The simple fact is that the airline does not have to provide service to anyone who causes trouble regardless of their religion.

I agree with that, the facts though as they show in the police report indicate that the decision to de-board these guys was made even before they boarded the plane, in the terminal because some of them were praying and one of them had asked to upgrade his friends seat.

"Have you "proof" of this? I don't think so which is why their lawsuit will fail."

No I don't but neither does anyone suggesting they were "up to something". I'm not a lawyer just expressing my opinion. Which is these guys were just looking for a ride home. There money was good enough for the first day or service, but not on the second. Even after the airline had inconvenienced them, and offered their own apology for that inconvenience, yet denied them a re boarding even after they were cleared of any involvement in any wrongdoing.

"How you can perceive it as somehow akin or parallel to Kristalnacht is beyond me."

This situation has nothing to do with Kristalnacht. The acceptance of the treatment of Jews in German society in 1930's-1940's, subsequent support for Hitler and his absolute power after his ascension of power, the same can be said for executive orders which have detained Muslims overseas without cause. I'm not saying this is happening on a wide scale but even the fact that it can happen, in any possible way, by an American government, that this is acceptable under any circumstances, is the parallel.

What crime had the Jews as a people committed against the Germans?
What crime have the Muslims as a people committed against Americans?

If the only crime that was the validation for extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, and the only crime of Muslims, validation for their indefinite detainment, is that they were and are Jewish, and Muslim, respectively then what does that say about our justice system?

"They behaved in a way that they knew could easily be perceived as suspicious..."

Granted, and the airline made the right decision on the first day. Yet the second, even though they were suspicious, clearly they had done no wrong, nor were affiliated with any wrong doing, nothing legally chargeable, yet were not allowed to board. If it simply was a case where they refused service because of the trouble caused, I accept and support and respect that, however the airline hasn't made that case. Further, suspicious behavior does not make you guilty of a crime.

"You're right, Dan, we shouldn't be talking about rights & freedoms because this involved neither."

How is freedom not involved, when a person cannot exercise their right to practice their religion in public, and because of that, be considered "suspicious", and subsequently be referred to law enforcement, be cleared of any criminal activity, and then denied service? I agree with you all that it isn't a right to fly on board an airplane, but it is a right to be free from religious persecution, and ostrization, because of the crime free methods of religious practice, praying, asking for a seat upgrade. This country, even before it was a country, was begun by people leaving their former homes because of religious persecution. This is because they didn't want to be told which faith to follow, since then our form of freedom has spread throughout many parts of the world, through direct and indirect means. It is precisely the reason why areas of the world resistant, to freely thinking people, take up arms and whatever means are available to them, to fight against us. But that doesn't mean that every person in our country who is Muslim is "suspicious" nor should it ever mean that. We also believe that until someone has committed a criminal act, not whether or not they are predisposed to do so, but up until that point they are as innocent as you and me until proven guilty.

None of these guys, yelled bomb, had a bomb, carried anything on board that was unlawful whatsoever. What they did do is scare people who just as guilty of allowing themselves to be scared, to give into their fears. You think I'm disgusting or misinformed for challenging the idea that these guys were "up to something" or that I have no right or reason to question the actions for a service provider selectively denying service to Americans. Americans who are as American as you or I. But it is I who question your acceptance of your fellow American, beyond that, your acceptance of people in general. I question whether you can see beyond the media terror craze that gets the ratings and has bombarded those of you who think this kind of conduct by corporations is fair and just.

It's obvious that sometimes mistakes are made, but admitting those rather then denying them clears the way for release of the resentment, and hate. If you want to insist that there was "something up" here. How about providing some evidence, that shows these guys were involved in a terrorist plot? That they flying was something more then a plane ride home?

How is freedom not involved, when a person cannot exercise their right to practice their religion in public, and because of that, be considered "suspicious", and subsequently be referred to law enforcement, be cleared of any criminal activity, and then denied service? I agree with you all that it isn't a right to fly on board an airplane, but it is a right to be free from religious persecution, and ostrization, because of the crime free methods of religious practice, praying, asking for a seat upgrade. This country, even before it was a country, was begun by people leaving their former homes because of religious persecution. This is because they didn't want to be told which faith to follow, since then our form of freedom has spread throughout many parts of the world, through direct and indirect means. It is precisely the reason why areas of the world resistant, to freely thinking people, take up arms and whatever means are available to them, to fight against us. But that doesn't mean that every person in our country who is Muslim is "suspicious" nor should it ever mean that. We also believe that until someone has committed a criminal act, not whether or not they are predisposed to do so, but up until that point they are as innocent as you and me until proven guilty.

Again, unless you have proof of this, try something else. You're "still" talking religous persecution for which you have "no" basis in fact.

So you think it was perfectly acceptable for them to refuse service the second day? On what grounds Dr?

You "still" have not quite grasped the concept yet. Please feel free to try again. The airlines DO NOT need a reason to refuse service. I don't happen to have one of their tickets in hand. But I'd be willing to bet that "somewhere" on that piece of paper would be the line...."We reserve the right to refuse service." And whether or not you'll admit it....The "right to refuse service" is federally granted "right".

The right to refuse service By George J. Bryjak August 24, 2005 Next in line to purchase the latest "Harry Potter" tale, the cashier informs you that the stories of J.K. Rowling are replete with black magic, wizards and warlocks, a masterpiece of Satanic deception designed to lure children into the occult. As selling these books runs contrary to her moral convictions, you leave the store empty handed. If you believe this scenario is wildly unrealistic, think again. "Refusal" clauses currently apply to both medical and non-medical personnel and institutions including physicians, nurses, hospitals, clinics, universities and insurance companies. Declining service is allowed on the basis of personal conscience, moral conflict and moral values.

Link

We reserve the right to refuse service... So the trick is to create an environment where people understand what's expected of them as far as limits to their behavior, and then get out of the way unless they violate those limitations. the user has the right to use a service in the way that makes them happy as long as the owner gives them access to the service. the owner has the right to refuse to allow a user to use a service if the way they use it is against the owner's wishes. the owner has the responsibilty to deineate those rules and restrictions as simply and understandably as they can, and an implied responsibility to not set unneccessary and arbitrary restrictions. users have the responsibilty to accept and abide by restrictions or not use the service.

"their behavior disrupted air travel, alarmed other passengers, and created a national 'scene,' I can't say I blame the airline for wanting nothing more to do with these jerks." Their behavior was both legal and consistent with their religious beliefs, lawful conduct and freedom of religious expression/practice are two things our country was founded on. If you are willing to freely give up your rights to free expression of your speech and religion, fine, I am not, nor am I willing to yield someone else's. The airline is responsible for not allowing them to fly on the second day even after they were cleared of any wrongdoing.

You are so wrong I can't even believe you don't see it.

Airlines are private entities. They can kick people off the plane for any reason they choose.

People here on JU blacklist people from their blogs for all kinds of reasons. Should they be sued if the person they black listed "did nothing wrong"?

In a post 9/11 world, the airlines who are smart will take more account into the considerations of the majority than worrying about the minority. That's business. 

The Imans were most certainly pulling a stunt or they were incredibly stupid. There have been countless articles on-line that have gone into detail about the things they did. Were they illegal? I doubt it. But it's irrelevant.

A business has the right to decide who it allows to use its service. I have the right to choose for any arbitrary reason who uses my blog site. A blogger on JU has the right to choose for any reason who can comment on their articles.

It's called freedom.

"Airlines are private entities. They can kick people off the plane for any reason they choose." That's iffy, and I mourn it alongside you. The problem is something called "common carriage". Back in the civil rights era we decided that owners of private businesses that serve the public were forbidden to discriminate based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, yadda yadda yadda

Yes you are correct baker. However can you "show" us where the airlines refused them service because of their race "or" religion? Because if you can't then the "common carriage" scenario carries no weight.

Granted, and the airline made the right decision on the first day. Yet the second, even though they were suspicious, clearly they had done no wrong, nor were affiliated with any wrong doing, nothing legally chargeable, yet were not allowed to board. If it simply was a case where they refused service because of the trouble caused, I accept and support and respect that, however the airline hasn't made that case. Further, suspicious behavior does not make you guilty of a crime.

I think you are reading way too much into this. The delay of that plane, by those men, cost far more to the airline than losing them as passengers. Furthermore, either they lacked the commense to know not to act so gregariously, or purposefully intended to have themselves removed. Why should the airline take the risk of having it happen again? They have no guarantee those men will not do the same thing. They are not worth the cost, so the airline refuses them service. It has nothing to do with their stated religion. It has everything to do with their actions.

"I have asked you repeatedly to be more specific when decrying the 'loss of basic rights' involved in this particular case, because flying on an airplane is not a "right" no matter how loosely you interpret our Constitution."

Correct, flying on an airplane in not a right guaranteed under the constitution. However practicing your religion is. That's the reason they were detained along with other "suspicious activity", namely, being Muslim.

"a private transportation refusing service"

The airlines are a privately owned service, yet if they go on strike and disrupt service, they would be impressed into military service for the nation. I believe that would make them a public utility similar to power companies, water companies, roadways, railroads, noticing the transportation theme? Ronald Reagan has done it? Am I wrong on that?

I said.

"Sounds Nazi, Soviet, and pretty damned dangerous thinking, stacked up to the concept of freedom, which our citizens seem to feel is the guiding light of this nation."

You said

"Hmm, a private transportation refusing service due to criteria you personally disagree with being compared to genocide, gas chambers, mass starvation, and the privations of both life under facism and communism is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think?"

My point was not about being denied service on airlines, but thinking that that sort of treatment of people is acceptable in society and the slide in attitude people take towards segments of the population. Treating people with extra scrutiny, and then criminalizing their actions in your mind, which by the way, were neither morally or legally wrong, is wrong. Whip they did nothing wrong, admit that.

The "terror" argument is BS, you only have terror when people commit acts designed to hurt or harm others and display that. People praying or asking for a seatbelt extension or to upgrade their seat, or hold a political discussion, those aren't terror acts. Would you not agree? In combination suspicious yes if you look at it from the perspective of "hunting for terrorism" and nothing but, then yes I agree "suspicious"

However, not only did they do nothing that could be considered "terror" in nature, but there is no ability or credibility to do so on an airplane. ADMIT THAT! If unwilling, provide a single weakness and ability anybody, not just terrorists but anybody has to cause any harm on an airplane that still exists? I see none available. Nothing except irrational fear.

I'm all for fighting terrorists, and anybody who would do harm to people for no reason or even for a reason that isn't just. But I'm not for denying people their rights because of irrational fears, that includes Muslims.

The reason I bring up history and incorporate some of the lessons learned is simple. History allows us to see rights and wrongs real clearly.

In Germany what crime were the Jews guilty of? What crime had they committed as a people that was so egregious that they were rounded up and exterminated?

No crime.

I'm not saying or implying that the same thing (rounding up and extermination) is happening by our government, but if it was, how would anyone know? People can be deemed a terrorist for any reason, or without reason under current law, held without being brought to trial, indefinitely, in the United States.

That's the Soviet part, until, during, and after world war 2, Stalin had millions of "political prisoners" arrested under for "suspicious actions"

Like you've said you've seen people being kicked off planes for far less. Well in the 1930-1940's Soviet Union, people were arrested, jailed, detained, never brought to trial, for no reasons either. Do you not see the similarities of the situation between how even American citizens not 'are' but 'can possibly' be treated, and Germany and the Soviet Union? The similarities in which the laws of our country have been altered since 9/11? How about the similarities in societal change, between our acceptance of the ostrization and denial or rights of Muslims in our society.

The reason I speak up for them (Muslims) is they are us (Americans). Rights taken away from them are rights taken away from us. If you lose the right to pray in an airport, as a Muslim it won't be long, as history has shown, before it is another part of your life and then another and another, an "inalienable freedom" that is taken away, if you give it away. If you allow a government to do that it certainly can happen. Even in the government "of the people, by the people, for the people" this can happen if the people are not protected from the government. Which do you believe is more valuable? The people or the government? The founders believed it was the people. As of right now this government can legally declare any one of us an enemy, and hold us indefinitely, without trial, without any evidence, there to be, to protect the government and of course "the rest of us".

So again, what was "suspicious" in this situation led to the denial of other Muslims rights to pray in an airport....BECAUSE... They were de-boarded because they were praying. In the future Muslims may be forced to give up their daily rituals, because we have accepted that treatment in society rather then rejecting it. If they don't they can be expected to be de-planed. I'll admit that as of right now this is a 'potential sacrifice', their ability to ride on an airplane. Is that a just reason to deny their rights to religious freedom?

I don't agree that is it just, nor do I agree that holding anybody, by our government, American citizen or not, indefinetly without bringing them to trial to face the evidence against them, is an idea concieved in liberty either. I think it's an idea conceived in fear, in anger, and in power.

I also firmly believe that any government taking away the "inalienable" rights of citizens isn't worth having around, nor is any citizenry willing to have those rights taken away.

Certainly not under the premise of all mighty "terrorism" which at this point on airplanes in the United States is a guise of real terror and merely an irrational fucking fear.

The airlines are a privately owned service, yet if they go on strike and disrupt service, they would be impressed into military service for the nation. I believe that would make them a public utility similar to power companies, water companies, roadways, railroads, noticing the transportation theme? Ronald Reagan has done it? Am I wrong on that?

Yes, you're wrong. The "only" section that even comes close to what you're saying are Air Traffic Controllers. If an airlines goes on strike (which btw has happened before) it's no big deal to the country. However if the controllers go on strike it IS a very big deal to the country. Especially since they control the air traffic for the entire nation. Ronald Reagan has done it. Reagans deal "only" extended to air traffic controllers, not an airline.

Link



Link

"Yes, you're wrong"

I conceded it. I am wrong on that. I was pretty young in the 80's, remember the details vaguely.

Oh wait, no no I'm right.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action

"The Railway Labor Act bans strikes by United States airline and railroad employees except in narrowly defined circumstances."

"The federal government most recently invoked these statutory provisions to obtain an injunction against a slowdown by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in 2002."

For economic reasons.

"Especially since they control the air traffic for the entire nation. Ronald Reagan has done it. Reagans deal "only" extended to air traffic controllers, not an airline."

For economic reasons.

There has never been a strike, you are correct on that, yet if an entire airline would strike, especially one of major airlines, with a significant chunk of air travel, the economy is too dependent on their services. Basically, this act can make it illegal to strike in situations where the national economy could be threatened or where the strike is just deemed illegal.

The injustice is not with the airlines, but with their policies, as well as the intolerance of Muslims in society. Forcing people to not pray in order to get a plane ride is the injustice.

You are all right, there is no law ensuring the rights of plane travel. But there is a law of ensuring air travel doesn't strike.

Oh wait, no no I'm right. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action "The Railway Labor Act bans strikes by United States airline and railroad employees except in narrowly defined circumstances." "The federal government most recently invoked these statutory provisions to obtain an injunction against a slowdown by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in 2002."

No you're not right! Nothing of which you provided links for gives the government the powers that you're suggesting. At "most" under the RLA the employees can be fired.

The airlines are a privately owned service, yet if they go on strike and disrupt service, they would be impressed into military service for the nation

You better go back and read what you quoted. Even under the RLA the airline personel can strike.

Bargaining and strikes under the RLA Unlike the National Labor Relations Act, which adopts a less interventionist approach to the way the parties conduct collective bargaining or resolve their disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements, the RLA specifies both (1) the negotiation and mediation procedures that unions and employers must exhaust before they may change the status quo, and (2) the methods for resolving "minor" disputes over the interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements. The RLA permits strikes over major disputes only after the union has exhausted the RLA's negotiation and mediation procedures, while barring almost all strikes over minor disputes. The RLA also authorizes the courts to enjoin strikes if the union has not exhausted those procedures. On the other hand, the RLA imposes fewer restrictions on the tactics that unions may use when they do have the right to strike. The RLA does not, unlike the NLRA, bar secondary boycotts against other RLA-regulated carriers; it may also permit employees to engage in other types of strikes, such as intermittent strikes, that might be unprotected under the NLRA.

"P.S. There was another terrorist attack in '93 on US soil. The 'al Quaeda' part is just a way for you to minimize a threat that had
previously been negligently minimized. Anyone with half a brain would be hesitant to minimize any threat at this point."

I didn't minimize any threat. I agreed with the airlines decision to de-plane them for any reason of suspicion. I disagree with their decision to do it again the second day with no cause, when the Imams were cleared of any involvement in wrongdoing. That's all.

As for terrorist attack in 1993, yes it happened, it did not involve Imam's on an airplane.

"And if the KKK tried to board a plane wearing the full regalia of hood and robe, while loudly praying for the extermination of all niggers and loudly praising those who have killed niggers...should they also be allowed on the plane?"

No they should not, not if they pose a danger to the passengers. If they do pose a threat then they should be de-planed. If in the course of their conduct they used racial slurs and verbally assaulted other passengers then they would have been charged with disorderly conduct. The Imams made no such racial or ethnic remarks. If you have evidence to suggest they did, i.e. an audio recording I'll gladly yield and slap ya on the back for getting it right. From what the police report says, they were holding a political discussion and cooperative when told to de-plane.

Until then I stand where I stand. If you firmly believe, they and other Muslims unafraid to practice their religion, have not been denied their rights by the actions of the airline, then we should expect to see more stories like this in the news in the future. As more Muslims continue to pray, and more Americans continue to consider that a threatening gesture, and airlines remove them.

"The Railway Labor Act bans strikes by United States airline and railroad employees except in narrowly defined circumstances."
Yep. They also can't force you to work, however if you strike you lose your job, so in other words you don't strike. If there was a major strike that stopped air travel, they would be impressed or whatever you want to call it, just like police on the streets, air travel is a critical industry, critical to the economy of the United States. Just like if you stopped rail transit, or gasoline deliveries. Come on lets stop getting side tracked.

If you want me to admit I was wrong, fine. I'm wrong on airline strikes. Happy Dr.?

"IS spreading out in twos on the plane part of their religion?"

"Is demanding unused seat belt extensions and openly talking about 9/11 so loud it disturbed other people part of the Islamic faith?"

Have you looked at the police report? The conversation was about Saddam Hussein verdict. Can you prove the booking of the airline didn't seat them that way? Can you further prove that it was anything more then coincidence? Why would you suggest otherwise unless you were specifically looking for "terrorists" as the passengers were. Irrational fear.

"Do you think people prevented from going in abortion clinics and praying are prevented from practicing their religion? If you went to Oklahoma City and went into a government building with your pals and loitered while talking very loudly about the ATF and black UN helicopters, would you be victimized when you were tossed out?

Come on."

No you come on, this isn't about abortion or praying inside of them. This is about being on public property and freely expressing religious views, and about being able to hold a political discussion while being Muslim and without being labeled "terrorist"

This isn't about the being de-planed on suspicion, again for the tenth or so time, I am in firm agreement that being de-planed and questioned by law enforcement for praying on a plane in this time is going to happen, and if you don't exercise a little more tact you can come to expect it as a Muslim. What this is about is being denied boarding the second day, after being interviewed for hours by three different federal agencies and local law enforcement and not being held on suspicion or charged or locked up or anything. The reason they were de-planed in the first place were the circumstantial things involved as well as "praying in the terminal" That decision to de-board them had been made even before they boarded the plane. So you've got Muslims being de-boarded for praying. Then you have them being denied a flight because they are Muslim.

But your right. That's fair, thats just. We should just let this happen. If anybody is different or wrong, or Muslim, we should just shun them, deport them, make them go away. If our society or individuals see fit to make any Muslim out to be a terrorist whether or not there is evidence more then just suspicion we should just go with it. Fuk due process, fuk the fact the cops have nothing, fuk the fact we are spending billions of dollars annually to track each and every one of them sneaky terrorists. Yea we don't need that, we don't need no facts, we can just look at someone and know. "That's a terrorist"

Your right. Any 230 some years of the pursuit for freedom for all and equality, justice, liberty; Fuk that too right?

"I've told you this before and I'll say it again. Ever hear of the "right" to refuse service? You doubt it's validity? Try walking into a restaurant in America without shoes on your feet.

Weren't you the one complaining about losing rights?"

The Imam's were wearing shoes, and they were denied boarding, according to the police report, because they were praying in the terminal. In the most sarcastic way I agree with you. Let's deplane everybody who does anything suspicious, or ever bothers us. Not just on airplanes but in every facet of society. Let's never let them fly again. In fact lets lock em up. We don't need any evidence, just suspicion. Lets never bring them to trial or charge em with anything. Well just keep anybody who isn't like us from ever being able to hurt us. Am I beginning to sound rational to you yet? Or do I need to burn a few more freedoms from the constitution.

"Can you prove the booking of the airline didn't seat them that way?"

No, I haven't seen the police report, and neither have you. You've seen what someone portrayed to be the police report, just like it was portrayed over and over that they talked loudly about bin Laden. Every single news show I've seen has cited them spreading out in seat they weren't assigned to. Is the police report you've seen any more substiantiated?

Can you "prove" these people exist at all? Can you prove it ever really happened? I always find it funny when people use that argument online. They come at me with a lot of points about a situation, then demand I "prove" something. Can you "prove" anything, Dan? Nope, you can just point to second-hand information just like the rest of us.