Apparently, a muslim pilot living in the UK was arrested, kept 5 months in jail, and then released. The US suspected him of training the hijackers, but apart from the fact that he is a Muslim, no evidence for that theory is mentioned in the news article. He asked for an apology, did not get one, and now he is sueing for $20 million.
Pretty sad that his career is ruined (no airline will employ him now) because of a false accusation and arrest...
Even worse, 5 months in jail as innocent.
$20 million is, of course, a ridiculous sum, like all US damage lawsuits, but to be fair he deserves some compensation (if the article is correct and he is innocent). Maybe 1/20th of what he is sueing for would be fair?
FLYSSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7313 posts, RR: 61 Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3437 times:
If he is innocent, which is probably the case, he should sue them for $500 millions...!
All these cases of illegaly arrested and jailed pilots or F/A (VS ) in the U.S are getting ridiculous and reflect the real paranoia of certain Police or Security forces in this country. Instead of always thinking they-are-the-best-in-the-world, and acsusing everybody of anything all the time, often without any proof, they should begin to investigate what is wrong in their system.
Manairport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3415 times:
A sad indictment of the USA's system of 'justice'. This story was covered in some detail here in the UK. Despite many requests, the US authorities repeatedly refused to provide any evidence whatsoever against this individual.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3403 times:
Sorry, perhaps I should clarify: He was arrested on behalf of the US by the UK. He sues the FBI for accusing him and putting the warrant out there (without any evidence), but he was arrested and imprisoned in the UK, under some UK terrorism act of 2000. The UK refused to extradite him to the US when it became apparent that there was no case, just more or less blind accusation.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3363 times:
and no, $500 million is not warranted.
Put it like this:
-career ruined: say £30,000 for 20 years (I'm sure he will find another job, just not as pilot)
-dream ruined: buy him a Cessna (£150,000) and pay all associated fees for life
-5 months in prison: £10,000 per month for the emotional distress for him and £5000 for his family
-false accusations, malevolent intent, etc.: £50,000
That is what he should get (IMO), provided he wasn't raped in prison or otherwise physically tortured.
Sure, it'd be nice for the FBI and the US to pay heavily for every injustice, but to whom? He was a victim and deserves compensation, but when it comes to punitive payments, why should he get those as well?
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3342 times:
Lets just sue sue sue for every injustice we have. Keep those lawyers employed!!! I could have made a couple million if I sued for every little time I thought something was done injustly to me too. Give him a $5 mill settlement and get on with it.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3299 times:
Give him a $5 mill settlement and get on with it.
With what? Innocently accusing, arresting, imprisoning and, quite likely, eventually executing people, as well as reducing the freedoms until the "land of the free" becomes the "land of the policed"? I know it's what the US government will continue to do for a while yet, but I don't think it's right to encourage them...
Stefandotde From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3118 times:
Same we have in Germany - not with a pilot but with a muslim. US says, he is supporting terrorists. But as we see (also good examples are Blair with his 45 minutes lie and US-lie in UN-meeting): we can't believe the administrations from US and GB.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3082 times:
no reason to sue the US. The UK should have done their research before arresting him and are therefore the ones to blame if the arrest was not justified.
But of course this bozo knows he can get more money from a US jury by playing the "me discriminated against innocent foreign person" ploy so he goes for the easy money while in the UK he'd get peanuts.
I wouldn't be surprised if the charges against him were justified if maybe found to be based on evidence that later turned out to be incomplete in which case he's owed zip except an apology.
Manairport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3005 times:
Jwenting - the UK was required to arrest him under the treaties that exist between the UK ans US. However, the US was then required to produce evidence against him in order for him to be extradited. The US could not, of course, produce such evidence so the UK authorities released him. In this case the UK has met all of its international obligations whereas the US, not for the first time, has not.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2999 times:
Jwentig: The UK detained him on behalf of the US. They were the agency that acted, not the one that issued the warrant and made the accusation. If you were arrested innocently and then released almost half a year later without apology, would you sue the local policeman who turned up at your door or the people who organized and caused your arrest?
The UK already did their bit by refusing to extradite him when they weren't provided with any evidence to support the charges. But anyway, the article states that The solicitor said legal action was also planned against the Crown Prosecution Service and police in the UK. , so be sure they are getting their share of legal problems.
Another few quotes: The pilot was arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 at his home on 21 September 2001.
When no terrorist charges had been brought against him after five months in jail, he was freed on bail.
So, within 10 days of the attacks they have someone arrested, but for 5 months they keep him imprisoned without finding anything to charge him with? Frankly, that is a scandalous case of judicial malpractice. It seems all the "terrorist act"s do is allow people to be locked up semi-permanently without trial or charge.
Spk From Thailand, joined Jun 2001, 458 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2898 times:
I'm supporting any anti-terrorism initiatives but this kind of sloppy police work which puts the freedom of innocent people at risk must stop. What the hell is this? Think about it. Now, in the US, the police can arrest you and put you in jail for 5 months, no release on bond, without having the case or evidence against you. This is not a good thing and without proper check and balance (anyone who question the government's action are called "traitor"), the abuse will continue and it'll get back to your life someday.
Again, don't get me wrong. I'm cooperating with all the security measures at the airport without complaining since I know that they do it for our safety. However, giving absolute power to the FBI or any Fed agency to decide who to put in jail first then try to find the evidence later while that individual is suffering (rotting) in jail is plain unacceptable.
Copaair737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2765 times:
I would sue them too. He will never get a pilot job again, and he was labeled a "terrorist" when there was no proof that he was. If you were wrongfully accused of being a terrorist, you were thrown in jail for something you never did, wouldn't you sue them too?
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2696 times:
Perhaps. If someone can get millions for spilt coffee, then yes, he deserves it, without a doubt. Within the US frame of compensations, his claim is actually quite reasonable, as it is below $100 million
But it's the ludicrously high amounts being named in US courts in the first place that I find unrealistic. If I criticize the amounts regularly (and I do), it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that the one victim I sympathize with deserves the money while all others do not.
Stefandotde From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2659 times:
It's totally different: if an american person is so stupid and puts his coffee onto his crotch, he gets millions. Even if he did it himself.
If a government arrests a non-us-person unjustified, why should the man get millions?
That's consequential, isn't it?
By the way: I like the pix on your member-profile!
DeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1698 posts, RR: 38 Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2610 times:
The only money he deserves is that of lost wages, and those of potential wages had he not been a victim of defamation. So they should add up his pay at the time he was arrested....and give that 5 month tenure. Then calculate the approximate money he would have been appropriated if he were able to continue on with his career for x amount of years. No more...no less.
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
25 Greg: Absolutely wrong! That's only compensatory damages. Punitive damages should be significantly more. You'd feel much more differently if it happened to
26 Gigneil: Absolutely wrong! That's only compensatory damages. Punitive damages should be significantly more. You'd feel much more differently if it happened to
27 Ikarus: Greg, you confuse me. On the one hand you suggest his deportation to avoid the "headache" and on the other you think there should be significant punit
28 DeltaMD11: I apologize, I should have pointed out that he should receive punitive damages. To be included....false imprisonment, possibly libel depending on how
29 STT757: I think this fellow has little to no standing with regards to his case, he is not a US citizen, he was not in the US, nor was he being held by US Auth
30 Navion: I have suggested deletion of this whole thread based upon unsupported political beliefs and flaming accusations. It's very possible the persons postin
31 Ikarus: Flaming? where? What on earth are you talking about?
32 Ikarus: And, frankly, it is aviation related: A pilot is accused of a crime. Not aviation related. A pilot is accused of, in his capacity as pilot, training t
33 MD88Captain: Yes, deletion is an excellent suggestion. However, Ikarus will undoubtedly be upset and may sue. Can't you find some other website to bash all things
34 Navion: Comments about the U.S. being a police state and cynical comments about the "land of the free", the UK being a US puppet etc. are not constructive and
35 Gigneil: Yes, deletion is an excellent suggestion. However, Ikarus will undoubtedly be upset and may sue. Can't you find some other website to bash all things
36 Elwood64151: Unfortunately for the pilot, sueing a sovereign is very difficult. Even if he wins, he won't collect. It's the same as with the survivors of the 9/11
37 B747-437B: People can not be held more than 72 hours (in the US) without being charged with a crime. Not so. The "Patriot Act" allows the INDEFINITE DETENTION WI
38 Manairport: STT757 - have you completely missed the point or just selectively read this thread? The person concerned was being held at the specific request of the
39 DeltaMD11: Very well-said Elwood. My feelings exactly. Navion: "I want to enjoy this forum, not engage in hearsay and rhetoric by persons not personally involved
40 Spk: This pilot is not asking for an unreasonable compensation. People who suggest that he should only sue for lost wages may need to do some reality check
41 Ikarus: I want to enjoy this forum, not engage in hearsay and rhetoric by persons not personally involved in that to which they're commenting. So what can be
42 Wingman: I agree with many above that this is an egregious breach of justice and the man should be compensated. The sum of course, is absolutely ridiculous and
43 Ikarus: As with border detentions, this is the first known case in the EU, US, Canada, and Asia where someone has been falsely accused and imprisoned. No. In
44 KROC: This thread has gotten well off topic and therefore will be locked. KROC