Republicans lobby Pelosi to protect 'John Does'

[sabra]

Source: WashTimes

Key Republicans are lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to protect legislation that prohibits airline passengers from being sued if they report suspicious behavior that foreshadows a terrorist attack.

Republican leaders used a procedural motion to insert that provision into a transportation-safety bill last month, but House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, has threatened to bar from becoming law all language entered into bills under such "motions to recommit."

"We cannot afford to wait any longer to protect individuals who seek to do the right thing by speaking up to prevent a terrorist attack," more than a dozen Republicans wrote to Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, today in a letter obtained in advance by The Washington Times.

The legislation responds to a lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams after they were removed from a Nov. 20 U.S. Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix for suspicious behavior. The lawsuit was filed on March 12 and also named as defendants any yet-unknown "John Doe" passengers who reported the imams' behavior.
"This represents a startling precedent, one that could freeze the very behavior law enforcement has encouraged," the letter said.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070502-122028-4521r.htm

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. And what was the "suspicious behavior" that led to the clerics' detention?

Prayer, the use of a foreign language and "looking Muslim."

People should not be allowed to hide behind the law when they are being bigots.

[nitestar41]

3. I agree wholeheartedly.

If the only reason they were detained was because of looking Muslim, praying to their deity or speaking in a foreign language then that is not a good enough reason. How is that any different then race profiling, that is not supposed to be done yet is anyway? Honestly I don't know if I would know what to look for, I'd probably count on my gut, but then there is too much chance for Human Error. It should probably be mentioned I don't fly, I was afraid of planes before 9/11 and fully intend to keep my feet near the ground (which makes it difficult because I want to see other countries someday).
If they had been speaking English, praying to the "Christian God" and looking like a "redneck" would they have been detained? Probably not and the worst part is that some legislators seem to forget we have had more then our share of "Home-Grown" terrorists.
9/11 isn't the only terrorist act that should be being looked at when trying to ensure the safety of Americans. 9/11 is just the only one that keeps being used as a reference. The big other one that stands out in my mind, right now, is Oklahoma City.
I understand the need to make Americans feel safe but what they are actually doing is using more "scare tactics" to make us think they know what is the best for us, perhaps they are doing what they feel is best for them. Were any of them a "John Doe"s?

[yellowcanine]

6. Right, I don't see the need for this. Judges can throw out lawsuits that have no merit.

The law should not protect bigoted behavior.

[youngdem]

9. You don't know what you are talking about

This case is a clear, CLEAR case of a set up by these Imams. They were intentionally acting in a provocative manner in order to create a civil rights lawsuit in order to protest the treatment of Muslims aboard US airlines. It backfired.

This legislation is opportunistic, but the real victims in the referenced incident are indeed the passengers who did exactly what they should have done (and frankly, what they were provoked into doing).

The imams should be ashamed. So should anyone who immediately condemns a fellow countryman for protecting themselves without knowing all of the facts.

from the link http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20061128-122902-7522r

"Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane." A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

<...> Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.

The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed."


If someone was doing this on a flight I was on, I would be VERY suspicious, and so would you.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Quotes from the Moonie Times? As relevant as Faux News commentaries

Do you have something from a more reliable news service that is not part of the Junta's propaganda machine?

[youngdem]

12. Google it...There are thousands of similar stories. Or revel in your ignorance...Your choice.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Ohhh, more that A DOZEN Republicans!

Pelosi better be scared! :eyes:

Whatever happened to the right to face your accuser(s)?

[Ms. Clio]

4. they want to protect their informers, thugs, and stalkers

Our own Stasi.

On edit: I hope Ms. Pelosi says "hell, no."

[Somawas]

5. The Washington Times is to a newspaper as Gonzales is to justice.

nt

[nitestar41]

7. I will say that...

I can now understand, with more information and research, why they were removed. I however do not really agree with allowing people who are bigoted and biased being able to say that... because I wear a pentagram necklace therefore I must be up to some nefarious scheme because I'm in league with "the devil". Where would it end if they were allowed to just make an accusation and have a person arrested? Back to the Witch Trials? There has to be some kind of accountability if you are only being a bigot, racist or fear monger.

According to all the things I've located on what happened to cause them to be removed from the plane in November 2006 they should have been. I've read that they were reported by at least one person who understood Arabic, they asked for seatbelt extensions that they didn't need, they sat in seats that weren't assigned to them, supposedly they also made anti-american comments, and the praying part was apparently started loudly before boarding and continued afterward.

I'd have been made more nervous then I would have already been even being on the plane to begin with.

This is the only item I found that is mentioned on http://www.azcongresswatch.com/?p=2994 as what the Washington Times article references as the Procedural motion.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1640:

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1640

To provide liability protection for individuals who report suspicious behavior to law enforcement agencies.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 22, 2007

Mr. PEARCE (for himself, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. WOLF, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. MCCOTTER, and Mr. MCKEON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide liability protection for individuals who report suspicious behavior to law enforcement agencies.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO REPORT SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR.

(a) In General- An individual shall not be liable for any injury or damages relating to such individual's qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior. A civil action for damages related to such disclosure may not be brought in any State or Federal court.

(b) Qualified Disclosure of Suspicious Behavior- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior' means any disclosure of the allegedly suspicious behavior of another individual or individuals to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or other security personnel that is made in good faith and with the reasonable belief that such behavior is suspicious.

[Ms. Clio]

8. thanks for that impeccable source, The Washington Times

the only thing the imams did wrong was Flying While Muslim.

[anotherdrew]

10. the imam's shouldn't be suing the passenger(s) who made the 'tip' but the authorities

who completely overreacted. if the passengers were so scared they should have got off the flight.