the Worst.Congress.Ever gets even curiouser and curiouser. http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=269824091134203 [rquoter]Keeping The Flying Imams Airborne INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 7/20/2007 Homeland Security: Despite overwhelming support in and out of Congress, legal protection for airline passengers who report suspicious behavior is being blocked by Democratic leaders. Wasn't one 9/11 enough for them? Were it not for the courage and sacrifice of the passengers of United Flight 93 who forced their plane into a Pennsylvania field, many in Congress might not be here today, with a gaping hole where the U.S. Capitol still stands. We wonder if this fact is appreciated by those trying to block final passage of the so-called "John Doe" provision protecting from legal action those who report suspicious behavior on airplanes. Today's passengers have an advantage. They know what can happen. They know what to look for. They will not be taken by surprise, and they are willing to take action. But some in Congress would sacrifice their lives on the altar of political correctness. Last November, six Muslim imams leaving an Islamic conference were removed from U.S. Airways Flight 300 in Minneapolis when passengers reported that the imams had acted in suspicious ways. Both U.S. Airways and the passengers soon became targets of legal action charging discrimination and racial profiling. Also attending the conference, interestingly enough, was Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who took his oath of office on the Quran, and who most recently compared President Bush's actions after 9/11 to Hitler's after the Reichstag fire. Ellison condemned U.S. Airways for "prejudice and ignorance." So last March, the House of Representatives passed by a 304-121 vote the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, with language protecting from such lawsuits airline passengers who might report suspicious activity. All seemed well. But last week, as Republicans tried to have the "John Doe" protection included in final homeland security legislation crafted by a House-Senate conference committee to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, they found Democratic conferees blocking its inclusion. "Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity." Neither do we, and certainly the actions of the six imams last November qualified as suspicious. While at the gate, according to police reports and witnesses, the six made anti-American comments and provocatively chanted "Allah, Allah, Allah." On the plane, they asked for seat-belt extenders with heavy metal buckles, even though none was obviously in need of them, and then dropped them at their feet. Last time we checked, there was no tenet of Islam that required them to leave their assigned seats shortly before takeoff, a violation of federal rules, and occupy the exit and entry rows of a jet aircraft, a pattern associated with the 9/11 attacks. All six moved — two to front-row first class, two in the middle on an exit row and two in the rear of the cabin. Was it racism to report these actions? Stereotyping? Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute notes: "A stereotype in this instance is nothing more than a compilation of facts about who has attacked American interests in the past and who, given what we know, is most likely to do so in the future." We wonder how the plot by the Fort Dix Six to attack a U.S. Army base might have unfolded if a courageous Circuit City employee hadn't overcome similar fears to report a video showing the six engaged in paramilitary training while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" As a federal air marshal in Las Vegas observed: "The crew and passengers act as our additional eyes and ears on every flight. If they are afraid of reporting suspicious individuals out of fear of being labeled a racist or bigot, then terrorists will certainly use these fears to their advantage in future aviation attacks." What bothers us is why some Democrats want to let them.[/rquoter]
You have the temerity to post this after what Republicans have been doing in congress for the last seven months?
This doesn't prevent people from reporting behavior, it just prevents legal immunity. If they are being honest and not fraudulent, why should they care if they get legal immunity if they are acting reasonable? The only people who should be concerned about having legal immunity are the people who plan to abuse it.
There's an awful lot of potential abuse that could occur if people were legally allowed to chuck out accusations willy-nilly. The bill is obviously a well-meaning attempt to keep America safer, but in practice could result in bigoted, or even just overwrought, passengers flinging out accusations against every brown-skinned person in sight. I'm glad it didn't pass.
unbelievable. I also love how he brings up the passengers of United Flight 93 as if they wouldn't have done what they did if they thought they could be sued.
This particular passage in the story is probably what is driving the legislation: "Last November, six Muslim imams leaving an Islamic conference were removed from U.S. Airways Flight 300 in Minneapolis when passengers reported that the imams had acted in suspicious ways. Both U.S. Airways and the passengers soon became targets of legal action charging discrimination and racial profiling." The folks reporting the suspicious behavior were apparently acting honestly and in good faith, yet they are being sued.
Isn't that was Republicans say about the Searches, Phone Taps and Warrentless Home Invasions? Rocket River
What *exactly* was the suspicious behavior? If suspicious was Laughing . . or Praying. . or simply something cultural then maybe the people were being more discriminator and allowing their prejudice to color what was suspicious and what was not So What was 'Suspicious'? Rocket RIver
anyone can get sued, if they were acting in good faith, then they shouldn't have anything to worry about. Just because a doctor gets sued doesn't mean they didn't act in good faith or the case wasn't fraudulent. However, if they were acting under racist tendencies and just trying to get people in trouble because of their faith, wouldn't we want them to be responsible? point is, no one is going to decide to not report a terrorist because they might get sued. and the difference between this and the warrantless wiretaps is, under the constitution, the government can't spy on you, but as a citizen against a citizen, you have to be responsible if you rat out someone else for a dishonest reason.
Even if they get sued and they did everything honestly and in good faith, they still have to pay lawyer fees and deal with the hassle. Why should someone who thinks they are acting in good faith, without racial overtones or any type of prejudice have to pay thousands of dollars to defend that action?
but in this case? yes, if they did it in good faith. Because afterall, we are talking about this case, not every case. Do you even know what you are arguing about?
How do you determine if they were acting in good faith or without racial prejudice if they are granted immunity? Seems like you'd have to go to court to do that.
They should have the ability to sue, but should they have the ability to sue a group of individuals who report suspicious behavior to an airline? The group of individuals did not remove the Imams (in this example) fromt he plane, the airline did. If the Imams have a complaint, the airline should be held accountable and not the individuals whoe expressed their concerns. If you see someone at a store who appears to have shop lifted something and you tell an employee and then the employee tells security, who in turn, roughs up the suspected shop lifter and it all turns out to be a misunderstanding, should you be sued? You acted in good faith, without prejudice.
As far as I know, the United States does not have a "loser pays" rule. There is NO guarantee that if you are sued and win that you will get your expenses back, even in this case. You will certainly not get your time back.
