Secrets of the City

I will miss the phrase “The Flying Imams” in the news. So delightfully weird.

I like ’sheiks on a plane’ better…

The plan was executed pefectly! payday.

In other, simpler times, the Flying Imams would’ve been an entertaining trapeze act at the Shrine Circus.

Allahu akbar!

I don’t know how to be polite about this, but the idea that this was premeditated is so idiotic as to be beneath discussion.

“Hey, you know how we can get some money! Sit apart, say the word Allah, and order a seat-belt extender and not use it! It’s guaranteed to make people think we’re terrorists!”

I’m holding off opinion until I learn more about the settlement.

@Max: Some people are so friggin’ out in orbit. Their logic works backasswards.

Thats it…I’m calling it. Thy Flying Imams were true blood Heaniacs. They did it all for the publicity. I have a two bit blogger er I mean entrepenuer that will backup my claims. All he requires is a case of pabst and an original copy of Lou Reed’s “White light/white heat” on vinyl.

My post was toungue in cheek, but what makes you so sure it wasn’t staged, max? All I can find are ‘conflicting accounts’ of what went on. I can’t make a judgement either way. How can you?

I can make the case that in the absense of any certain evidence that the imams changed this, discussing it is at best idle speculation and at worse blaming the victims. If any evidence — any at all — comes out that this was preplanned, I’ll change my tune, but until then its preposterous. And there aren’t really confliciting accounts. Even the most damning accounts don’t give any indication that this was a preplanned scheme; instead they simply show poor judgement on the imams part. And I don’t especially believe those accounts, and, based on the settlement, it doesn’t sound like the airline felt they could make it stick either.

Some things I’ve been reading (some very ludicrous bits, I might add), are stating that they beleive that it was staged not for monetary gain, but to set forth principal (or legislation) that deals with profiling in airports. If the witnesses made things up to make their case seem stronger, shame on them. But if they really heard these imams discussing Al-Queda, etc, then I still think it was a good thing to alert authorities. I just hope whatever legislation (if any) is born out of this that it doesn’t scare people from reporting suspicious activity being carried out by ANYONE, when public safety is in question. I also hope that the settlement is not dispropotionate to what they actually endured.

“But if they really heard these imams discussing Al-Queda, etc, then I still think it was a good thing to alert authorities.”

Well, they supposedly mentioned Bin Laden. The police report mentions that, but doesn’t provide any context. I would agree that this might have been a foolish thing for them to discuss, but reports are that they were having the discussion in Arabic, and it was, after all, a pretty big topic those days. The Somali store owners across the street from me still talk about him, and I have yet to call the cops on them.

Again, none of this really points to a scheme to get thrown off the airplane.

I think that discrimination cases should not be allowed to be settled out of court. Once the charge is leveled it should be tried publicly. I also think that the loser should pay all court costs. This protects both sides and brings to light the truth. All we have now is speculation.

“The Somali store owners across the street from me still talk about him, and I have yet to call the cops on them.”
Come on dude…
This is totally different context. They were on a plane filled with people getting ready to fly. Would you not have alerted anyone had you overheard that conversation?

If I had heard and understood the conversation, and it was threatening, yes. If I had just heard the name, no.

I don’t really blame the passengers for being freaked out. I was on a plane to New York the weekend after 9/11 and I was ready to throw my seat cushion at if the plane’s three other passengers, none of whom, as far as I could tell, were Muslim. I think the airline did a poor job in assessing the threat, though.

But if they really heard these imams discussing Al-Queda, etc

Americans have trouble enough understanding English. I can’t fathom the average Merkin air traveler even being able to understand someone saying “hello” in a foreign language. “How do you say ‘hello’ in Canadian?”

I would classify the witness claim in the same category as I would the individual I encountered at a Democratic caucus in 2003 who stated he was in favor of making English the lingua franca of the US because he felt very uncomfortable whenever passersby would speak something other English in his presence: Xenophobia.

Which is just another word for paranoid.

yea, that is debatable, for sure.
I just don’t want people to be too afriad to report someone acting suspiciously with the fear of being accused of profiling. I’m afraid that’s one thing that could become of this. But we’ll see, I guess.

Of course saying “bin Laden” means nothing more than “son of Laden.” I would assume there are many people in the Arab world both with that last name and reason to say that phrase without referring to Osama bin Laden. Additionally, since they were speaking in Arabic, the chance that someone who doesn’t have at least some experience in Arabic could pick out any phrases is unlikely. If I was listening to someone speak Korean it is doubful I would understand “Kim Jung Il” unless I was specifically listening for it AND knew the correct pronunciation.

Would you not have alerted anyone had you overheard that conversation?

Only if I were fluent enough in their language to make the substantial accusation that was made.

“Bin” is a common name among Muslims. Older went to college with a Malaysian student named Kasim bin Sultan. For all you know, baker, they were talking about someone other than bin Laden. Or maybe they were speaking in English about a store bin that was laden with sundries and other dry goods?

c/Older brother

I used to fly on Merkin Airlines, but I had questions about their cleanliness.

“Americans have trouble enough understanding English. I can’t fathom the average Merkin air traveler even being able to understand someone saying “hello” in a foreign language.”

Who are these people you talk about all the time? Where are they? What lofty place are you in to say this over and over.

I have trouble understanding people with an English accent, and I lived in Bath when I was a boy.

Does better safe than sorry apply here?
I know we are talking about human rights, and this is where it gets tough…imagine having to actually make the decision on the fly–do we pull these guys off the plane, or assuem that their behavior is not suspicious, and let it go?
Tough choices…

I’d say sending somebody aboard to talk with one of them might have been a better option than simply throwing them off. I have cops come over and talk to me all the time. “Hey, what are you doing?” “Did you drink all that?” “Do you have permission forms for those photos?” “Are all those models over 18?”

I don’t blame them, and it clears things up pretty fast.

That was phrased rather poorly^^
I think you know what I mean though?

“I just hope whatever legislation (if any) is born out of this that it doesn’t scare people from reporting suspicious activity being carried out by ANYONE, when public safety is in question.”

Maybe I missed something, but the only legislation I’ve heard proposed as a result of this case would basically indemnify anyone who made ANY type of report of “suspicious” activity.

Who are these people you talk about all the time? Where are they? What lofty place are you in to say this over and over.

Well, Rat, what other language besides English can you claim any fluency in?

I can’t, but I know how to say hello in Canadian.

And you could still climb off your perch.

You remind me a Canadian friend of mine, ‘Nood. I could get on the telephone with her, and if we weren’t talking business and just chatting, I could put a timer on the point she would talk about Obese Americans. Why???

Rat, I don’t need to climb off any perch. The simple fact is if a Minnesotan can fluently understand — better yet, speak — a second language it would be unusual and, if so, it would most likely be a European tongue. (I’m sure Californians and Floridians and New Yorkers can get around nicely speaking a second language.)

Minnesota is fortunate that several secondary school districts do offer language instruction in something other than French or Spanish or German. I’m willing to wager that none — NONE — of the passengers on board that plane could speak any Arabian language. If the Imams were speaking something other than English, how could a passenger know for certain what was being said, discussed or criticized?

[From the article:] [T]hey said some of the men made critical comments about the Iraq war while aboard.

Would I have been thrown off the plane for speaking critically of the Iraqi war? Because, y’know, I have been critical of the war since the get-go. It’s sad to think that an American citizen (of which five of Imams were) can be detained for legally criticizing an illegal war.

I could put a timer on the point she would talk about Obese Americans. Why???

Because the perception elsewhere is that Americans ARE fat?

Still no reason to bring it up over and over again, even if it’s true. Awright some people here are fat, so what?

Still no reason to bring it up over and over again, even if it’s true.

You’re the one who introduced obesity into the conversation, Rat.

I honestly don’t think I bring up the language issue very often. But when you’ve actually seen the way some of your fellow citizens act overseas, or right here at home, when it comes to things that are “foreign,” well, it just boggles the mind.

In Paris, if someone was wearing a baseball or tractor cap chances were they were American. Something like that doesn’t go unnoticed.

noodle, for the record, google and you’ll find mutliple accounts stating that there was a passenger that spoke arabic onboard that overheard the conversations of these guys.

Here is the complaint.
http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/imams.pdf

“But when you’ve actually seen the way some of your fellow citizens act overseas,”

All the time, dude.

“or right here at home, when it comes to things that are “foreign,” well, it just boggles the mind.”

They act like humans. Oh, my. They wear a baseball cap!!!

American’s are a Respectable ninth in terms of being a good tourist.

The French are sorriest tourists in the world. And they get out less than Americans.

@baker: I stand corrected. Thank you. But the one passenger’s language ability should not legitimize the equation that dissent = terrorism. Of course, this happened while Bush-Cheney were in office, and we know how well they tolerated citizen dissent.

@Rat: The French have their problems with Muslims, too. Mere coincidence?

Substitute “American” for “French” and you’ll get the general idea of how your average American is viewed as an overseas tourist:

[From the article:] “The French don’t go abroad very much. We’re lucky enough to have a country which is magnificent in terms of its landscape and culture,” he said. “So when they’re on holiday they can be a bit stressed, they’re not used to things, and this can lead them to be demanding in a way which could be seen as a certain arrogance.”

“Substitute “American” for “French” and you’ll get the general idea of how your average American is viewed as an overseas tourist:”

I guess you didn’t bother to read the link.

The Americans are the in the top 10.

So were the Minnesota Twins, but their season is over.

I guess you didn’t bother to read the link.

Huh? Then how was I able to copy ‘n paste from the article the link led to?

Well, you would see that the Americans are among the top 10 tourists in the survey, not at the bottom, like the French.

Between baker and I we have pretty much made BS out two mistaken perceptions you seem to harbor.

Are there any others you might want to submit for scrutiny?

Imams get inconvenienced, settle lawsuit:

Different story outside Barbarian America

“An Iranian-American man has been sentenced to 15 years in an Iranian prison for his role in protests after the disputed presidential election in June, a U.S. State Department spokesman said Tuesday.”

The police complaint, unless I have misread it, doesn’t say anything about the passenger speaking Arabic. I’ve tried to chase down the source of that, but it only pop up and sites that tell a “friend of a friend said this is what happened” version of the events.

The complaint document I linked to was that from the prosecutor, as far as I can tell. Maybe some details were skipped over?

@Rat: Bravo for him, but that doesn’t prove anything except that the rule of law is different in Iran. And I’m sure he knew that going in. If I were you, I’d be more worried about the steady erosion of our own civil liberties since 2001 … e.g., the arrest of five American citizens in a Minneapolis airport because they weren’t speaking English, and who dressed and behaved in a manner that frightened some WASPs.

Here’s the police report in PDF form.

“that doesn’t prove anything except that the rule of law is different in Iran.”

Call it different, call it a ham sandwich, call it whatever you want. If you’re too timid to make a value judgement, I will. It’s oppressive. The imams got detained and settled a lawsuit, probably in their favor. I’ll make a value judgement if you’re too scared. I’ll say it’s law, and I’m proud that I live in a country that can settle things this way.

Are any of the Flying Imams Iranian, Rat? The only one I could track down is Jordanian.

Even so, unless an Iranian Flying Imam has actually stated support for Iranian law in this instance, your comment is considerably beside the point. Let me offer an invented comparison: An American of Nigerian extraction is falsely arrested an sues, and you link to a story that shows that he would have been beheaded in Ethiopia. Not only does it not relate to the event, but it’s not entirely fair to behave as though everybody in Africa is pretty much alike, and all are somehow accountable for the laws of one specific African country.

I do agree that Americans are better tourists than we are given credit for. In general, I think we’re pretty decent people.

Correction: The Imams were detained; not arrested. That detail doesn’t diminish the gravity of rights erosion.

Well, all we know is that the imams won’t go to jail or even have a criminal record, and there’s a good possibility they’ll get a little money or some type of compensation or satisfaction that seemed to be enough for them. If there’s some grave injustice still hanging out there, I don’t know what it is.

@Rat: It’s really our culture on trial in situations like this. I don’t want our country to turn into that which we fear. Innuendo, rumor, and ignorance are powerful weapons but are unbecoming of a country that espouses liberty and justice as cardinal values.

“It’s really our culture on trial in situations like this. Innuendo, rumor, and ignorance are powerful weapons but are unbecoming of a country that espouses liberty and justice as cardinal values.”

And, in this case, they reached a settlement. Or, do you think there is someone who has to hang for this?

Bush? Cheney? Do they work for US Airways?

And, in this case, they reached a settlement. Or, do you think there is someone who has to hang for this?

Wow, Rat. You really do read more into something than is really there. Self-reflection is not the same thing as a public lynching.

Bush? Cheney? Do they work for US Airways?

Shit dribbles downhill.

Reagan, of course, is ultimately to blame.

@Rat: It’s really our culture on trial in situations like this. I don’t want our country to turn into that which we fear. Innuendo, rumor, and ignorance are powerful weapons…..

So are hijacked airplanes. At which point does something become suspicious? We’ll never know what exactly happened on that flight. What if these were aspiring terrorists that were stopped due to passenger attention? It’s easy to sit here and cast judgement that US Airways handled this wrong, but with Islamic terrorism a very real threat, it only makes sense to play on the safe side. Just what is the safe side is the unanswered question. Without being in the actual situation, we will never know how suspicious these guys were really acting, if at all. I’m sure they got interrogated quite deeply, but I sincerely doubt they really had any life changing experiences by getting questioned for 5 hours. It is clear that these scholars were sending a message–profiling is not right. Do we risk public safety because we don’t want to profile, ever? If I attended a NAACP conference wearing a white robe and reading bible passages loudly, should I be subject to questioning?

If I was pulled off a plane and interrogated for five hours because I had said a Jewish prayer and mentioned Meir Kahane in Hebrew, I would consider that a life-changing experience.

“I’m sure they got interrogated quite deeply, but I sincerely doubt they really had any life changing experiences by getting questioned for 5 hours.”

I’d be willing to bet that they are permanently on a Federal “terrorist watch-list.” That would be life changing.

What if these were aspiring terrorists that were stopped due to passenger attention?

baker, in the real world, WASPs commmit terrorism, too, and have hijacked airplanes, and have blown up buildings. Or were Rudolph, Cooper and McVeigh — GASP! — secret Muslims?

Why don’t we cast suspicion on EVERYONE who flies rather than just people who dress and speak differently? Anyone seen reading the Bible in an airport should be interrogated. That’d be a good place to start. LOL

I could almost imagine the grim satisfaction people could get out the detainment of a handful of Southern Christian fundamentalists praying in a circle and later badmouthing the Obama administration.

Of course they do noodle. And there are many types of suspicious activity in which it would be appropriate to question ANYONE. I don’t think I implied otherwise.

Have you flown recently? I recently got pulled out of the security line and my LCD projector swabbed with cotton and sniffed for explosives. I wasn’t offended and didn’t ask or care why I was singled out. Wasn’t reading the bible or praying in arabic. All in all I think the TSA and airlines do pretty well staying objective.
It is obvious that islamic terrorism is still a sort of hot button issue these days, for very valid reasons. This may have added to the perception of the witnesses on what was suspicious and what was not. Like I said, it’s hard to know what the conditions were without being there.

@baker: My concern is that far too many WASPy people are too quick to judge. They lead insulated, provincial lives, and are not fully aware of how irrational some of their actions appear or how unreasonably disruptive those actions are to others.

“Unreasonable?! These were potential terrorists!” Well, yes, when another culture is broadly thought of as “towel heads” and “terrorists,” I would call that unreasonable. I would also call it irrational and paranoid. As for a group having terrorism potential, let’s just say violent acts have also been made in the name of Christ, too, and, frankly, I’m more afraid of some of those people than I am of any “Ay-rab” or “Eye-rocky.”

Re: swabbing your LCD projector. I suppose I should be impressed with how accommodating you are of the TSA security theatrics.

“My concern is that far too many WASPy people are too quick to judge. ”

now THAT’S racist.

WASPs aren’t a race. They’re an ethnic group.

A insular, provincial, obtuse group who bumble through the world leaving bewildered annoyance in their wake.

And don’t forget, they’re fat, too.

WASP is also a culture, as exemplified by a whole parade of wingnut zanies.

A insular, provincial, obtuse group who bumble through the world leaving bewildered annoyance in their wake.

Bewildered? Hardly. Annoyed? Oh, yes.

Eric Black delivers a smack-down of the “facts” in this case over at Minnpost today. http://bit.ly/hloUN

Black’s piece is a pretty efficient rebuttal to Katherine Kersten’s op ed. I appreciated Black pointing out the the Flying Imams case occurred two years after 9/11, so the “we were in a panic” argument doesn’t really have that much authority anymore, and Black also points out just how many of the “suspicious” activities of the imams were authorized, approved, or required by the airline before they ever boarded.

I appreciate we are still using the phrase “Flying Imams.”