Tuesday, October 27, 2009

'Flying imams' win; America loses







homelearnactlocal chaptersContact Congress








“Flying Imams” Win; America
Loses



The commentary by
Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten below reminds us, yet
again, that when it comes to combating radical Islam, many in our own
government seem determined to unilaterally disarm us.

The good news from the “flying imams”
case is that the citizens who reported the suspicious activity were not
sued — thanks to congressional legislation that ACT helped get passed in
the summer of 2007.


That was when Brigitte Gabriel sent
out an email alert urging people to contact Congress to pass the bill
protecting citizens from lawsuits when they report suspicious activity
in public places like airports. As a result, over 100,000 phone calls
poured into Congress, and the bill passed.


The bad news is that, incredibly, the
law enforcement personnel, the “first responders,” were not so
protected.


This is why ACT! for America is supporting
legislation to protect first responders from such lawsuits as well as
legislation to expand the protection of citizens from such lawsuits. At
the appropriate time we will email you ACTION ALERTS regarding action
you can take to help us get these bills passed.


In the
meantime, you can help us increase the power of our collective voice by
joining our fall “Call to Action” campaign. Brigitte launched this in
September with the goal of adding 750 new Patriot Partners and
Contributing Members to our organization.

We’re pleased to report that as of
today we are 87% of the way to our goal. If you have already signed on,
thank you!


If not, and you’re able to help us reach this goal,
please
click
here
to become a monthly contributing Patriot Partner or click
here
to make a one-time contribution as a Contributing Member. (If
you prefer to mail a check,
click
here
to print out a form to mail with your check).


We only need 97 more of our members to respond to reach our “Call to
Action” campaign goal. By helping us, the person we win legislative
protection from a future lawsuit just might be you.






Katherine Kersten: 'Flying imams' case is settled at our
expense


It's all too easy to apply hindsight to a potentially perilous situation.

By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/65839372.html?page=1&c=y


Last update: October 25, 2009 - 11:44 AM

The "flying
imams" and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are
declaring victory in their legal war against law-enforcement personnel
and safety procedures at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
Their "victory" -- aided and abetted by a judge arrogantly dismissive of
law-enforcement realities -- is a major setback for transportation
safety.

The case made news three years ago when the six imams
were removed from a U.S. Airways jet after passengers and airline
employees reported that the six were engaging in suspicious behavior,
including changing seats into a so-called 9/11 pattern; cursing the
United States and its conflict with Saddam Hussein; chanting "Allah,
Allah" when boarding was called, and unnecessarily requesting seat-belt
extenders that could be used as weapons.

The imams were
questioned and released. Subsequently, they sued U.S. Airways, the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the officers involved and even
passengers they suspected of reporting their behavior, until an
outraged, bipartisan Congress passed a law giving the passengers
immunity.

Last week, a settlement was announced in the case.
Details remain confidential, and the judge must approve the agreement.
But the parties have said publicly that -- though there is no admission
of guilt or fault -- money will change hands. MAC's insurance company
exercised its right to take charge of the defense and chose to settle,
according to MAC spokesman Patrick Hogan.

No wonder. In a ruling
this summer, U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery pinned the
law-enforcement officials involved to the wall -- one from the FBI and
six from MAC -- second-guessing their conduct with the luxury of a
Monday-morning quarterback.

When the officers were summoned to
Flight 300 on Nov. 20, 2006, they believed that passengers might be in
danger, and they had to make quick decisions based on limited
information. Montgomery, in contrast, had the opportunity to review
hundreds of pages of briefs, depositions and exhibits before concluding
-- in hindsight -- that the officers had erred in detaining the imams.
After hearing lawyers' arguments, she deliberated for almost three
months before penning a 47-page dissertation on what, in her view, the
officers should or shouldn't have done that day.

Most important, she -- unlike the officers -- knew with the benefit of hindsight that
passengers had not been in danger.

On July 24, 2009, Montgomery
issued her ruling. "No reasonably competent officer," she wrote, could
have believed he was acting legally by detaining and questioning the
imams in a way that, in her view, amounted to an "arrest." The fact that
at least 15 officers involved in the incident -- from the MAC, the
Federal Air Marshal Service, the FBI and the Secret Service -- had all
apparently believed they were acting appropriately and responsibly did
not appear to give her pause. The MAC officers, Montgomery ruled, were
actually guilty of a "willful or malicious wrong."

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, worries
about the impact of a settlement reached under such circumstances.


"Terrorism operates on fear," says Jasser. "Transportation
authorities don't know when, where or how terrorists will strike, so
they must be vigilant." After this settlement, he adds, the men and
women charged with protecting the public will have to contend with a
"competing fear" as they make tough decisions: "They may ask, 'If I
detain and question someone who is acting suspiciously, will I cost my
employer thousands of dollars, or even lose my job?'"

This chilling effect may lead to risky changes in airport security policies
and pilot training, Jasser warns. As a result, officials may miss "vital
nuances" in behavior that put the rest of us in danger.

Despite a potential increase in safety risks at the airport, is the flying
imams' settlement at least a victory for Muslim civil rights, as CAIR
has declared? On the contrary, says Jasser -- a Muslim -- it's a victory
for the legal strategy of "victimization," which grievance groups have
often employed to "shake down" defendants. CAIR and the imams dismiss
national security concerns, he says, in order to portray airport
security measures as motivated by ethnic and religious bigotry. In the
process, they ignore the central role of suspicious behavior and cast
themselves as victims of irrational bias.

This obsession with
victimization leads CAIR and the imams to ignore Muslims' real
interests, Jasser adds.

"Muslims have responsibility for
religious reform, aimed at removing the fuel that powers the growth of
radical Islam. We will have succeeded when we no longer see arrests for
terrorist-related activities -- as we did recently in Denver, New Jersey
and Boston," he says. "The real victory for Muslims will come when the
cancer of political Islamist ideology, which feeds terrorism,
disappears."










-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ACT for
America

P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
http://www.actforamerica.org/


ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization
dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful
grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network
committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to
public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense
of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam.
We are only as
strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is
essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer
and more secure.


The news items, blogs,
educational materials and other information in our emails and on our
website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on
events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this
information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services,
newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and
radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have
undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the
information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all
liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources.
We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may
be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on
our website.






HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.




HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.





No comments:

Post a Comment