Nothing justifies the illegal detention. People aren't saying that it was right for him to be illegally held. What they are saying is that he was not arrested for "learning Arabic", but for handing cards with the English words "bomb", "terrorist" etc to security screeners, who called the police who then illegally arrested him.
That's a different story to the one presented. It's still an unjustifiable arrest; he still deserves his compensation and the police must learn the lesson.
But why did the ACLU not mention the content of the flashcards?
Edit: I supplied a corrective upvote. I don't know why your reasonable question was downvoted.
>But why did the ACLU not mention the content of the flashcards?
Because:
>Nothing justifies the illegal detention
So the content of the flash cards is not relevant, but instead an attempt to justify his detention, to make the reader think the TSA made an honest mistake when, in fact, what they did was not an honest mistake.
The court documents claim that TSA arrest / detention was reasonable and he got his payout for the police arrest / detention. The documents state clearly that the TSA action was reasonable because of the content of the cards.
This headline - "I was arrested for learning Arabic" is almost dishonest.
EDIT: as I have said elsewhere in this thread I think that he should not have been arrested. I'm not agreeing with the way he was treated. This post is just stating what the court documents say, as I understand them.
That's a different story to the one presented. It's still an unjustifiable arrest; he still deserves his compensation and the police must learn the lesson.
But why did the ACLU not mention the content of the flashcards?
Edit: I supplied a corrective upvote. I don't know why your reasonable question was downvoted.