective quoting before, for experience I could also assume the quote could be missing an AFAIK from the agent. And furthermore, they already poisoned the well by their inflammatory headlines.
Once again, we will see. This is the Washington Times. And no, in context I would not say right away the Imam lied if it turns out a different agency did the call.
I only say that I have seen them quote selectively before, so nice strawman you have there.
Once again I don’t think they make quotes, I only say that like George Will, selective quoting is enough. But even finding the Imam is not truthful regarding the FBI, It does not deny the fact they were released since the items reported by the passengers and crew were not accurate.
:rolleyes: That that was an interview of the Imams. I never made an assumption it was not biased (Frankly anyone expecting an interview to be unbiased is the fool), I still agree actions like ejecting Muslims from planes will continue, I don’t agree there is no solution or amends to do after finding they are not Terrorists, Since not even the Times could deny (nor inform) that one of the Imams was blind, that item points to me to the passengers and the airline to be more on the wrong in this case.
It does not deny the fact they were released since the items reported by the passengers and crew were not accurate.
[/QUOTE]
I thought they were released becaue they weren’t terrorists. Just what was reported by the passengers and crew that was inaccurate?
I thought they were released becaue they weren’t terrorists. Just what was reported by the passengers and crew that was inaccurate?
[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
I do wonder why US air has said nothing about refusing them a flight after they were questioned and released.
They are a private comapany and perhaps have every right to refuse anyone service who has been removed for security questions. If thats the case why not say so?
If they have made any statement about that I haven’t seen it reported.
It seems to me there were enough questions and questionable acts to warrent detaining them for questioning. There’s talk of passing some law to make profiling a crime. That seems really stupid to me.
Given the current state of the world and recent historical facts should airlines and others be concerned about a big lawsuit so they are less cautious?
For starters, the assumption the seating arrangement was like 9/11, and the “buckle could be used as a weapon” only works if the attendants did not help to attach the belts (Why it is then not odd that even the airline furnishes them or are available?), even the airline could only said the seat belt attachment was on the floor, but after the Imams were ejected. IIRC one point in the right wing blogosphere is that the attachment was on the floor while the Imams were already sit. That was not true.
And I just realized that if the Imams are not truthful on being handcuffed, that IMO points to the Imams as cooperating with no violence at all. If there is one item **cosmosdan ** is correct is that people who are wronged exaggerate on how they were mistreated. I may condemn the Imams for that, but it is not an excuse for the airline at all.
Also, the assertions by some in this thread was that the authorities did not look at the suspicious activities or were looking only for illegal acts. The police report points to the authorities looking at the written testimony of the passengers and their release points to the complaints to then not fit with what was actually found.
Really, a blind Imam in the group, I don’t think I am reaching here in assuming that item was an element in dismissing the complaints. (and here I have to mention: don’t you wonder why the right wing media virtually does not bother to tell their viewers and readers of that item?)
Once again, me and the authorities agree the airline was ok to suspect something was wrong, the authorities releasing them points to the items mentioned in the complaints to be inaccurate or mistakes. Denial of service after all that remains the wrong thing to do.
Because, as I see it from the report and the release, that the security questions were already taken care of. The Airline already knows the suspicions they had were not correct, I really think I would be happy by the airline just saying they made an honest mistake and offer free or discounted service on the next flight.
Yep, stupid, but not quite as you are approaching it, AFAIK there was profiling before that got airlines and authorities in trouble. With current laws already dealing with civil rights, there is no need for more here.
In practical terms, I do think if the Imams do seek to prohibit even suspicions activities to be reported and acted upon, I would oppose them too, but so far I only see that the airline has no good excuse for denying service after a release with no charges.
[QUOTE]
Except that delaying the flight for security reasons is not a mistake. It’s the reality of the times. Neither the airlines nor the Imams are to blame but both are forced to deal with it.
A mistake may have been made when they refused them service.
As a private company how good an excuse do they need?
After reading the police reports and the passengers letter I am leaning toward the Imams provoking a response. Either that or they made some bad judgments and then after the incident decided to deny their “suspicious” activities.
There’s certainly have been trying to get public attention and sympathy since then. If the goal is to promote understanding and cross cultural education that’s fine. I wonder if it would have really made a difference if US air had booked them on another flight.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m leading toward you being a dumbass bigot like the morons on the flight.
I find it discriminatory. There is no place to sacrifice goats.
[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
An I’m sure you calling anyone a bigot, or your more usual “racist” will give them great pause and ruin their day. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
Thank you for your valuable and thought provoking contribution.
Now fuck off dimwit
As a private company, they need a mighty fine excuse–one that does not discriminate on the basis of religion–to do what they do.
Just be grateful there aren´t any Mayan sacrificial altars in there…
By the way, check your mail.
Dan: They are not “a private company” in the sense you appear to be using it, with the connotation of “they can pick and choose their clientele” – they are a common carrier using (renting) space at public airports and following FAA guidelines and regulations in their operation. To be sure, they are quite within their rights to refuse a prospective customer service for cause. A man who shows up three sheets to the wind and making passes at the check-in clerks, for example, or a customer carrying a six-foot reticulated python which he refuses to have loaded as baggage but wishes to take into the passenger compartment.
I grant that a reasonable person in these days might conceivably be taken aback by the behavior of the imams, though we’ve heard it explained in detail here. But that after-the-fact explanation is hardly calmative for the nerves of someone who has been led to be fearful of any and all Muslims (a quite separate rant).
Bottom line to me, though, is the inexplicable behavior of U.S. Air after having asked for and received the investigation. Their actions prior to that point seem to me to be needlessly paranoid but at least understandable on the basis of incomplete information. Their actions after the FBI cleared the imams is flat-out discrimination – a sort of “We screwed up but we don’t want to admit it, so we’re taking it out on them” attitude.
At first, this made the most sense to me, too. But it looks like the airline maight have felt that the Imams were deliberately fuckiing with them. (See link in my post above.) And if they felt that way, even though the FBI might have cleared them from being an actual terrorist threat or breaking any laws, the airline is not going to look kindly on them. I’m sure there are plenty of things you or I could do—legally—that would pose no terrorist threat but would cause the airline to say they don’t want our business. I think it’s still too early to conclude one way or the other, but from the information I’ve seen so far, that seems to be the most probable explanation.
Unless US Air concluded while the FBI cleared the Imams of any criminal misconduct, they nonetheless were concerned that the Imams’ behavior would continue to disturb passengers. The FBI determined they were not terrorists; they did not determine that the Imams weren’t provocative jerks seeking to make a scene and discomfort fellow passengers.
Not that I know that they were; but I find that just as plausible as believing a hundred people are all racists. (One would think that if they truly weren’t bothering anyone, some passengers would be coming forward to defend them – AFAICT, every single passenger who was there and has been quoted supports the airlines’s decision. I find that interesting.)
If the Imams were truly wronged, a civil suit could prove quite lucrative. We’ll see if they file one.