THE DAILY BLADE: See Something, Say Something, Get Sued By CAIR
Islamic advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the six "imams" removed from a Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight on Nov. 20 after acting suspiciously enough to alarm fellow passengers and US Airways crewmembers (last item, The Daily Blade, December 4, 2006). CAIR and the "imams" are seeking as-yet unspecified compensatory and punitive damages against the airline, Minnesota's Metropolitan Airports Commission and the unnamed "John Doe" passengers who "saw something and said something" – just as they have been urged to do by public safety officials since the terror attacks on September 11, 2001.
As our collective safety depends on airline passengers – as well as those traveling by bus, train and subway – to watch for and report unattended bags and suspicious activity without worrying that they will be sued, some lawyers are offering to defend the passengers free of charge. One of them tells The Associated Press:
"When you drive up the road towards the airport, there's a big road sign that says, `Report suspicious behavior,'" said Gerry Nolting, a Minneapolis lawyer. "There's no disclaimer that adds, `But beware if you do that, you might get sued.'"
According to Crosswalk.com, conservative public advocacy law firm The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is likewise offering its services free to any citizen named in CAIR's lawsuit.
AZ internist Zuhdi Jasser, who knows five of the "flying imams" personally, is also volunteering to raise money to help any passengers they sue, according to the Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St. Paul). Jasser, a devout Muslim who founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy along with others describing themselves as "pro-Islam and anti-Islamist," tells the paper:
"Americans are so worried about offending religious sensibilities. We as Muslims must step forward and say, 'This is not about prayer, it's about airline security." …
"After 9/11, the airport gate is the most anxiety-laden area for Americans. It is supreme naivete for these individuals to feel the way to exercise their religious freedom is embodied by their ability to pray as a group at an airport gate."
The imams could have prayed quietly in their seats on the plane or after they arrived home, says Jasser, as several of them did. This is what "less rigid but equally devout Muslims" would have done, he adds. …
At home in the Phoenix area, the imams often mix prayer with politics, according to Jasser. He cites the Tempe Islamic Community Center, where Ahmed Shqeirat, one of the detained men, is imam, and where Jasser often used to attend prayers. Shortly after the Iraq war began, Jasser says, Shqeirat displayed during Friday services an inflammatory picture of an American soldier making sport of an Iraqi child. When Jassser objected, saying that he had come for spiritual nourishment, not politics, Shqeirat accused him of being "secular" and causing division, he says. …
Jasser's views on separation of religion and state are extreme, Shqueirat adds.
Omar Mohammedi, who is representing the "imams," suggests that some of the complaining passengers may have acted out of prejudice. He tells AP: "As an attorney, I have seen a lot of abuse by the general public when it comes to members of the community creating stories that do not exist." In a ridiculous game of semantics, CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad and its hired gun Mohammedi are claiming that their lawsuit is not targeting "ordinary citizens" who "simply reported" suspicious activity "in good faith", but "those who may have knowingly made false reports" with the "intent to discriminate" against the "imams."
Leaving aside the fact that CAIR routinely "creates stories that do not exist" about an "anti-Muslim backlash" in the U.S. since 9/11, neither Awad nor Mohammedi have indicated how they plan to determine each John Doe’s state of mind to separate the concerned citizens from the anti-Muslim bigots.
The lawsuit, which neither Attorney General Alberto Gonzales nor Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has condemned as of this writing, is also seeking a legal injunction to prevent "future unlawful discrimination" – in other words, to hamstring TSA personnel, airline crews and federal Air Marshals from taking prudent action when necessary.
But the House of Representatives has been spurred to take action. An editorial in Investors Business Daily points out that many – but by no means all – Dems understood the need for a "flying imams shield law," as the measure is being referred to throughout the blogosphere:
By a 304-121 vote ... the House passed the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 with added language that protects passengers who report suspicious activity from lawsuits. …
Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat and honoree of the Mississippi Trial Lawyers Association, opposed the protection of 'John Doe' passengers on the grounds that it would encourage racial profiling. 'Absolutely they should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law,' he opined.
The public should be concerned that Rep. Thompson - whose largest campaign was heavily funded by lawyers and law firms, and who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee - either cannot or will not recognize the obvious risk.
Editorial Note: Throughout this post, The Stiletto used quote marks whenever referring to the six "imams." In point of fact, the title merely means "leader" and does not necessarily refer to a cleric. Neither the MSM nor The Stiletto knows enough about these men to simply assume that all six – or even one - of them is the equivalent of a priest or rabbi. Zuhdi Jasser’s remarks to the Star Tribune suggest that they are political activists. A devout Muslim is duty-bound to memorize the Koran, and any Muslim man who can recite the Koran word-for-word can establish a mosque and lead prayers.
Until and unless The Stiletto learns that these six "imams" are holy men, she will regard them as anti-American political activists – and potential terrorists, though Gonzales has not seen fit to launch a criminal investigation into the matter. With this bogus lawsuit, CAIR is capitalizing on American ignorance of Islam and Muslim culture. Unfortunately for Awad, some of us know what CAIR is up to.
First, We "Elected" Billary. Are We About To "Elect" Rudith?
Rudy Giuliani made the first serious blunder of his presidential campaign in a "20/20" interview. No, not the bit about wife, Judith, having a "secret" husband before marrying and divorcing Bruce Nathan, then wedding Rudy in 2003. That other bit, when Rudy told Barbara Walters that he would allow his wife to sit in on Cabinet meetings if he wins the White House: "If she wanted to. If they were relevant to something that she was interested in. I mean that would be something that I'd be very, very comfortable with." The First Lady hopeful, a nurse, unhelpfully chimed in to specify that she was particularly interested in health care.
It’s déjà vu all over again.
As columnist and blogger Dean Barnett puts it: "Bill Clinton gave Hillary Clinton 14% of the American economy to toy with as a cat does a terrified mouse." He adds that "Mrs. Clinton's effort to impose Hillary-Care on an unwilling nation was a historic blunder" and "an outrageous act of nepotism" that "violated deeply held American values" rooted in our Founding Fathers' having quite deliberately chosen to "avoid the trappings of monarchy."
Barnett explains:
"In the system they designed, the President would be no king and his wife, therefore, would be no queen. Until the Clintons, every prior president showed a demonstrable understanding of this basic fact. …
Where the Giulianis truly stumbled was in assuming that the Clintons established a new norm. Quite the contrary, the Clintons' dalliance with monarchial privilege was not only disastrous but widely unpopular. Bill Clinton's appointment of his wife to a role of such import was a moment of historic arrogance.
To his credit – or to the credit of his advisors – Rudy immediately realized he had strayed into a minefield and beat a hasty retreat in a statement issued late Friday. The Associated Press reports:
"Obviously, she will not be a Cabinet member or attend most Cabinet meetings _ if any. But she will pursue a campaign to educate Americans on preventing illness and promoting overall health." …
[T]he former mayor sought to play down his own remarks and suggested any discussion of a policy role for his wife was merely prompted by Walters' questioning. …
"Like most couples, we rely on each other and support each other, but we have different interests. My interest is in politics and deciding policy. Judith is a nurse. Her interest is in educating people on how to stay healthy."
In a column titled, "Rudy’s The One," publisher and flat-tax advocate Steve Forbes explains his decision to back Rudy’s candidacy: He cut New York City’s crime and welfare in half; displayed "Churchillian leadership" in the days after the terrorist attacks on 9/11; and is the only "real fiscal conservative" in the race, having cut both taxes and the size of government, and having turned a $2.3 billion dollar budget deficit inherited from David Dinkins into a multibillion dollar surplus. No one will write a column, editorial or commentary, "Rudith’s The One."
Americans are not voting for – and emphatically do not want – a "two-fer." Rudy and Judy need to understand this – and to demonstrate to voters that they do.
I think Laura Bush is an excellent example of what a First Lady should be. As a librarian, she has made an impact in her area of expertise using her visibility and influence. I hated that Hillary Clinton was given such a huge role in the health care debacle. I am a nurse and frankly, I believe the field has been the worse for the Clinton efforts to overhaul the system. If Rudy becomes President, I hope his wife will use her influence to raise awareness for health care issues but not be in charge of US policy regarding health care.
Reply to this