Ululations of the aggrieved

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 6, 2006 08:25 AM

Well, well. Audrey Hudson at the Washington Times reports that an internal investigation by US Airways, plus two other probes, so far conclude there was no wrongdoing by the crew in its treatment of the six flying imams:

Three parallel investigations into the removal of six imams from a US Airways flight last month have so far concluded that the airline acted properly, that the imams’ claims they were merely praying and their eviction was racially inspired are without foundation.

An internal investigation by the airline found that air and ground crews “acted correctly” when they requested that the Muslim men be removed from a Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight on Nov. 20.

“We believe the ground crew and employees acted correctly and did what they are supposed to do,” US Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader said.

Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles was pilot of hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, which the terrorists crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, strikes back at the grievance-mongering flying imams:

The day we tell the captain of a commercial airliner that he cannot remove a problem passenger unless he divines beyond question what is in that passenger’s head and heart is the day our commercial aviation system begins to crumble. When a passenger’s conduct is so disturbing and disruptive that reasonable, ordinary people fear for their lives, the captain must have the discretionary authority to respond without having to consider equal protection or First Amendment standards about which even trained lawyers with the clarity of hindsight might strongly disagree. The pilot in command can’t get it wrong. At 35,000 feet, when multiple events are rapidly unfolding in real time, there is no room for error.

We have a new, inviolate aviation standard after 9/11, which requires that the captain cannot take that airplane up so long as there are any unresolved issues with respect to the security of his airplane. At altitude, the cockpit door is barred and crews are instructed not to open them no matter what is happening in the cabin behind them. This is an extremely challenging situation for the men and women who fly those planes, one that those who write federal aviation regulations and the people who agitate for more restrictions on a captain’s authority will never have to face themselves.

Likewise, flight attendants are confined in the back of the plane with upwards of 200 people; they must be the eyes and ears, not just for the pilot but for us all. They are not combat specialists, however, and to compel them to ignore all but the most unambiguous cases of suspicious behavior is to further enable terrorists who act in ways meant to defy easy categorization. As the American Airlines flight attendants who literally jumped on “shoe bomber” Richard Reid demonstrated, cabin crews are sharply attuned to unusual or abnormal behavior and they must not be second-guessed, or hamstrung by misguided notions of political correctness.

Ultimately, the most despicable aspect about the imams’ behavior is that when they pierced the normally quiet hum of a passenger waiting area with shouts of “Allahu Akbar”and deliberately engaged in terrorist-associated behavior that was sure to trigger suspicion, they exploited the fear that began with the Sept. 11 attacks. The imams, experienced travelers all, counted on the security system established after 9/11 to kick in, and now they plan not only to benefit financially from the proper operation of that system but to substantially weaken it–with help from the Saudi-endowed attorneys at CAIR.

Amen and amen and amen. (Update: Terrible news for the Burlingame family just in. Please keep them in your prayers.)


Investors’ Business Daily
derides the “Tale of the Fibbing Imams” and offers a very useful graphic:

stuntimam.jpg

Allah looks at the photographic evidence and deflates Imam Omar Shahin’s bogus claims about why he needed a seat-belt extender:

“He’s got a decent muffin top going there for sure, but unless a pound weighs something different under shari’a, ain’t no way he’s pushing 280.”

Snort.

***

Original documents over at Pajamas Media.

Posted in: CAIR, Sharia

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

  1. Pirate's Cove
  2. Sister Toldjah
  3. The World According To Carl
  4. Bill's Bites
  5. Leaning Straight Up
  6. It Shines For All
  7. qqwjtltvoi

Trackback URL

You must be logged in to post a comment.

CAIR takes credit for Specter no-show

May 19, 2009 04:07 PM by Michelle Malkin

34 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

Saudi Wahabbis allergic to Valentine’s Day red roses

February 13, 2009 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin

36 Comments | 1 Trackback

Mark Steyn acquitted in Canadian sharia case

October 10, 2008 03:24 PM by Michelle Malkin

76 Comments | 15 Trackbacks

“In the matter of the human rights code…”

“An enemy of the people”

August 25, 2008 03:34 PM by Michelle Malkin

134 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

CAIR attacks.

Whom to root against? CAIR sues Abercrombie & Fitch

August 2, 2008 11:17 AM by see-dubya

161 Comments | 8 Trackbacks

Boobs v. Boobs in Oklahoma.


Categories: CAIR, Sharia



Riehl World View

» Holder Cares About CAIR

HotAir GreenRoom