It is good to see this. It should pass unanimously, and be given vocal public support by everyone. After all, airports endlessly play recorded messages exhorting passengers not to accept parcels from any stranger, not to leave their bags unattended, and to report suspicious behavior. If CAIR and the Flying Imams get away with penalizing people who do so, no one will dare report suspicious activity -- and it will be open season on American aircraft for jihad terrorists.
"Hill bill protects flying public," by Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times, with thanks to Doc Washburn:
House Republicans are pushing legislation to protect airline passengers from lawsuits for reporting suspicious behavior that might be linked to a terrorist attack.Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007 on Thursday, a week after a lawsuit was filed by a group of Muslim imams who were taken off a US Airways flight in November.
It is "unconscionable" that those who report suspicious activity could be "terrorized in our own court system in our own country," Mr. Pearce said on the House floor yesterday afternoon.
The lawsuit asserts that the imams were discriminated against by US Airways, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission and "John Doe" passengers to be named later.
There can be no conceivable reason why anyone should oppose this legislation, and exprssed opposition to such a bill, designed to un-inhibit the deliberately cowed, in a matter of universal concern, should be grounds for a party refusing to endorse, at re-election time, any such Representative or Senator.
What's a "John Doe" passenger?
Let the howling begin: "Legalizing racism!" "Encouraging Hate Speech!" "Deliberate slap in the face of Islam!" etcetera ad nauseum.
The vote for this legislation will separate the spineless, liberal, Democrat cowards from the men in Congress. At least half of this country lacks backbone and kahunas, and that is why the girly-men took over Congress.
Celsius, a "John Doe" is, in legalese, a person who is unknown at the time of the drafting of the document.
Jeff, the lawsuit by the "Flying Imans" is a civil suit, and as far as I can tell, was not directed against the federal government. DoJ has no say over the litigation - even if they wanted to.
This legislation sounds like belt and suspenders. If nothing else, John Doe has a First Amendment right to say what he wants, the Imans don't like it, they can get on their rugs and fly their asses back to whatever third-world shithole they are from. Once there, they can use their title as iman to terrorize others, but the U.S. still has freedom of speech and that right includes saying offensive things so long as it does run cross the line to incitement or slander or libel.
Other than that, even without this legislation, and even if John Doe makes the KKK look racially sensitive, that is not a basis for civil liability as far as I know.
And as mentioned by others, reporting what one perceives as suspicious activity has never given rise to civil liability, and given the totality of the imans' behavior in the incident, i find it very hard that a jury, unless composed solely of the members of the mosques of the imans, would impose liability on John Doe, Jane Doe or the named municipal defendants. And there is no way a jury like that would arise in a civil trial, the judge would not permit it, and defense counsel would be screaming like stuck pigs on the jury.
Ok, thanks Penfold.
Let's hope democrats don't oppose this bill. Just wait until this opposed by the ACLU in court and some liberal judge gets to hear the case....
Good for the Rep. from New Mexico. We should write in and show our support for this.
It is a good thing to see this bill presented, but still sad to see we need to protect those who want to want to be abiding citizens while flying with muslims. it will be interesting to see what the Democats and ACLU say and how fast will their condemnations along with CAIR.
Well, really, WTF? I mean come on? If I saw suspicious behaviour by ANYONE, I don't care who it is, it could be an 80 year old white haired grandma, I'm going to report it. What a crock of crap this is!
Agreed 100% Hugh. There is no logical explanation to vote against it.
This bill SHOULD pass with flying colors. It will be interesting to see exactly who votes against it, for those who possess the audacity to do so are, for all intents and purposes, commiting occupational suicide.
Choose your candidates wisely in 2008.
If this bill doesn't pass, or the flying Imams win this ridiculous case against innocent passengers, it will set a standard for others who will site this example for similar issues. People will be scared to report anything, not just suspicous behavior. What about a child seen being led into a public restroom by a strange man? What about the teacher who sees signs of child abuse? What if someone sees a minority individual stealing? When the call goes out for witnesses to these acts, it will be likely that many people will not come forward for fear of being sued.
At last, they're getting it!
It's the government's role to protect its citizens ... as in protecting John Doe from Mohammad Doe.
Excellent news. Hope jihadwatch tracks the progress of the proposed Act.
The last five words quoted above are chilling, and go to the heart of the matter. If CAIR and its fellow travellers succeed, their victory will be collosal.
Good on Kevin Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (named in the linked article). Compare his principled stand with the snakewords of 'Omar Mohammedi, a member of CAIR and the imams' attorney', also quoted in the article.
I find it incredible that such a bill has to come before congress. The reporting of suspicious behavior represents the backbone of the TSA under Homeland Security.
Reporting of suspicious behavior has been as common as apple pie in America long before airplanes even existed. Police depend on it, the military depends and encourages it, The FBI depends on it, and the TSA encourages it all over their website, whether it be airlines,trains,ships, bus travel,Etc. There should already be a GOOD SAMARITAN law in place that protects those who step forward in a situation like this.
I did read some of the lawsuit, but will go back and review it again after noting that a poster above (Penfold) said there was no action taken against the Federal Gov. This is interesting of course since it was federal marshalls along with the airport police that made the decision to remove the 6 flying imans.
The citizen passengers on this US Airways Flight who reported this suspicious behavior should be lauded as heroes.
This law should be extended beyond airports! Suppose you see a mid-Eastern person leave a heavy backpack in a restroom or somewhere in a Mall. So you report it, turns out to be harmless and the person who left it gets interrogated, claims he just forgot it and gets all upset. You get sued, maybe through CAIR (was he a CAIR plant?), because of all the distress you caused the poor innocent due to your alleged racism. The jihadists will exploit our well-intentioned civil rights laws to make self-defense as personally expensive as possible if we let them.
I smell a possible backfire. If this bill passes, what is to stop CAIR from protesting it by telling all muslims to complain about suspicious activity of every non muslim on the plane?
Goob,
When 19 fair-skinned, freckle-faced non-Muslims hijack 4 jumbo jets, killing everyone inside and thousands of others in skyscrapers ... then those complaints would begin to make sense ... right now they make no sense whatsoever.
>I find it incredible that such a bill has to come before congress
How can you find anything regarding our court system as being incredible?
If our Court System wasn't populated with insane judges, I think we could have faith that no judge would allow a case like to be heard.. but since so many judges are warped in the head, Congress must step in and make the rules.
This bill is a good thing and offers a glimmer of hope that Congress (at least a part of it) is awakening to forms of non-violent jihad.
goob: knowingly reporting false information is itself a crime. they expose themselves to legal action if they were to try that... plus I doubt , generally, that their claims would be accepted at face value.
Goob says,
"If this bill passes, what is to stop CAIR from protesting it by telling all muslims to complain about suspicious activity of every non muslim on the plane?"
Fine with me. I suspect that you'd see exactly the same number of muslim protests for this reason that we have seen over the past few years against terrorist acts committed around the world in the name of islam. Namely, zero.
My thought is WHY in America do we need laws to protect Americans from talking and reporting things?
Does not it make the point how out of control this is. Laws to protect Americans when the LAWS SHOULD BE TO THROW THESE TERRORISTS IN PRISON FOR CAUSING THE PROBLEM?
Oh wait, there are laws, so why is not the Justice Department arresting these Muslims? Because of oil bribes for sensitivity.
This is not good news. This only exposes how weak America has become.
The Flying Nun never caused these kind of problems!
Here's a link to to 'Flying Imams' lawsuit.
http://pearce.house.gov/pdf/usairwayscomplaint.pdf
It's great that this John Doe thing is getting the broad response it has from the Beckett Foundation to the House of Representatives to various law firms in Minneapolis. Maybe this will be the final straw that breaks the back of CAIR's standing as a legitimate advocacy group. At least maybe the president will stop asking their advice on all things Muslim and cancel any upcoming smiley faced handshaking photo-ops with them.
Now I wish some group would step forward to pay for the defense of USAir, the Minneapolis Airport and their employees.
The viper (CAIR) has extended its head too far out of its hole on this one. Like a compulsive criminal, who the more they succeed the further they go until they are caught. CAIR may very well be "caught" on this one in the fact the they will reveal themselves as the subversive snakes that they are instead of "the advocate group for American Muslims" as they pretend to be.
However, this could be another "sue and switch" tactic like was pulled with the Boston mosque. As the defense gets set to go to trial after gathering all the dirty laundry of the suing Muslims, they call off the suit in the diguise of an olive branch. The intimidation is already released along with the costly legal defense of the so called "bigots" that they are suing have to gather.
This is Silent Jiahd 101 under the heading of: Using the Kuffar's legal system to advance the cause of Islamic totalitarianism. I think it is good that some in Congress are alert and I hope the parties involved counter sue if the Muslims pullout. Air all the laundry so all of America can see.
The Democratic-Marxist Party will surely see this appealed to the Supreme Court, and that's a good thing. After the SCOTUS strikes down America's right to self-defense against Moslem activism, it'll be time to pay a visit to Mr. Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution, as follows:
... the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
In other words, Congress must divest the SCOTUS of any purview over things Islam. Immigration and citizenship rights, sooner or later, will inevitably come under this legal focus.
There is no other way to save ourselves, and freedom for our children and the future of America.
Article III, Section 2.
The real tragedy is that a bill such as this is now considered necessary.
Our whole system runs on the basis of reasonableness - a reasonableness born froma similar culture. But when you have Muslims within, they will exploit the inherent failings of a reasonable system. This eventually leads to legislative and legal nightmare for all.
Why do we keep calling them flying imams, it would be more appropriate to call them terrorizing imams?
Can't someone sue these imams? They sure deserve that and to be indicted as well.
Didn't Newt Gingrich say something about indicting the imams a few months back?
I can't wait to see how Rep. Ellison votes on this.
I asked this question over at LGF, but they're not terribly good at staying on topic and having conversations over there:
How can it even be legally possible, anything but legally frivolous, for individual passengers to be named in this suit? As far as I know, religious and/or racial discrimination under U.S. and state laws are things that can only be done by employers and companies that offer services to the public. In other words, if you sit in a lunch counter and someone sits nearby and says, "I don't think _____ [some religious or racial group] should be allowed to eat at this lunch counter," that isn't discrimination under law or litigable, because he's expressing an opinion as a private person. He isn't stopping you from eating at the lunch counter. It's if the owner kicks you out and won't serve you because you belong to _______ group that you can sue, and then you sue the business. Similarly here, the case law should be overwhelming in interpretation of the relevant statutes that these fellow passengers literally _cannot_ be sued for discrimination, because the "discrimination" involved would have to be in offering services to the public, and the fellow passengers aren't _offering_ services to the public. How can that part ever even make it into court? If anybody has legal insight on this, I'd be interested.
Lydia,
If they have filed a complaint, which I assume they have, it may be online somewhere, & it would answer your question. I agree that the hypothetical you describe do not form the basis for any cause of action against John Q. Public. My guess, & it's only a guess, is that by insisting that airline personnel do something about these "holy men" who were acting strangely, the frightened passengers were creating a disturbance aboard an airplane. which may violate some federal law. Even if the suit against the John Does is thrown out tomorrow, it will have achieved its intended effect: to harrass & intimidate anyone who blows the whistle on muslims acting suspiciously.
Shakey_Premise:
I can't wait to see how Rep. Ellison votes on this.
He will do the limp thing. He will abstain.
There are some who would oppose this legislation. They are the creeps who employ SLAPP suits to silence their critics. SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) was first used by companies in California to silence people complaining about pollution using a Nineteenth Century CA law about public discharges. To knock out their critics, the companies would file defamation suits and then bleed the victim via "discovery". The pattern is the same here. Instead of suing the airline and its crew (who have the capacity for defense), they will sue the "John Does" and use that to scare the pants off the next person who dares to open their infidel mouth.
Now, who would oppose this kind of legislation aimed at protecting people against a SLAPP suit? How about John Edwards, one of the current candidates for POTUS? He made his millions by suing hospitals and doctors. A lot of his left- wing buddies such as Jesse Jackson actively use SLAPP to shake down their opponents which is how RAINBOW PUSH gets a lot of funding.
The good news is that this bill will expose the opposition as the slime they really are.
Safety, not politics, first!
ps: ARE YOU LISTENING, MADAME SPEAKER?? WE ALL HOPE SO!