Experts say "too soon" to label NYPD shooting
Which is what I said yesterday. I guess that makes me an 'expert'... ;-)
A snipped from the above article:
"But experts who have studied deadly force say the confusing circumstances of the shooting make the mayor's conclusions premature. The amount of firepower, they add, has been given too much emphasis. (A point I hammered home yesterday)...
"The number of shots fired doesn't mean anything, even though it seems a little shocking," said Jim Cohen, a professor of criminal law at Fordham Law School. "We simply don't have enough information to draw any conclusions." (Yep, I said that too)...
The shooters — four detectives and one police officer — have been placed on administrative leave while the district attorney investigates. They have remained mostly silent, though lawyers and union officials have said at least some of them are eager to give their side of the story to a grand jury. (I was mistaken yesterday. It appears that FIVE cops all saw the same threat and fired to stop it; not three).
"We're going to be forced to look at this through their eyes," said Eugene O'Donnell, a professor of police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "Short of hearing what they have to say, we don't know much." (Very prudent. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Mayor Bloomberg ought to take note as well.
The bottom line is that only an idiot would comment on an on-going investigation. Moreover, the individuals commenting were not there, do not know the facts and are simply operating off of pure conjecture. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are confirmed idiots so that's no surprise. Mayor Bloomberg.. I'm not familiar with this guy but based on what I've seen, I'm not impressed. Hey Mayor, it's a given that Al and Jesse will chase any ambulance that gives them the almighty 'pub and gets them on the evening news. What's disturbing is that you have abused your official position to offer an uneducated opinion to the detriment of five police officers. By the way, white cops comprised 40% of the alleged shooters with the remainder being minority.
Has anyone ever considered how astonishing it is that Jesse Jackson has a gig on radio? I have an easier time understanding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… He was born and raised here and so far as I know, he isn't deaf. So why then can’t the man articulate when he speaks? Is he perpetually undergoing root canal and under the influence of Novocain?
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Inappropriate Response
This is why we hate politicians:
On Monday, Bloomberg said the police response seemed "unacceptable" and "inexplicable," but he was steadfast in his support for Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, who has been denounced by some critics since the shooting.
Of the victims, Bloomberg said Monday: "There is no evidence that they were doing anything wrong," referring to what led up to the moment their car struck an undercover officer outside the nightclub.
The investigation is not yet complete and Bloomberg called the response "unacceptable" and "Inexplicable"? How would he know? It is imprudent to comment on investigations in progress. He does not yet know the facts and is already appeasing the victims and condemning the cops. This is the difference between law enforcement now and 20 years ago. In today's environment, the political hacks, be they Republican or Democrat will hang you in a second if it benefits them politically. Clearly, Bloomberg does not yet know the facts yet is offering opinion as to the appropriateness of the officers' conduct. Bloomberg should lose his job for interfering with a police investigation.
Bloomberg stated “There is no evidence that they were doing anything wrong"... Again, it is completely inappropriate for him to make this irresponsible statement prior to the investigation being complete. If I was the victim’s family, I would be insulted that Bloomberg is obviously making a political play over my relative’s death. He needs to keep his mouth shut until the facts are known. How can Bloomberg support the Police Commissioner and yet denounce the officer's involved. The Commissioner is responsible for his officer's actions and if guilty, bears some responsibility since he leads the organization.
On Monday, Bloomberg said the police response seemed "unacceptable" and "inexplicable," but he was steadfast in his support for Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, who has been denounced by some critics since the shooting.
Of the victims, Bloomberg said Monday: "There is no evidence that they were doing anything wrong," referring to what led up to the moment their car struck an undercover officer outside the nightclub.
The investigation is not yet complete and Bloomberg called the response "unacceptable" and "Inexplicable"? How would he know? It is imprudent to comment on investigations in progress. He does not yet know the facts and is already appeasing the victims and condemning the cops. This is the difference between law enforcement now and 20 years ago. In today's environment, the political hacks, be they Republican or Democrat will hang you in a second if it benefits them politically. Clearly, Bloomberg does not yet know the facts yet is offering opinion as to the appropriateness of the officers' conduct. Bloomberg should lose his job for interfering with a police investigation.
Bloomberg stated “There is no evidence that they were doing anything wrong"... Again, it is completely inappropriate for him to make this irresponsible statement prior to the investigation being complete. If I was the victim’s family, I would be insulted that Bloomberg is obviously making a political play over my relative’s death. He needs to keep his mouth shut until the facts are known. How can Bloomberg support the Police Commissioner and yet denounce the officer's involved. The Commissioner is responsible for his officer's actions and if guilty, bears some responsibility since he leads the organization.
Liberal, Anti-Cop bias
CBS "News" Story
NYPD officers shot and killed a 23 year old male in the early morning hours outside a strip club. Notice the headline: Unarmed Groom Killed By NYPD Bullets.
Deadly force policy dictates that the officer(s) involved in the incident must have a reasonable fear that his/her life or the lives of others are in immediate danger. There is no deadly force policy anywhere in the United States that limits officer's use of deadly force to only those situations where the bad guys have guns. Therefore, the headline describing the victim as "unarmed" is inflammatory, biased and irresponsible. Additionally, the description of the victim as a "groom" is a further attempt to elicit sympathy for the victim at the hands of the evil NPYD.
Officers are trained in the academy to keep shooting until the threat no longer exists. I carried a .40 Glock with 15 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber. In addition, I had 2-15 round magazines on my belt for a total of 46 rounds. Glock 9MM's had an even larger capacity. My point is, the number of bullets fired at the suspect is irrelevant so long as the threat continues to exist. The fact that three officers saw the same threat and all fired numerous times indicates that a deadly force situation existed which required numerous rounds to be fired to stop the threat. If only one officer fired but two others, after viewing the same scenario, did not fire, I would be much more concerned. The cops involved don't check with each other prior to firing to determine who is going to shoot and how many rounds they are going to discharge. The media always focus on the number of rounds fired when in reality, the total number is meaningless. Each officer viewed the circumstances as a deadly force situation and each officer responded in the same manner which seems appropriate. If the media (or Al Sharpton) wrote the deadly force policy, the officers would need to communicate which of them would be the "designated shooter". Once determined, the officer would fire only once to determine the effectiveness of said shot. Upon reevaluation, if the threat still exists, 1 more shot can be fired and so on until the threat ceases to exist.... or the cop(s) are murdered; whichever comes first.
The victim in this case was behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. What the media and Al Sharpton fail to realize is that despite the movies and television, shooting at a moving target at night is difficult. And, unlike the movies, the bad guys don't get blown off their feet when struck. Especially from a 9MM. It is entirely possible that all three cops, upon reacting to the same threat fired numerous times at the victim and missed. Thus, the threat was still present which necessitated more rounds being fired.
"How does one justify 50 shots at unarmed men?" Sharpton asked. It's easy Al… if you knew anything about police policy and procedure you wouldn't have to ask such a reactionary and uninformed question; because a police officer fearing for his life or the life of others is trained to fire and keep firing until the threat stops. All three officers viewed the same threat and reacted similarly which tends to enforce the theory that their lives were in danger. Life would be wonderful if in a split second, I could identify the threat, decide that deadly force is necessary, communicate to my partners that I would be the one to shoot, take aim, fire once and stop the threat...
My take on deadly force is that the bad guy is placing me in a situation where I have to take such severe measures that he may die. The consequence if I fail is that I may die and my kids grow up without a Dad. If you place me in that situation, I will prevail by all means necessary. If that means shooting you 46 times, so be it. Don't place me in a situation where I am forced to shoot you and you won't have to worry about the number of rounds I expend. My department wouldn’t have given 46 rounds if it were imprudent for me to utilize them if necessary. If I ran out of bullets, I'd do whatever necessary to ensure that I go home at night.
There's an old police saying "it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six"...
CBS News can go to hell for their obviously slanted attempt at journalism. But from the network that brought Dan rather, what is one to expect? And Al Sharpton? Keep shooting off your mouth about matters for which you know nothing. You keep proving the fact that it's better to keep one's mouth shut and appear ignorant than to open it and remove all doubt.
NYPD officers shot and killed a 23 year old male in the early morning hours outside a strip club. Notice the headline: Unarmed Groom Killed By NYPD Bullets.
Deadly force policy dictates that the officer(s) involved in the incident must have a reasonable fear that his/her life or the lives of others are in immediate danger. There is no deadly force policy anywhere in the United States that limits officer's use of deadly force to only those situations where the bad guys have guns. Therefore, the headline describing the victim as "unarmed" is inflammatory, biased and irresponsible. Additionally, the description of the victim as a "groom" is a further attempt to elicit sympathy for the victim at the hands of the evil NPYD.
Officers are trained in the academy to keep shooting until the threat no longer exists. I carried a .40 Glock with 15 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber. In addition, I had 2-15 round magazines on my belt for a total of 46 rounds. Glock 9MM's had an even larger capacity. My point is, the number of bullets fired at the suspect is irrelevant so long as the threat continues to exist. The fact that three officers saw the same threat and all fired numerous times indicates that a deadly force situation existed which required numerous rounds to be fired to stop the threat. If only one officer fired but two others, after viewing the same scenario, did not fire, I would be much more concerned. The cops involved don't check with each other prior to firing to determine who is going to shoot and how many rounds they are going to discharge. The media always focus on the number of rounds fired when in reality, the total number is meaningless. Each officer viewed the circumstances as a deadly force situation and each officer responded in the same manner which seems appropriate. If the media (or Al Sharpton) wrote the deadly force policy, the officers would need to communicate which of them would be the "designated shooter". Once determined, the officer would fire only once to determine the effectiveness of said shot. Upon reevaluation, if the threat still exists, 1 more shot can be fired and so on until the threat ceases to exist.... or the cop(s) are murdered; whichever comes first.
The victim in this case was behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. What the media and Al Sharpton fail to realize is that despite the movies and television, shooting at a moving target at night is difficult. And, unlike the movies, the bad guys don't get blown off their feet when struck. Especially from a 9MM. It is entirely possible that all three cops, upon reacting to the same threat fired numerous times at the victim and missed. Thus, the threat was still present which necessitated more rounds being fired.
"How does one justify 50 shots at unarmed men?" Sharpton asked. It's easy Al… if you knew anything about police policy and procedure you wouldn't have to ask such a reactionary and uninformed question; because a police officer fearing for his life or the life of others is trained to fire and keep firing until the threat stops. All three officers viewed the same threat and reacted similarly which tends to enforce the theory that their lives were in danger. Life would be wonderful if in a split second, I could identify the threat, decide that deadly force is necessary, communicate to my partners that I would be the one to shoot, take aim, fire once and stop the threat...
My take on deadly force is that the bad guy is placing me in a situation where I have to take such severe measures that he may die. The consequence if I fail is that I may die and my kids grow up without a Dad. If you place me in that situation, I will prevail by all means necessary. If that means shooting you 46 times, so be it. Don't place me in a situation where I am forced to shoot you and you won't have to worry about the number of rounds I expend. My department wouldn’t have given 46 rounds if it were imprudent for me to utilize them if necessary. If I ran out of bullets, I'd do whatever necessary to ensure that I go home at night.
There's an old police saying "it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six"...
CBS News can go to hell for their obviously slanted attempt at journalism. But from the network that brought Dan rather, what is one to expect? And Al Sharpton? Keep shooting off your mouth about matters for which you know nothing. You keep proving the fact that it's better to keep one's mouth shut and appear ignorant than to open it and remove all doubt.
Iran's Provocation of the Jewish People
View Garbage Website HERE
The "Institute for Political and International Studies", an Iranian "think tank" (sorry for the contradictory statement) has announced a conference wherein the holocaust will be debated and the western myths relating to the holocaust will be discussed and studied. Nice guys those Iranians. Next on the agenda: "The Earth; Is it Really Round"? and "Indoor Plumbing; Pros and Cons"...
The "Institute for Political and International Studies", an Iranian "think tank" (sorry for the contradictory statement) has announced a conference wherein the holocaust will be debated and the western myths relating to the holocaust will be discussed and studied. Nice guys those Iranians. Next on the agenda: "The Earth; Is it Really Round"? and "Indoor Plumbing; Pros and Cons"...
God Bless US Airways
How the imams terrorized an airliner
By Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 28, 2006
Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials. Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix. "I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.
Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane." A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."
But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks. "It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said. The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."
"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.
According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior. Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said. The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed. A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.
"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal. "They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit." The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot. "If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."
One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention. The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements. The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior. "There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past."
"Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways. A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents. According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior. Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.
The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed. A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious. "That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.
"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."
The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot. "If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats." One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention. The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements. The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior. "There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past." "Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways. A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents.
By Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 28, 2006
Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials. Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix. "I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.
Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane." A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."
But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks. "It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said. The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."
"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.
According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior. Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said. The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed. A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.
"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal. "They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit." The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot. "If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."
One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention. The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements. The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior. "There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past."
"Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways. A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents. According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior. Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.
The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed. A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious. "That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.
"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."
The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot. "If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats." One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention. The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements. The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior. "There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past." "Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways. A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents.
Monday, November 27, 2006
From the "What We Already Knew Dept"...
"I was for the war before I was against it"...
No one likes John Kerry... And here I thought I was the only one :-)
No one likes John Kerry... And here I thought I was the only one :-)
Friday, November 24, 2006
Senator Edwards....
"I'm a Liberal and I'm a Politician; That Doesn't Make Me a Hypocrite"...
Senator and former VP hopeful John Edwards admitted to trying to a PS3 at Wal-Mart. He apparently had one of his staff call the local Wal-Mart and place a PS3 on hold. Hmmm, wasn't it Edwards that rallied against Republicans for running roughshod over the average guy? Sounds a lot like a US Senator using his wealth and power to bypass the average guy having to wait in line... Didn't Edwards also once say:
...We want every single consumer in America, every person in America, to know that if they walk into a Wal-Mart, that first of all their tax dollars are subsidizing Wal-Mart employees. Their tax dollars are helping provide health care for Wal-Mart employees, because Wal-Mart’s not doing it. Their tax dollars are going to provide housing and food stamps for Wal-Mart employees,” Mr. Edwards told a crowd of 400 at Hill House....
Wow, Senator Edwards, sounds like you're doing a fine job of subsidizing Wal-Mart employees... Hypocrite...
Senator and former VP hopeful John Edwards admitted to trying to a PS3 at Wal-Mart. He apparently had one of his staff call the local Wal-Mart and place a PS3 on hold. Hmmm, wasn't it Edwards that rallied against Republicans for running roughshod over the average guy? Sounds a lot like a US Senator using his wealth and power to bypass the average guy having to wait in line... Didn't Edwards also once say:
...We want every single consumer in America, every person in America, to know that if they walk into a Wal-Mart, that first of all their tax dollars are subsidizing Wal-Mart employees. Their tax dollars are helping provide health care for Wal-Mart employees, because Wal-Mart’s not doing it. Their tax dollars are going to provide housing and food stamps for Wal-Mart employees,” Mr. Edwards told a crowd of 400 at Hill House....
Wow, Senator Edwards, sounds like you're doing a fine job of subsidizing Wal-Mart employees... Hypocrite...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
