flyin Imans

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Thought this was over but look like a liberal judge has given them new look--from Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071121/NATION/111210097/1001

Bias suit against US Airways upheld
By Audrey Hudson
November 21, 2007
A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed by a group of imams against US Airways and a Minneapolis airport can proceed.



U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery said in a 41-page opinion late yesterday that the imams, who say they were discriminated against when they were removed from a flight last year, have a plausible claim that their constitutional rights may have been violated.



The imams "have adequately stated a claim" that airport police may have "seized plaintiffs in violation of their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures," Judge Montgomery ruled.



"This preliminary victory shows that any American can have a day in court," said Omar Mohammedi, attorney for the imams.



"The case is about civil rights violations and constitutional principles that we all cherish. Our judicial system has always been, and will remain, the hope for all minorities who seek to redress civil rights violations," Mr. Mohammedi said.



However, the judge dismissed two of the imams' complaints. The imams had argued that they suffered from emotional distress as a result of the incident, and one of the imams said he was discriminated against because he is blind.



US Airways says the captain's decision to remove the men from the flight "was not arbitrary and capricious" but that he relied on a passenger's note saying the men had made anti-American comments and sat in a "dispersed seating arrangement" and on a flight attendant's observation that two of the imams "had asked for seat-belt extensions, but only one seemed to need one." Passenger records also indicated that three of the men were flying on one-way tickets.



In summarizing the events that led up to the men's removal from the November 2006 flight from Minnesota to Phoenix, the judge wrote that "it is dubious that these facts would lead a reasonable person to conclude that plaintiffs were about to interfere with the crew of Flight 300."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Montgomery, Ann D.
Born 1949 in Litchfield, MN

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Nominated by William J. Clinton on November 27, 1995, to a seat vacated by Diana E. Murphy; Confirmed by the Senate on August 2, 1996, and received commission on August 6, 1996.

 

[roc612]

Dont you hate those Judges who read the Bill of Rights and then apply it as it was intended.
If we had a conservative on the bench in this case -then he/she couldve just ignored that BIll of RIGHTS stuff and dismissed this.



Roc

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

You need to clarify--liberal interpretation of Bill of Rights.

-- like
child porn sights-same sex marriage-legalizing drugs-drivers licence for illegals-sanctuary cities for illegals-
attorneys for terrorists--don't humiliate terrorist that bomb innocent people or chop off heads of their captives--

--you know--common sense issues

 

[Nosigar]

Dont you hate those Judges who read the Bill of Rights and then apply it as it was intended.
If we had a conservative on the bench in this case -then he/she couldve just ignored that BIll of RIGHTS stuff and dismissed this.



Roc

I hear ya, man. Read the part where Jefferson was pondering letting dudes representing some strange alien and menacing religious extreme threaten law abiding citizens as long as they were traveling in a future flying artifact capable of carrying more than 5 stage coach loads of people.


Damn, where do you nuts come from? What the hell happened to you? :shrug:

 

[roc612]

Dogs,
You would be the first guy off the bus screaming when/or if your rights got infringed upon.
What your infering is the Bill of Rights should work for you because you arent a muslim cleric. However anyone who's not a judeo/christian shouldnt be able to walk the street.Guess what- -thats whats wrong with some of America. We have Judges who interpret the law to their liking(ie: their personal prejudices?)Thomas and Scalia immediately come to my mind.
The bill of rights wasnt wriitten to protect Liberals. It's written to protect all citizens -PERIOD..Without it God only knows where would be as a nation.You would probably still have Japanese/American citizens in WWar 2 detention camps
If your going to complain - Why dont you at least tell me your lobbying your party to deport all illegal aliens.They deserve no rights or benefits-PERIOD( and I dont give a damn how long theyve been here as hard working law abiding citizens) At least I can agree with that. They are here illegally.Our politicans just dont get that.
A couple years ago TYSON Chicken got caught with over a thousand illegals working for them and got a hand slap- When anything illegal benefits Corporate America I guess its ok.Your gop frontrunner at the moment (RUDY G) has pandered to them(illegals) in the past- so give me a break
happy thanksgiving
Roc

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Dogs,
You would be the first guy off the bus screaming when/or if your rights got infringed upon."

You might be correct but as I told you before-it all depends on ones values on their interpretation-

--and per my previous post I personally don't believe our founding fathers had

--child porn sights-same sex marriage-legalizing drugs-drivers licence for illegals-sanctuary cities for illegals-assualt on pledge of alliegence/-flag burning

--attorneys for terrorists--don't humiliate terrorist that bomb innocent people or chop off heads of their captives--

--in mind when they wrote bill of rights
--but to each their own--if you find these in violation of your rights --so be it

 

[kosar]

Roc,

Gimme a break. I highly doubt that you'd be getting anywhere that airplane if you witnessed their confirmed behavior, which goes beyond simply 'praying' in the airport. F*ck that. They're insane to think they are owed anything or have any sort of legitimate grievance.

On another note, Wayne, while you may or may not be right that this judge is 'liberal', i'd like to know what facts you have to confirm this. Have you looked into her record?

Or is it simply that she was appointed by Bubba, a very moderate democrat?

I guess by that 'standard', Stevens, Souter and O'Connor are/were 'conservative' Supreme Court justices because they were appointed by Ford/Bush 1/Reagan respectively.

Is it even possible for you to discuss a topic without getting a 'liberal' or 'Clinton' reference in there?

Whatever the case, I obviously, as stated above, totally agree with you on this issue.

 

[roc612]

Kosar,
Bingo, you get it- Not a fat chance I get near that airplane. That being said-did the TSA do their job screeniing these folks?
Did this account by passengers get exagerated? I wasnt there nor where you so we dont know .
but as a non- conservative I am at least going to try and shed light on biased(dear i say prejudiced )views that are just ultra conservative.That being said- did the judge intrepret the bill of rights incorrectly.
as it is - the fact that we take off our shoes at airports shows we didnt win against these bastards. we are so fearful and its because we are so hated outside the USA. did this administation help us or hurt us in that dept? i say they effed us
Kosar, Dogs and anyone else I ask you to answer this. Are we less hated by muslims 4.5 years later after invading and liberating IRAQ- Be honest here!The $$$ we give to these countries to keep the peace(ijn the middle east especially is a joke) its a bribe and nothing more(and they know it!) I would say that about 10%(or less) of what we give is sincere. we dont give a rats -ss about these people. they have goods we need (oil) and we cant afford to have this region destabilized- If we were truly a humanitarian people we wouuld liberate N korea as well. ( the reason we dont is they have zero that we want!) Lets face it!Tell me I am wrong here
kosar,thank you very much for pointing out that Clinton was a Moderate( not a liberal in any true sense) as this board would imply! - I just dont understand why this guy is so non-revered. then We have a guy (GWB)who cant speak the English language or answer a question off the cuff in a live interview(without effing it up) and the gop moral majority thinks he's the second coming of you-know -who .He couldnt be a bbq roast master for most administrations.BIll Clinton could be an ambassador to any foreign country. GWB could not (too unintelligent). yet he is our leader?
What I am missing here?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"What I am missing here"

--any answers or acknowledgement to liberal interpretations of bill of rights that have been presented to you twice in this thread.:shrug:

Now that we have tough on terror issue addressed how about immigration.

Government Halts Illegal Immigrant Employer Crackdown to Rework Rules
Sunday, November 25, 2007

WASHINGTON ? The government says it will rewrite rules for penalizing employers of illegal immigrants to try to satisfy a federal judge in San Francisco who put the crackdown on hold.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer stopped the Bush administration last month from going ahead with enforcement of regulations requiring employers to fire workers if their Social Security numbers did not match records and the discrepancies could not be addressed in 90 days. In issuing the temporary injunction, the judge said the Social Security database contained errors that could have cost many legal workers their jobs, and the government did not properly study the effect of the rules on business.

Late Friday, Breyer agreed to a request from the administration to put the case on hold while it reworks the regulations ? a process bound to put off enforcement until the spring. The judge stayed proceedings until March 24, when the government thought it could have new rules ready on how to enforce immigration laws in the workplace.

Business, labor and civil liberties groups had sued to stop the "no match" rules, arguing the plan would trap companies and workers in a costly bureaucratic nightmare.

In its motion, the administration acknowledged that the judge had found "serious questions on the merits" raised by the case. "A stay will prevent the waste of judicial resources in litigating over a rule that is in the process of being revised," the administration's brief said. "Defendants hope and anticipate that the amended rule will fully address the Court's concerns."

The plan is meant to expose illegal immigrants who get jobs by giving out fake Social Security numbers and penalize companies that employ them. Nothing in the brief suggested the government would ultimately back away from a "no match" plan as it looked for ways to make enforcement pass legal muster.

In September, a month after the plan was announced, the government had about 140,000 letters ready to be sent to employers, each identifying 10 or more employees with mismatches in their records. But the case stopped enforcement from proceeding. Breyer issued the injunction Oct.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and for Matt--are we seeing a trend here

Breyer, Charles R.
Born 1941 in San Francisco, CA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on July 24, 1997, to a seat vacated by D. Lowell Jensen; Confirmed by the Senate on November 8, 1997, and received commission on November 12, 1997.

 

[THE KOD]

Given that Islamic terrorists continue their obsession with turning airplanes into weapons of mass destruction, it is nothing short of obscene that these six religious leaders ? fresh from attending a conference of the North American Imams Federation, featuring discussions on ?Imams and Politics? and ?Imams and the Media? ? chose to turn that airport into a stage and that airplane into a prop in the service of their need for grievance theater. The reality is, these passengers endured a frightening 3 1/2-hour ordeal, which included a front-to-back sweep of the aircraft with a bomb-sniffing dog, in order to advance the provocative agenda of these imams in, of all the inappropriate places after 9/11, U.S. airports.

?Allahu Akbar? was just the opening act. After boarding, they did not take their assigned seats but dispersed to seats in the first row of first class, in the midcabin exit rows and in the rear ? the exact configuration of the 9/11 execution teams. The head of the group, seated closest to the cockpit, and two others asked for a seatbelt extension, kept on board for obese people. A heavy metal buckle at the end of a long strap, it can easily be used as a lethal weapon. The three men rolled them up and placed them on the floor under their seats. And lest this entire incident be written off as simple cultural ignorance, a frightened Arabic-speaking passenger pulled aside a crew member and translated the imams? suspicious conversations, which included angry denunciations of Americans, furious grumblings about U.S. foreign policy, Osama Bin Laden and ?killing Saddam.??

Two days before her op-ed appeared, Pajamas Media reported that, ??new information is emerging that suggests it was all a stunt designed to weaken security.?

Debra followed up by appearing on Fox & Friends on December 12, 2006, and spoke of hearing from plenty of Muslims who were shocked by what the 6 imams did:

She also spoke with syndicated talk-radio host Mark Levin about the 6 imams? greviance theatre.

Katherine Kersten, who has closely followed this story from the beginning, of the Minneapolis-St Paul Star-Tribune, added this news and commentary:

One piece of legislation in the works is the End Racial Profiling Act. It is an important priority of Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, whose district includes one of the largest Muslim populations in the country. Conyers introduced the bill in 2004 and 2005, but it went nowhere. Now the alignment of forces may be changing. Conyers will probably be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes next month.

Nancy Pelosi, who called herself a ?proud? cosponsor of the Profiling Act in 2004, is the incoming House speaker. And in January, Ellison, who represents the district where the imams incident occurred, will take his seat in Congress.

The act, although it doesn?t as yet impose large penalties, would bar any federal, state or local law enforcement agency from ?relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities.? That would include questioning, searches and seizures.

One of the act?s central features is its definition of illegal profiling. Under it, if airport security personnel question passengers who are disproportionately Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent, this alone would constitute a presumptive violation of the law. Law enforcement agencies would bear the burden of proving that discrimination was not the cause.

What would the effect of such a law be?

?A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety,? said Daniel Horan of the Los Angeles Police Department in an interview. He worked at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues for 6 years.
..............................................................

They would kick anyone else off the plane for doing anything close to what these imans did.

Why are they any differant. wtf is America coming to when we can allow people like this to subvert the very system by which we live.

Kick them off the plane, interrogate the hell out of them , put them on another plane with a air marshall sitting beside them, and discount any lawsuit they try to perpetuate.

 

[roc612]

As I said earlier- not a fat chance I get near that plane.(I defend the non conservative point of view-,BUT at least I am honest )that being said - Dogs,Sorry you dont like that we live in a democratic society where we provide rights to ALL! if we discard the bill of rights(we have already pretty much ditched the constitution) then we wont be able to call ourselves a democracy- .
It stinks to have to give religious zealots(with an agenda- that is not peaceful and disruptive) rights but you cant cherry pick who gets rights and who doesnt.
If you do that- then one day you may be the person (as i pointed out to Dogs)who they cherry pick and decide not to give rights to.
The US is an aging society (baby boomers are retiring in record numbers) . We are going to become alot like some of the European nations who are forced to allow foreign workers to immigrate to perform jobs (service jobs-low level jobs) that the europeans wont do(or not enough of them to do).see France as an for example. some of the foreign cultures they have allowed to migrate in have caused them some headache to say the least. If you dont like the foreign people landscape in the US now -all I can say is - YOU aint seen nothing YET.the next twenty years will be" interesting"
where you moving to?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

for the 4th and last time (in this thread) what about liberals interp of freedoms listed TWICE above.

Have you failed to see them or embarrased about them???????

 

[Jabberwocky]

"--child porn sights-same sex marriage-legalizing drugs-drivers licence for illegals-sanctuary cities for illegals-assualt on pledge of alliegence/-flag burning

--attorneys for terrorists--don't humiliate terrorist that bomb innocent people or chop off heads of their captives--"

Becuase someone from the ACLU argued that banning material that did not involve ANY actual children was a violation of free speech, then all liberals support child porn...yeah, ok.

----------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 4623 seeks to ban ""virtual child pornography,"" and prohibit ""pandering"" of images as child pornography even if the images are not obscene or child pornography. It creates a whole new category of prohibited speech, prohibits using sexually explicit materials to facilitate offenses against minors, creates extraterritorial jurisdiction, and creates a database of minors who have been exploited in the creation of child pornography.

The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

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

drivers licence for illegals

Becuase Hillary initially supported the REPUBLICAN GOVERNER Spitzer's plan to provide driver licenses to illegals then all liberals support the plan? Dodd, Richardson, Obama, and many others are and have always been against the plan, but in Wayne's world, all liberals support the REPUBLICAN plan.

legalizing drugs

this is much more of a libertarian position that I happen to support. Do you know how many people died of alcohol and cigarette (you know, the legal drugs) related diseases last year? Over 480,000. Do you know how many died from crack, heroin, marijuana and all other illicit drugs last year? Less than 14,000. Add in the black market economy factor that supports organizations like Al Qaeda, the fact that we are spending billions of dollars to prosecute and encarcerate people that only pose a threat to themselves, the fact that the "war" on drugs has never worked and never will, etc....make a strong argument that legalization is a much more practical approach. Legislation of law to protect someone from themselves is idiotic an ineffectual.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. "

- Thomas Jefferson (aka liberal)

But I digress, remind me, what Democratic candidates are supporting a legalization platform? Oh thats right, NONE.

assualt on pledge of alliegence/-flag burning

that is just stupid.

same sex marriage

All relevant democratic hopefulls say they support civil unions, not gay marriage. The dems opposed AMENDING the constitution to forbid gay marriage, as the document does not address the issue. This is a big one for you, Wayne?

don't humiliate terrorist that bomb innocent people or chop off heads of their captives

If you are referring to torture, you should look into what people who know wtf they are talking about say about the efficacy of torture, forget about upholding a higher moral standard. I guess in your world, we should just start chopping the heads off of anyone suspected of being a "terrorist". Eye for an eye.

attorneys for terrorists

if an American is charged with a crime, they have a right to representation and a fair trial. Yeah, that is exactly the kind of thing the founding fathers intended when they created the Bill of Rights.

Bottom line, about 20% of Democrats identify themselves as "liberals". The "liberal" term is used by the Rovian spinmeisters to drive a wedge between the "left" and the "right" in order to galvanize their base and get 51% on board with their agenda, no matter who it serves. Against the war in Iraq? Well then, you must a child porn loving liberal. Think GW Bush is an idioticly dangerous douchebag? Well then, you must be a pot smoking liberal, etc....I really wish you would get past the straw man labeling of people with different views. It just serves the politics of division.

 

[Jabberwocky]

oh, and btw, I agree with you on the flyin Imans case. The old adage applies, my freedom ends at the tip of your nose. The rights of the other passengers on the plane override the rights of these freaks to behave like Allah crazed gihadists on a commercial jet.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Thank you Jabbers--at least you made an attempt--
I think if you check out this outfit the aclu is defeading on freedom of rights issues--you'll change your tune on one issue-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

--as far as the others -most are special interest groups agenda's not your main stream folks.
I can only think of one issue that both parties are guilty of that I would classify as infringement on rights and that would be eminent domain.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Thank you Jabbers--at least you made an attempt--
I think if you check out this outfit the aclu is defeading on freedom of rights issues--you'll change your tune on one issue-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

--as far as the others -most are special interest groups agenda's not your main stream folks.
I can only think of one issue that both parties are guilty of that I would classify as infringement on rights and that would be eminent domain.

completely sick. It is this kind of nonsense that earns the "liberal wacko" tagline.

 

[roc612]

Dogs,
My response to all your questions is the quote below-
Hope you enjoy the quote (because God knows you wont "get it"-Roc)

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free." -- Clarence S. Darrow- (1857-1938)


PS - How unempowered do you feel to be sucked into being afraid 24/7- the way your party always spins anything and everything into a FEAR campaign. I understand why they do it- if you can get a non genuis elected not just once - but twice-
" then you have to dance with the chick that brought you "
luck to ya and your fellow conservatives in 08 at "THE DANCE"
Looks like you could ALL be" kissing your sister"
this time around