Comments on: Prosecute the flying imams?

By: Nike in NY

Nike in NY — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 05:07:24 +0000

Robert says: “just be cause they can be prosecuted doesn’t mean they should be…etc.” Your on the wrong topic, you should be addressing the “Duke/Nifong Case”. If any American can get away with what these “Muslim Brothers/Imans” did let us know…so we can do the same. We are all equal, right???????

By: Daniel

Daniel — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:43:35 +0000

Prosecute. Absolutely.

Their actions spoke volumes.

They are attempting to extort funds from this incident due to other funding sources that are drying up. They are trying to use our own system against us to get money for their cause.

Conspiracy to commit fraud, collusion, extortion.
Clear to me they broke laws.

By: jt007

jt007 — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:59:01 +0000

Filing a civil suit is a great idea. Surely there is some public interest law firm that will file the claim on behalf of a passenger with standing. The imams were attending a conference so they were arguably traveling in an official capacity so their mosques/organizations could also be named as defendants on a respondeat superior basis. This would deprive them of any claim of government harassment, it would disrupt their operations and could serve as a powerful deterrent against future shenanigans by like minded groups. I am a civil litigator and can personally attest that civil discovery can be about as much fun for the parties as a proctological exam and a lot more expensive.

By: ken harkins

ken harkins — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:13:25 +0000

They can be prosecuted for conspiracy. Ask any lawyer. Conspiracy does not even require that a crime be intended.

By: Jed Marlin

Jed Marlin — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:38:38 +0000

Here’s a good vid at youtube on the flying imams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkA48yFjr9c

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:20:56 +0000

If not a prosecution then how about a civil suit from the other passengers and crew? The discovery phase might be particularly interesting?

By: robert

robert — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:07:43 +0000

Just because they can be prosecuted doesn’t mean that they should be prosecuted. This is espescially so given the fact that such a prosecution–irrrespective of whether or not it leads to convictions–will turn the defendants into folk heroes and grant them an undeserved moral victory.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:32:55 +0000

re: Erp’s comment re: star-tribune

While I’m sure the star-tribune was a guilty as most media at the time of the incident, some of the best articles about the farce have come from the star-tribune — kristin what’s her name had a 2 part article summarizing the charade for everything it is, but more importantly, one of the first msm to do so.

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 13:48:54 +0000

Erp, if only that were so. Many people where I work still remember vaguely about an airline that “overreacted” about some Muslims who were “just praying,” missed their flight and were treated like criminals.

Prosecution is reasonable. As an example, if someone had done exactly the same thing to facilitate a later drug importation or child kidnapping, wouldn’t we want to prosecute them?

By: erp

erp — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 13:26:19 +0000

This probably won’t happen again because the reaction was uniformly (almost) negative. Not what they expected.

There were too many people at the airport who witnessed the farce for the media to spin (try as the Star-Tribune did) it as holy men innocently praying while savage rightwing Islamofascists denied them their civil right to disrupt air travel further.

By: Albert Schwartz

Albert Schwartz — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:10:48 +0000

The passengers on the flight should just sue them in a civil class action for delay of their travel plans and emotional distress. Go for a big punitive damage award too.

There’s good evidence that the actions were deliberate and intended to provoke. As a bonus, who knows what you might learn during discovery? At the very least you give these guys a taste of their own medicine.

By: TigerHawk

TigerHawk — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:57:44 +0000

Richard R seems to have made out a prima facia case. Good job!

By: Kerry

Kerry — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:16:52 +0000

Nelson is spot on. Nothing funny about this should be done until a plane is brought down.

By: donovan

donovan — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 09:06:30 +0000

fry ‘em………….. i’m your,very typical…middle aged whiteboy…..general issue, G.I.
it’s hard enough to get past security to the airplane being ‘typical’….I wear sweats and slip on shoes….a book…and, until recently….a bottle of water(O.K….it vas vodka, man…they blew my scam), i’m a 54 yo whiteboy, avarage build, greying, no tatoos, nothing fancy,no criminal history, no gold chains, rings or spiked hairdoo. Yet it seems like I- all too often- get pulled aside for additonal screening at the airport… (not complaining here, good on ya’ for doing your best) If I tried to ‘be funny’ boarding a flight, I’d expect to spend the rest of my days in irons.
What makes these guys so special? seems to me they are like children……always pressing the envelope. take it home….reel ‘em in or they will reel US in. They are asking us where the boundries are….how about HERE.fry ‘em.

By: Nelson

Nelson — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 06:36:03 +0000

Unless this type of thing becomes a recurring problem, it would probably be better to just leave it alone. We have more serious threats to deal with that should be a higher priority than prosecuting these guys for acting funny.

By: Richard R

Richard R — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 05:41:57 +0000

“Section 46504 of Title 49, United States Code (formerly section 1472(j) of Title 49 Appendix) sets forth the offense of interference with a flight crew member or flight attendant within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2). The statute applies to any “individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties.” The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment, and further provides for imprisonment for any term of years or life if a dangerous weapon is used. Interference with a flight crew member or attendant is a general intent crime, and does not require a specific intent either to intimidate the flight crew member or attendant or to interfere with t he performance of his or her duties. United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449 (11th Cir. 1997).

Venue is governed by the standard venue provisions, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3237 and 3238 and Rule 18, Fed.R.Crim.Proc. See also United States v. Hall, 691 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1982). “[T]he offense continues for at least as long as the crew are responding directly, and in derogation of their ordinary duties, to the defendant’s behavior.” United States v. Hall, 691 F.2d at 50. Prosecution is always proper in the district over which the aircraft was flying when the interference took place, if that can be determined. In many cases, particularly those in which either (1) the aircraft is diverted due to the defendant’s actions, (2) the defendant’s interfering actions continue, or (3) the crew remains concerned about defendant’s possible further actions, venue is also proper in the district in which the aircraft lands. Since determining the district over which the aircraft was flying when the action took place may be difficult, and that district may have little or no connection to the matter, the Department advocates prosecution in the district where the aircraft lands and the defendant is deboarded and arrested in all appropriate cases.

The interference and other Title 49 aircraft offenses are supervised by the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section (TVCS), which can be reached at (202) 514-0849.”

They sat in seats that they were not ticketed for, and refused to move back to their assigned seats when the flight crew ordered them to do so.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 05:01:30 +0000

You may be right that the imams broke no laws. In that case perhaps we should change the laws. (We could call the new law “anti-pretexting legislation.”) At the least I think they are legitimate candidates for inclusion on the government’s no-fly list, and if I ran an airline I would not knowingly transport them in the future.

By: jerry robertson

jerry robertson — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 05:01:13 +0000

Newt is right….prosecute them…make it punishable for muslims just like any others….enough of the compassionate and politcally correct…let’s protect ourselves and our future….

By: Tom Holsinger

Tom Holsinger — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 04:52:26 +0000

18 U.S.C. 1961 – RICO

By: edh

edh — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 04:37:32 +0000

You should at least research and quote the relevent portion of the statute under which you’d prosecute. My guess is the statute doesn’t criminalize the legalisitcally savy implicit threat behaviors of the Flying Imams, but does criminalize ham-handed, explicit bomb joke. Mike Dukakis was detained for that many years ago, before 9-11, but not prosecuted.