Flying Imams - DOT Isn't Buying What CAIR Is Selling

It was reported last week in the St. Paul Pioneer-Press that the Department of Transportation found that US Airways didn't discriminate against the Flying Imams when US Airways removed the imams from a flight in November 2006.

There are various things to consider from reading the February 18 David Hanners article in the St. Paul Pioneer-Press on the Flying Imams case.

The Saudi-funded radical Islamist front group CAIR must have decided that trying to market the Flying Imams as something other than a CAIR grievance theatre production was a lost cause. They submitted their complaint about the people removed from the AirTran flight in January of this year as an exhibit

Samuel Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings for the Department of Transportation, wrote a letter to CAIR. This letter basically said that Capt. Wood made the decision to deny transportation based on the behavior of the imams, as opposed to any racial or religious discrimination. This is an excellent development, in my opinion, because Omar Mohammedi, lawyer for the imams, told the media in July 2008 that the lawsuit was a racial profiling case.

I can only surmise that this letter was submitted as an exhibit by the plaintiffs, because it was a letter written to CAIR. I am bewildered that the letter was submitted at all. If I was one of the imams, I wouldn't want this letter, which clearly and succinctly shoots down a big chunk of my case, to see the light of day.

When I went over US Airways MSP Station Manager Penny Breedlove's statement, I snarkily commented "You can tell that US Airways probably doesn't have a protocol in place for rebooking people acting like terrorists." That actually is the case, and the rest of Podberesky's letter addresses how not having a written policy in place for rebooking people cleared to travel is a violation of Federal law. While the creation of such a written policy may very well be a result of this lawsuit, it was not the original intention of this lawsuit, which was to terrorize passengers by the threat of legal action out of reporting suspicious behaviors.

And speaking of terrorizing passengers, there's a loose end to consider.
Why isn't Michael McCombie, the passenger who wrote the note that started all this, talking to the media? While he's no longer facing legal action as a "John Doe," he didn't show his face on camera when he spoke to a local TV station in February 2007, and his identity was not reported. But since his identity was reported in the Pioneer-Press in July of 2008, it's on the Internet now, which, as we all know, is forever. I believe he's essentially been terrorized out of speaking to the media, which is a lowdown dirty rotten shame, in my opinion.