A bad omen in the flying imams 'discrimination' suit?

Katherine Kersten, columnist at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, has a must-read piece today: "The real target of the 6 imams 'discrimination' suit." First she recalls for readers what inspired this lawsuit.

Recall the November 2006 incident that gave rise to the suit. The imams engaged in a variety of suspicious behaviors while boarding a US Airways flight, according to the airport police report. Some prayed loudly in the gate area, spoke angrily about the United States and Saddam, switched seats and sat in the 9/11 hijackers' configuration, and unnecessarily requested seatbelt extenders that could be used as weapons, according to witness reports and US Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader.

Almost immediately, suspicions abounded that the only reason the imams had acted in this strange manner was to set up the deep-pocketed airlines for a lawsuit. But there may be another angle to imam's action that is truly ominous.

This other angle comes into focus, as Kersten points out, when you see the other defendants aside from the airlines that the suit names - the "John Doe" defendants. These are the people who, as the legal filing itself reads, "contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of Plaintiffs' performing their prayer at the airport terminal."

As Kersten reports, the lawsuit describes these "John Doe" defendants as "an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch" as they prayed. "The gentleman ('John Doe') in the couple ... picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray," then "moved to a corner" and "kept talking into his cellular phone."

Kersten draws the logical - and disturbing - inference:

The imams' attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security. Average folks, "John Does" like you and me, initially observed and reported the imams' suspicious behavior on Nov. 20. Such people are our "first responders" against terrorism. But the imams' suit may frighten such individuals into silence, as they seek to avoid the nightmare of being labeled bigots and named as defendants.

Update: This story gets even creepier. As Powerline reports, it turns out that the lawyer representing the flying imams, Omar Mohammedi, is the president of the New York chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, otherwise known as CAIR. As Powerline reports:

CAIR is a well-funded organization, from Middle Eastern as well as American sources. It is willing and able to fund litigation, and has a history of using litigation to silence its opponents. Any case that Mohammedi may bring against the passengers who reported the imams' suspicious behavior will be a terrible lawsuit. The imams won't win it. But getting even a terrible lawsuit dismissed often costs thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars. That's not much money to a well-funded advocacy group like CAIR, but it is a great deal of money to most average citizens. Not to mention, of course, the understandable horror most people have of becoming embroiled in a lawsuit.