Re: The Strange Case of the "Flying Imams"

Normally I cede this sort of turf to you, BP, but you got me rankled with your favorable (favorable!) quotation of Karl Rove a couple of posts back. At least I think it was favorable; you're welcome to take me to task if I'm reading you wrong there.
But now all this talk of a "fifth column?" I'm perfectly willing to believe that the group did not act as perfectly "innocently" as their leader insists. But really, what exactly did they do that was so provocative? The passengers who cheered their removal obviously reacted not so much to their appearance as to their behavior (based on what I've read, I'll cede that). It seems that, objectively speaking, they did the following:

-They prayed at the gate, audibly. Among the Arabic words that came up repeatedly in the prayer and discussion was the eminently recognizable "Allah."
BP, you're more the expert here, but just from my layman's perspective, that would come up quite a bit during typical Muslim prayer, wouldn't it? Apparently they were not courteous enough to take their prayer to the "non-denominational chapel" that is considerately provided for such use; I'm pretty sure they tuck these into the farthest corner of most airports these days, so basic human laziness might be cited as a mitigating factor here. And in terms of the "suspicious" timing: even I say a little prayer before flying these days.

-They were cursing George Bush and criticizing the Iraq War. They mentioned al-Qaida and terrorism a few times during conversation in Arabic.
Well, I've been out of the country for a while now, but as far as I know discussing politics is still legal. Even in a foreign language. Shoot, if they weren't talking about this stuff, now that might be a bit suspicious.

-A couple of them asked for seat-belt extensions.
Apparently the leader weighs a deuce and a half. He's a big fella. The others aren't exactly small. 'Nuff said.

-They sat in a suspicious configuration.
The leader claims he was upgraded to first. Should be easy enough to check out. Okay, so I admit the two up front-two in the middle-two in the back configuration might justifiably raise some eyebrows. That said, if they did book tickets separately, as they claim, it might very well have worked out this way randomly.

-Some of them got up to walk around at various points while the plane was sitting on the tarmac, stopping to check in with their buddies.
Okay, so you've just been sitting there, it's been like an hour, and the plane still shows no signs of taking off. The captain periodically gets on the radio to announce that there's been some trouble with the "paperwork" (while unbeknownst to you, the captain, flight crew, US Airways, the Minneapolis PD, and the local FBI are all debating whether to cuff you and kick you off the plane). Meanwhile, your fellow passengers are looking at you in the nastiest ways. Since lord knows you're not going anywhere for awhile, you get up to clear your head, walk over to your friend's seat, and mention how paranoid everybody seems to be since 9/11.

Now, as is mostly the case in these situations, I'm guessing the truth lies somewhere in between how the imams insist they behaved and how they are accused of behaving by the usual online/talk radio suspects on the reactionary right. It's perfectly plausible that the imams quite inadvertably acted in a manner that perhaps not unjustifiably freaked out some of the flight crew and their fellow passengers. And if that is happening, then of course it is entirely reasonable and advisable for the captain to make the decision to have them removed.
And I can also understand that the imams may believe they were treated incredibly callously, that they have been convicted of no crime other than "flying while Muslim", and that their civil rights have been thusly violated. Suing US Airways doesn't strike me as so absurd under those circumstances, if only to draw attention to the shabby treatment you felt you received. I do, however, agree that dragging the "John Does" into this is both extreme and unwise.
What I don't understand is this "fifth column" business. The idea that the imams staged this as a provocation purposefully to get kicked off the plane so they could then sue to either a). draw attention to "discriminatory" practices in the aviation industry, or, even more absurdly, b). attempt through litigation to soften American homeland security defenses to pave the way for the next 9/11, plain and simply boggles the mind at the moment. If this goes to trial, then by all means let's hear the evidence, but I think imputing the most malign, conspiracy theory-caliber motives to the "flying imams" at this point seems highly premature.