definitely sets a bad and dangerous precedent - assuming that out of court settlements can be used as a precedent?

Basing their lawsuit on the fact that a reasonable officer would know that they were being detained illegally should have been all the proof that was needed to throw their case out and charge them court costs and the defendants' legal fees, as well as a fine for wasting the court's time.

The fact that 15 officers of various agencies as well as their superior officers/admins all felt that there was a legal basis to detain them blows their theory out the window. Unless they could prove that the dozens of federal and local police were all unreasonable and any other group would have realized it was illegal the case should never have gone to trial.

Of course if the group were not muslims it is most likely that it would have been thrown out.

This is a shame. My understanding is that they refused to sit in their assigned seats and wanted to sit 2 in front, 2 in middle, and 2 in the rear. Some requested seatbelt extensions (though they were not over weight) and just placed the straps under their seats. They were overheard condemning the US for killing Saddam and mentioned Osama bin Laden.

I can't help but think that this was a test of the system. They wanted to see what they could get away with. It also served to pave the road for future possible terrorist attacks. Flight officials are more likely to allow suspicious acting people on planes for fear of a lawsuit.

I haven't read the article yet - I will - but when I saw "The Flying Imams" I thought about a circus act.

*goes to read article*