No doubt these Imams were victims of intolerance but what about them? What are their beliefs and teachings? In Islam we see daily examples of intolerance towards other groups, e.g. Christians, Jews and Gays. Women who do not follow the strict tenets of Islam are subjected to severe punishment under sharia law and are otherwise treated as second class.
Hmm, so you're saying all 1.6 billion Muslims in the world believe exactly the same things. All this Sunni/Shiite infighting is a sham.
Similarly all 2.2 billion Christians (Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Mormon, Eastern Orthodox, Adventist, Pentacostal, Unitarian, UCC, Jehovah's Witness, FLDS, etc. etc.) believe exactly the same things.
Political and economic conditions, education, history, and nationalism are irrelevant.
Life is thankfully so simple (who knew?). And thus because Osama bin Laden and his small band killed 3000 people on 9/11, we can eject anyone who is Muslim -- or looks Muslim -- from an airplane, so the rest of us can feel better. Then surely you agree that because of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the KKK, David Koresh, and Jim Jones, etc. we should feel free to eject anyone wearing a clerical collar, a cross, or a Jesus t-shirt. And because thousands of people are killed by non-Caucasian drug dealers every year, we can eject blacks (how dark?) and anyone who appears to be Mexican or Colombian. Or speaks with a Spanish accent -- or whatever sounds like Spanish to me. Is that what you meant?
If so, then you are breathtakingly poor at making distinctions between humans of any sort. And you are hopeless at distinguishing friend from foe, harmless from dangerous.
Unlike the more liberal minded people here who cannot seem to understand who the enemy is,
It is you who fears everyone with a few Muslim stereotyped characteristics, rather than making distinctions between real and imaginary threats. I am at least as concerned as you about not being caught in the next suicide hijacking, but I know the attack is very likely to be from someone who doesn't match the template.
I will not pass judgement on pilot until I know what the passengers were nervous about.
I don't care what the passengers were nervous about. They were wrong. They didn't ask the men any questions before deciding about them, and they don't have any perspective on the range of risks and the telling features of each. Their amateur judgment just isn't reliable.
Any given Muslim you see has an extremely low probability of being one of the small number of actual terrorists. That means Muslim or Arab appearance is a very poor starting point for catching a terrorist. And it does not meet the standard of proof we normally demand for depriving someone of their rights and freedom of movement. That is, it's unconstitutional.
rescreening does not guarantee that they were not terrorists.
I agree that primary screening doesn't catch all weapons, but secondary screening makes it such a low probability that there is no longer any justification for holding the men. Secondary screening including El-Al behavioral profiling would make it safer than my car.
This would make it effectively impossible to carry out an attack, AND improbable that they ever wanted to. Where else would you ever get that level of assurance on the strangers around you for the next 1.5 hours of your life?
The TSA has yet, in 10 years, stopped a terrorist from getting on a flight.
BS. Prove it.
You haven't any idea what attempts may have been intercepted or deterred. And even as porous as TSA is, it catches enough that we haven't yet seen a successful attack launched from a US airport. I'm not saying I'm satisfied, just that TSA has been sufficiently effective so far.