American Justice, ala a Liberal Judge

Do you recall the six flying imams that were kicked off a US Airways flight from Minneapolis a few years back after acting suspiciously in front of passengers and flight attendants?  By suspiciously, I mean:

1. praying before the flight, saying “..Allah…Allah”
2. cursing US involvement against Saddam Hussein and Iraq
   
3. some of the six passengers had checked no luggage
4. some had asked for seatbelt extensions
5. some had one-way tickets
6. all six were of Middle Eastern descent (you may have guessed that, but up until #6 one could reasonably have assumed it was also some MoveOn.Org or Code Pink patriot)
   

Some of you who may say, “so what, they were profiled and have rights”….as someone who fly’s almost weekly, I will say I have rights also.   I have  a right to know that some insane Muslim lunatic is not going to kill me and my fellow passengers.  And until the Muslim community destroys the radical element inside of it, if I am ever in a plane with passengers displaying the above six traits, I will insist on them being kicked out.  If the airline refused, I would not fly that airline.

Anyway, that is all an aside.  The imams sued US Airways.  The case has been settled out of court after Minnesota federal district court before Judge Ann Montgomery made it clear what side of the fence she was on.  Judge Montgomery held that the flying imams were the subject of an unlawful arrest and that no reasonable law enforcement officer could have believed otherwise.  This despite 15 law enforcement personal from multiple agencies all believing otherwise in making the joint decision to arrest them and take them off the plane.  Other tidbits from Powerline:

• She referred to the imams’ reported cursing of the United States as constitutionally protected speech
• The MAC defendants have produced no evidence of a documented instance in which seatbelt extensions were used as a weapon or that law enforcement ever expressed concern about their use as a weapon.

As stated in Powerline:

These observations are troubling. As I recall, prior to 9/11, there was no documented instance of box cutters having been used to pull off a hijacking. As I recall, prior to Richard Reid’s attempted bombing of American Airline Flight 63 in December 2001, there was no documented instance of shoes having been used as bombs. When taken together with other circumstances, the imams’ request for unneeded (according to the flight attendant) seatbelt extensions seems to have raised a reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed.

Judge Montgomery stated: “Praying in public, commenting on current events, and even criticizing government policy is protected speech under the First Amendment.” Judge Montgomery transformed the reported cursing of the United States into commentary on current events, and the protected speech in any event might reasonably bear on the interpretation of other facts brought to the attention of law enforcement. My comment:  if they are American citizens, I agree they have a constitutional right to say more or less what they want.  But again, on a plane, with recent history, other passengers also have a right to get upset at their behavior.

Other statements Judge Montgomery made in the course of her opinion seem questionable to me. Judge Montgomery stated, for example: “Asking Plaintiffs about the reason for their visit to Minneapolis would likely have informed the officers about the three-day NAIF conference, which would help explain why the six imams were together and the lack of checked baggage.” Would law enforcement be obligated to take the imams at their word? Should or would their story have allayed their concerns?

This is yet another judge that lives in a fantasy world and is a perfect example why treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue simply will not work.  As often attributed to Lincoln, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. As a hardened libertarian, I do not like giving government much of any powers.  But my philosophy stops where I step on a plane into the real world.  Damn right they should profile.  Start with young Muslim men in the security line chanting Allah and wearing “Death to the Great Satan” t-shirts, rather than pulling a 92 year old Swiss Grandma out of line for a full body scan.  Acting as if every person walking through an airport is an equal risk, is placing political correctness as a higher priority than innocent lives.  Any judge that cannot see that should  be voted out or impeached.