« Rowling and 'Deathly Hallows': A Master Author and a Masterpiece | Main | "I Find Your Lack Of Faith Disturbing" »

IBD: Keeping the Flying Imams Airborne

Investors Business Daily has an important editorial today that outlines why the Democrats' position of eliminating the John Doe provision from the Homeland Security bill is so dangerous:

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.

The IBD editorial is blunt but right on target. Read all of it.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22817.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference IBD: Keeping the Flying Imams Airborne:

» Can't See the Center linked with Political immunity

Comments (109)

Hopefully John Doe will mak... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:
Maybe if Muslims didn't sur... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Maybe if Muslims didn't survive these confrontations they would happen less frequently. If I fear for my life, I am entitled to defend it with deadly force. Possibly a force of vigilaties is necessary

Yeah, screw the Founding Fa... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yeah, screw the Founding Fathers. What did they know? Scary Muslims acting all Muslim-y is all I need to hear.

Holy shite. I think I'm mak... (Below threshold)
jim:

Holy shite. I think I'm making a joke, and then Zel blows it out of the water.

Zeldorff, did you acually just suggest that Muslims should be shot, even if once they're searched and investigated they're found completely innocent? Seriously?

You do realize that's what happened with all the Muslims on that plane, right?

Maybe we should sew some symbol onto all their shirts and herd them into a camp somewhere, so they can work hard. Until work sets them free.

Would you care to revise your previous statement?

Only a liberal would fall f... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Only a liberal would fall for a faux Conservative.

I honestly do not understan... (Below threshold)

I honestly do not understand why the Democrats fought so hard (and successfully) to remove that section of the bill. I mean, sure, living in a McCarthy-like era where everyone is ratting everyone they do not like out is certainly not an enjoyable prospect - but it is also not what was in mind with the "John Doe Provision". As it is now, if someone were to level charges against a potential terrorist, and those charges evetually played out to be factual, the terrorist could still sue the person who made the charges, and given our pathetic legal system, the terrorist would probably win.

And the Democrats want this? Where does that make sense?

As for our Founding Fathers, they were a lot of things, but something tells me they were more than intelligent enough to recognize a damned pattern when they saw one...

I think that the Democrats ... (Below threshold)
jim:

I think that the Democrats **were** concerned about a possible McCarthy-ist era where everyone is ratting each other out.

I don't think that was the intention of the Bill - but laws can have quite unintended consequences once passed. And this sort of provision has that possibility within it.

Besides the McCarthy-ist concerns, consider also that people being able to level charges and restrict the lives of anyone they think **might** be a terrorist, vastly increases the possibility that actual terrorists can go free unnoticed, because available law enforcement personnel are drowning under false leads.

Suspect the Imams, pull them off the plane, and search them, and investigate them - that's fine. I'm all for that.

But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out? That doesn't seem right in America.

The "Founding Fathers" had ... (Below threshold)

The "Founding Fathers" had and have nothing to with the John Doe amendment. The Founding Fathers would be outraged at the flying imams suit in the first place.

The John Doe amendment does... (Below threshold)

The John Doe amendment does not deny anyone the ability to fly - that's completely ridiculous.

Jim, please cite, by articl... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Jim, please cite, by article and paragraph, that section of the Constitution of the United States of America that law would have violated.

If you can't do that, quitcherbitchin' about the Founding Fathers.

Robin Roberts, I'm referrin... (Below threshold)
jim:

Robin Roberts, I'm referring to why the Imams are suing -

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/826056.html

"The US Airways supervisor told Shahin that his tickets had been refunded and that he would have to go to another airline. The supervisor offered Shahin a customer service phone number.

"I want to go home. I don't want phone numbers," Shahin said. "They have no reason to refuse service to us just because of the way we look.""

They were found to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and were denied any further service on that airplane anyway. They were told to go to another airline.

And here's an interesting quote for you:

"This event would be the equivalent of Roman Catholic bishops being arrested in China because they wore clerical robes and invoked Jesus Christ in prayers," Zaman said.

No part of the John Doe ame... (Below threshold)

No part of the John Doe amendment prevents the imams from flying 'ever again'. Your comment is simply false.

The quote is simply a lie, so I'm not surprised it attracts you, jim. The imams have been deliberately misrepresenting the events to gather the support of people who believe that there is racism in everything that happens. That sucks in the credulous like you, jim.

The imams deliberately provoked an incident, and yet you think that they should be immune to the consequences of their actions - but that people who report what they did should not be immune.

Your lack of consistency is noted. As is your fondness for misrepresenting issues.

CCG, here you go. Look at t... (Below threshold)
jim:

CCG, here you go. Look at that - I only had to get as far as Amendment I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

A lawsuit is a petition to the Government - it's Judicial branch, to be exact. And it is also a form of legal redress.

Now, CCG, if you could, please cite the section of the Constitution that says some people ****shouldn't*** have equal rights under the law, if other people suspect them of some specific crime, turn their life upside down and permanently blackmail them from an airline, ***after the suspicion has turned out to be false***.

Seems kind of contrary to the spirit of the Founding Fathers, too, doesn't it? That people shouldn't have rights to legal redress, if other people levy charges against them that turn out to be false?

No part of the John Doe ... (Below threshold)
jim:

No part of the John Doe amendment prevents the imams from flying 'ever again'.

And I explained to you that I was referring to the Imams' lawsuit. But you choose to ignore this.

I will not. Robin, you claim that the Imam's argument is a lie. If so, the court will dismiss the case. No problem.

But you are calling me a liar, when I am simply reporting the news. So, please provide evidence that the Imams' quote is a lie; or please retract your statement.

And by the way, I have not and calling people who disagree with me liars.

Why are you doing that?

Above should read "am not a... (Below threshold)
jim:

Above should read "am not and have not been".

Jim, if I am walking down t... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Jim, if I am walking down the street with a stick of dynamite in my hand, and the fuse is lit, would you say that it would be a violation of my civil rights if someone called in to 911 but didn't leave their name?

Robin, I shouldn't have eve... (Below threshold)
jim:

Robin, I shouldn't have even given you that much. I am truthfully reporting what I read, and have given you the link to it. If it says what I said it did, then even you must acknowledge that I am not a liar.

Please go to that link, and verify it says what I said it did, and retract your accusation of me being a liar.

jim, I did not call you a l... (Below threshold)

jim, I did not call you a liar in my comment above, please learn to read.

Dismissal of the case some where down the road is not a solution, because the threat of lawsuit will discourage reports of suspicious behavior. It is not acceptable that these imams should be able to intimidate people with the threat of expensive attorney's fees from making reports that they should be making.

As for denying the imams the right to fly "ever again", this is still not true. They have have not been denied the right to fly.

Nonetheless, as I've pointed out - you believe in immunity for the imams but not for those who report. This is a ridiculous position.

BTW jim, the right to petit... (Below threshold)

BTW jim, the right to petition is not the equivalent of the right to sue. That is a misstatement of the Constitution.

Immunity to persons and circumstances is granted in a multitude of cases and there is no constitutional prohibition.

That people should... (Below threshold)
That people shouldn't have rights to legal redress, if other people levy charges against them that turn out to be false?

Alright, since it is apparently a binary issue with you, which is better: The situation you describe, or a situation wherein no one reports any manner of terrorist threat, even if they see someone planting what appears to be a bomb somewhere, because they do not want their lives and the lives of their families turned upside down if they just happen to be wrong?

I misread your comment, Rob... (Below threshold)
jim:

I misread your comment, Robin? Then what's this mean?

Your lack of consistency is noted. As is your fondness for misrepresenting issues.

'inconsistency' and 'fondness for misrepresenting issues', isn't calling me a liar, Robin?

Come on.

Jim, if I am walking dow... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, if I am walking down the street with a stick of dynamite in my hand, and the fuse is lit, would you say that it would be a violation of my civil rights if someone called in to 911 but didn't leave their name?

No, that absolutely would not be a violation of your civil rights.

But if someone called 911 because they thought you ***looked like*** the kind of person who **they thought*** would light a stick of dynamite, and the cops come and search you and find nothing but you ***still*** get kicked off the plane, I think you should have the right to sue.

And if your case is baseless it will get handled by the court.

'Looking like guilty' is not the same as 'is guilty'. And we have courts to help us separate the two.

Now you are changing what t... (Below threshold)

Now you are changing what text offends you, jim? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

you believe in immunity ... (Below threshold)
jim:

you believe in immunity for the imams but not for those who report. This is a ridiculous position.

It would be a ridiculous position, if that was my position. It is not.

How does having the right to file a lawsuit, equal immunity?

These Imams should have the right to file lawsuits. And those who don't like their lawsuits, should have the right to file lawsuits against them.

If the lawsuits are frivolous and baseless, they will be dealt with in the courts. That's what they're there for.

Robin, you said the article... (Below threshold)
jim:

Robin, you said the article I quoted was a lie. In addition, you said I was inconsisent and misrepresenting issues.

Please either show how I am inconsistent and misrepresenting the issues ***and*** how the article I quoted did not say what I said it did - or retract both of these statements.

Frivolous lawsuits can be a... (Below threshold)

Frivolous lawsuits can be a harm in and of themselves, this is why many states have special procedures for dealing with, and punishing, SLAPP suits.

Regardless, immunity for reporting is a common way for legislatures to deal with situations where the fear of lawsuit may discourage reporting. Its done in a multitude of situations.

Linoge, the answer's clear:... (Below threshold)
jim:

Linoge, the answer's clear: the situation I describe.

Jim, if I am walking down t... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Jim, if I am walking down the street muttering, "I'm gonna kill that guy," and someone calls the cops, is that a violation of my civil rights?

Please answer yes or no. I don't need a long legal dissertation, I am on my way to a point here.

Jim, grow up. I did not ca... (Below threshold)

Jim, grow up. I did not call you a liar. I called the person you quoted a liar.

I'm retracting nothing. Now go troll somewhere else.

Frivolous l... (Below threshold)
jim:

Frivolous lawsuits can be a harm in and of themselves, this is why many states have special procedures for dealing with, and punishing, SLAPP suits.

Sure - once the suit has started.

I'm all for repercussions if a lawsuit itself has been found to baseless.

Regardless, immunity for reporting is a common way for legislatures to deal with situations where the fear of lawsuit may discourage reporting. Its done in a multitude of situations.

Sure - and it's also not done in a multitude of other situations.

Having it so that people can accuse people of being terrorists because they look all Muslim-y, and turn their lives upside down even if they turn out to be clearly, completely and totally innocent, is a terrible terrible idea.

You have to apply the effec... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

You have to apply the effect of the law on the full spectrum of cases. How many times have we heard of some a-hole who thought he was being funny by talking about a bomb or a hijacking? Now let's say that you were trying to connect on a $5K cruise and some joker says he overheard two arabs talking about a hijacking, and the plane is forced to land and you miss your connection and you are out $5K.

Good luck suing to get your money.

Here jim, you misrepresent ... (Below threshold)

Here jim, you misrepresent the effect of the John Doe amendment:

Having it so that people can accuse people of being terrorists because they look all Muslim-y, and turn their lives upside down even if they turn out to be clearly, completely and totally innocent, is a terrible terrible idea.

The John Doe amendment does not do that. It immunizes people from good faith reporting of suspicious activities. Not for being muslim. Your statement is a misrepresentation.

Jim, if I am walking dow... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, if I am walking down the street muttering, "I'm gonna kill that guy," and someone calls the cops, is that a violation of my civil rights?

OK, CCG. In an offhand comment like that, and in the absence of any other evidence, the answer to that question is clearly yes.

Especially if you are searched by the cops and found to be completely innocent of anything, but still suffer the same treatment as if you were actually guilty.

You know, that whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing.

If it was otherwise, Zeldorff could already be on charges for his comments at the top of this page. That is, if you consider Muslims to actually be people. I happen to.

Linoge, the answer... (Below threshold)
Linoge, the answer's clear: the situation I describe.

I am not sure which is worse - the fact that you view this as a binary situation, or your answer.

Sheesh, can't even answer a... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Sheesh, can't even answer a simple yes-or-no question with a "yes" or a "no," can you, Jim?

C-C-G, Jim's dutie... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

C-C-G,

Jim's duties here are to inhibit wingnuts from making a point not play straight man to them.

I know you want to view tha... (Below threshold)
jim:

I know you want to view that as a misrepresentation, Robin. But lets look at the facts.

The John Doe amendment...immunizes people from good faith reporting of suspicious activities.

Uh-huh - by saying that the accused can not sue anyone for any redress, even if the accusation is found to be completely false and without evidence and damages their lives.

And by the way, you're wrong - the Provision makes no distinction between 'good faith' and 'bad faith' reporting. It simply says the reporter of the suspicious activity can't be sued ***for any reason***.

Go here for the actual text of the provision:

http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/showthread.php?t=108869

Not for being muslim.

Robin, the whole Provision was written *because* these Imams who were kicked off the plane and refused from buying any other tickets off that airline.

The reason the Imams got kicked off the plane, were: looking Muslim, saying Allah, and talking to each other while looking Muslim. Oh, that, and they sat in different sections. Which groups of people flying together do all the time, because it can be cheaper and less of a hassle to get separate seats.

Now, if it is reasonable that under these circumstances the passengers were freaked out by their Muslimitude, that will be seen in a court of law.

But there is simply no reason why this can't go to a court of law. This is exactly why we have courts.

Whoops. Read the provision ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Whoops. Read the provision and it actually does have the phrase 'good faith' in the 2nd section.

Ah well...

Now, jim, your misrepresent... (Below threshold)

Now, jim, your misrepresentations of the John Doe amendment are now closely approaching lies. I assume for the moment that you are merely incompetent and have not read the amendment.

Proof that jim is misrepresenting the effect of the John Doe amendment. This is the text of the amendment:


SEC. __. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTS OF SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR AND RESPONSE.
(a) Immunity for Reports of Suspicious Behavior.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under Federal, State, and local law for such report.
(2) FALSE REPORTS.-Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any report that the person knew to be false at the time that person made that report.
(b) Immunity for Response.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-Any authorized official who observes, or receives a report of, covered activity and takes reasonable action to respond to such activity shall be immune from civil liability under Federal, State, and local law for such action.
(2) SAVINGS CLAUSE.-Nothing in this subsection shall affect the ability of any authorized official to assert any defense, privilege, or immunity that would otherwise be available, and this subsection shall not be construed as affecting any such defense, privilege, or immunity.
(c) Attorney Fees and Costs.-Any person or authorized official found to be immune from civil liability under this section shall be entitled to recover from the plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney fees.
(d) Definitions.-In this section:
(1) AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL.-The term "authorized official" means-
(A) any employee or agent of a mass transportation system;
(B) any officer, employee, or agent of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Justice;
(C) any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
(D) any transportation security officer.
(2) COVERED ACTIVITY.-The term "covered activity" means any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence indicating that an individual may be engaging, or preparing to engage, in-
(A) a violent act or act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be such a violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State; or
(B) an act of terrorism (as that term is defined in section 3077 of title 18, United States Code) that involves, or is directed against, a mass transportation system or vehicle or its passengers.
(3) MASS TRANSPORTATION.-The term "mass transportation"-
(A) has the meaning given to that term in section 5302(a)(7) of title 49, United States Code; and
(B) includes-
(i) school bus, charter, or intercity bus transportation;
(ii) intercity passenger rail transportation;
(iii) sightseeing transportation;
(iv) a passenger vessel as that term is defined in section 2101(22) of title 46, United States Code;
(v) other regularly scheduled waterborne transportation service of passengers by vessel of at least 20 gross tons; and
(vi) air transportation as that term is defined in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code.
(4) MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.-The term "mass transportation system" means an entity or entities organized to provide mass transportation using vehicles, including the infrastructure used to provide such transportation.
(5) VEHICLE.-The term "vehicle" has the meaning given to that term in section 1992(16) of title 18, United States Code.
(e) Effective Date.-This section shall take effect on November 20, 2006, and shall apply to all activities and claims occurring on or after such date.

The key is the language "Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary report". Coupled with the definition of covered activity, we can see that jim's rhetoric is a misrepresentation of the issue.

Now the only question is whether or not jim's misrepresentation is deliberate.

Did you deliberately misrepresent the amendment, jim? Yes or no?

As an aside, Jim, I suggest... (Below threshold)

As an aside, Jim, I suggest just pleading your lack of reading comprehension. Its already established.

Now go troll somewhere else.

Why is it that the right al... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Why is it that the right always want to take away our rights?

What rights, Barney? No on... (Below threshold)

What rights, Barney? No one is taking away anyone's rights. Your comment is not coherent.

Jim, the imams were kicked ... (Below threshold)
Wethal:

Jim, the imams were kicked off the plane, because among other things, they ignored their seat assignments, and all sat together in exit rows. I think they refused to move back to assigned seats when asked.

And one imam asked for a seat extension, a heavy belt with a metal buckle, even though, given his size, he clearly had no need for one. And then he didn't even use it, but put it under the seat. (It would have made a nice cosh).

Robin, I suggest you respon... (Below threshold)
jim:

Robin, I suggest you respond to comments on their merits, and not make excuses to avoid actually defending your statements on their merits.

Also, note the comment I posted at 9:23, right above yours at 9:24.

Jim, so far, it is your com... (Below threshold)

Jim, so far, it is your comments that have been irrelevant - as you make claims that simply have nothing to do with the John Doe amendment.

As I've shown.

Well, Wethal, I looked up t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, Wethal, I looked up the incident on CNN, and it didn't mention the Imams refusing to resume seats.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed/

But let's say they did, and this was suspicious - once they were investigated and nothing was found, that should have been the end of it. it was not.

In any case, it's now the Imams right to sue - and we don't need to change the law so that the falsely accused can not sue.

"The key is the language "A... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"The key is the language "Any person who, in good faith .." RR

Who decides what is in "good faith" and what is not? Is that not what we have the courts for? If I can not face my accuser and present evidence to support my innocence than my rights have been impeded.

It seems to me that our current court system already addresses this concern, and this is just another redundant law that makes finding justice that much more uncertain.

you make claims that sim... (Below threshold)
jim:

you make claims that simply have nothing to do with the John Doe amendment. As I've shown.

And as I've shown you, Robin, you're wrong and my comments **Are** relevant to the John Doe amendment.

But if you're right, Robin, then please respond to my actual comments. If my comments are so clearly wrong, that should be relatively easy for you.

The trail so far -
My original comment:

Having it so that people can accuse people of being terrorists because they look all Muslim-y, and turn their lives upside down even if they turn out to be clearly, completely and totally innocent, is a terrible terrible idea.

Your response:

The John Doe amendment does not do that. It immunizes people from good faith reporting of suspicious activities.

My response was and is:

Uh-huh - by saying that the accused can not sue anyone for any redress, even if the accusation is found to be completely false and without evidence and damages their lives.

You know, say by looking all Muslim-y on a plane. And doing things that, if they were not Muslim, certainly would have allowed them to buy tickets on that airline if they were found completely innocent.

Your response is - ?

My response is that the Joh... (Below threshold)

My response is that the John Doe amendment does not do what you claim it does. As the language of the amendment shows. And now that you've seen the language for yourself, we know your misrepresentation is intentional.

Barney writes: "Who decides... (Below threshold)

Barney writes: "Who decides what is in "good faith" and what is not? Is that not what we have the courts for? If I can not face my accuser and present evidence to support my innocence than my rights have been impeded."

No, Barney, your statements are incoherent. One only has a "right" face one's accuser in a criminal matter. This is about civil lawsuits. One does not have a "right" to sue someone in general. No constitutional right is implicated when civil causes of action are defined or limited.

OK, Robin - you're dodging ... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, Robin - you're dodging the point.

Does that John Doe provision make it **possible** that someone could accuse an innocent person of being a terrorist, with no evidence other than that person being freaked out at a Muslim?

If it makes this impossible, please show how.

And does that John Doe provision make it difficult to impossible for an innocent Muslim to sue, if they are so accused and found completely innocent?

If it does **not** do this, please show how.

So what Jim's saying, is th... (Below threshold)
Ran:

So what Jim's saying, is that these POOR mistreated men of God were just trying to get home to wife and kid? If I looked past the how did you say it "Muslimy" looks.. and all the ALLA Akbars!.. I see people just like me!.. Yeah, right.. call it racism, but if I had been on that plane, you can bet your A$$ I'd have said something to get them booted or ME off that plane! Somehow, blasting a building in a passenger jet seems kinda final. Someone wiser might wanna explain to me, isn't US Airlines a PRIVATE AIRLINES? able to refuse flight to anyone? (for acting like fools and refusing to follow directions) Or, if I get 86ed from a bar, cuz I'm Irish, can I sue them?

RR, you did not answer my q... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

RR, you did not answer my question. Who decides what is good faith, and I do have a right to sue to seek relief, and I can do that without facing my accuser.

So what Jim's saying, is th... (Below threshold)
jim:

So what Jim's saying, is that these POOR mistreated men of God were just trying to get home to wife and kid? If I looked past the how did you say it "Muslimy" looks.. and all the Yeah, right.. call it racism, but if I had been on that plane, you can bet your A$$ I'd have said something to get them booted or ME off that plane!

OK - that's racist.

It really is. It's the definition of prejudice - pre-judging.

Somehow, blasting a building in a passenger jet seems kinda final.

So? Are we going to brave and treat people justly, or are we going to be freaked out and jump at our own fears?

Someone wiser might wanna explain to me, isn't US Airlines a PRIVATE AIRLINES? able to refuse flight to anyone?

Sure, they have that right - and the Imams have the right to sue them.

Or, if I get 86ed from a bar, cuz I'm Irish, can I sue them?

If you were kicked off a plane because someone thought being Irish = being in the IRA = about to blow up the plane, and then kicked you off the whole airline when you are found innocent - yes, you could sue.

And I expect that experience happening to you personally, would make you view the whole thing a bit differently.

Look guys, let's give jim h... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Look guys, let's give jim his due. For those of you who disagree, the following may set things clearer.

Alice went down the rabbit hole . . . or did she?

jim says you can't say it's a rabbit hole. How do you know? Did you see a rabbit dig it? Maybe it's a dinosaur hole. Who's to say? Theoretically, it could be a brontosaurus in there.

Theoretically it could be true. Never mind that every single one of the 9/11 hijackers were muslim. That was random says jim. Take the exact same precaution without using any of your judgment. It really could be a brontosaurus in there.

Hey jimie can I sue them th... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey jimie can I sue them there muslumies for sticking their ass up in the the air and making the air around them unclean. Got my rights to you know.

Jim and Barney are known li... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim and Barney are known liberal propagandists. These liberal leftists are again using the "perfection fallacy" to justify the despicable action of the dems. Since nothing is perfect in the real world, here are the two worst case scenarios:

Scenario#1: Someone will be falsely accused and suffer the inconvenience of being investigated by the FBI, delayed in their flights home etc...

Scenario#2: The terrorists and their sympathizers will have the maximum protection of the law. In the worst case, the terrorists will take advantage of these loopholes in the law to cause another 9/11 or worse

So in the end liberals like Jim and Barney are willing to suffer another 9/11 attack or worse to make sure that in the worst case the terrorists will have the maximum protection of the law

"Wasn't one 9/11 enough ... (Below threshold)
LAB:

"Wasn't one 9/11 enough for them?"

Perhaps it wasn't. What an eerie thought.

"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."

One has no choice but to speculate motive.

"Maybe it's a dinosaur hole... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Maybe it's a dinosaur hole." nehemiah

Coming from an avowed creationists that is is a very revealing statement.

"Maybe it's a dinosaur hole... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

"Maybe it's a dinosaur hole." nehemiah

Coming from an avowed creationists that is is a very revealing statement.
------------------------------------
Cheap distraction as usual. In the end, you want to give the terrorists the maximum advantage to cause another 9/11.

Barney,you are aga... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Barney,

you are again showing your marvelous reading skills. When I say "maybe it's a dinosaur hole", I am inferring (translating) jim's argument -- i.e. it is jim's line of reasoning. So are you therefore saying jim is an avowed creationist?

See what a dumbass you are? See how evolution wouldn't have selected you (it's obvious to us)? Your existenced is demonstrating the patience and grace of God that passes all understanding.

nehemiah, so when you said ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

nehemiah, so when you said "Theoretically, it could be a brontosaurus in there." you were talking in Jim's voice?

To bad the pope said you believe in the wrong religion (I believe in the only true one) so you are going to hell and I am going to heaven, so it looks like you were wrong on both counts.

Barney again is trying to d... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney again is trying to distract the discussion from the despicable action of the dems. What a cheap tactic, but that is typical of Barney.

*Thinking Jimmy would defen... (Below threshold)
Ran:

*Thinking Jimmy would defend my right to eat Pork Rinds on a plane with Imams on it!*..LOL..that racist too? Also CONVINCED Jimmy would be cheering my "Scared" butt on, if he were sitting beside me on that flight!

Barney cannot even be hones... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney cannot even be honest to his own proclaimed religion. He is willing to ignore the Pope and the teaching of the Catholic church on abortion for example.

Sorry lovie but I haven't h... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Sorry lovie but I haven't had an abortion, and if you researched my posts on this issue you would know where I stand, but of course you can not get past your hatred of anything that is not in lock step (or should I say goose step) with your right wing Asian porno loving (do I have bring this up again) ideology.

Barney, Please feel... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney,
Please feel free to voice your cheap hypocrisy. You are simply trying to distract from the discussion with your cheap tactic again. Are you trying to dig into people 's personal info? Is that what liberals are all about?

Brney, Please feel ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brney,
Please feel free to voice your cheap hypocrisy again. You are simply trying to distract from the discussion with your cheap distraction.

wow...kinda sorry I missed ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

wow...kinda sorry I missed this thread! Moonbats must be in season!!

jimmie, barney and thier ilk are busy defending the Democrats not defending our right to defend ourselves!! Sums it up I think.

What the Moonbats lack in logic they more than make up for in bullshit! With so much to chose from I think I'll just chose this from jimmie:

"And I expect that experience happening to you personally, would make you view the whole thing a bit differently."

NOT! If I behaved as these bungholes did I would expect to be booted...permanently. Personnally I think they shoulda been booted at 35,000 feet...but that's just me (and about 200,000,000 other Americans).

We're at war. If a bunch of Germans (though American citizens) pranced around a waiting area in 1943 Minneapolis singing "Deutchsland Uber Alles", and then started proclaiming Hitler was a swell guy THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT!!

These morons got off lucky!!

Jim scribbles: "Does that J... (Below threshold)

Jim scribbles: "Does that John Doe provision make it **possible** that someone could accuse an innocent person of being a terrorist, with no evidence other than that person being freaked out at a Muslim?".

Jim, the answer is in the text of the amendment which you evidently cannot read. The amendment does not make such an accusation possible or impossible - it does not change what people can report. What it does is only immunize people from suit when they make a good faith report based on objectively reasonable suspicion of the defined covered activities. If not, they are not immunized by this statutory language.

I've not dodged this point, you have. In fact, This has been obvious for a long time, and yet you continue to misrepresent what the amendment is about.

Barney,
Your comment was about a "right" to confront accusers. This right only exists in a criminal matter. You continue to demonstrate that you do not have even a basic understanding of constitutional rights.

As to who decides, that depends on the procedural posture of the civil action, it could be either a decision of a judge on motion or a jury trial.

Just seen this. <a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Just seen this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/middleeast/24military.html?ei=5065&en=d0b7f1b1a1b703b6&ex=1185854400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

U.S. Seen in Iraq Until at Least '09
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
BAGHDAD, July 23 -- While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.

The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. "Sustainable security" is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.

The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security.

First off Jimmy get over to... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

First off Jimmy get over to bluewiz where you belong.....

Second..ANY citizen should be able to report suspicious **(ACTIVITY)** no matter what color, height, weight, religion, ETC, ETC. without fear of some CIVIL nonsense.

It wasn't the brown skin and being MUSLIMS that got the IMAMS reported, it was their ACTIONS!!!!!! If those clowns were 6'0 blondes doing the same shit, they still would have been reported!!!

Wake-up lefty's....terrorist want to kill ALL of us, if it was JUST liberals that were targeted, we'd let you have your way.

Robin, note that "objective... (Below threshold)
jim:

Robin, note that "objectively reasonable suspicion" is not defined in the bill.

Then note that a lot of the people posting here think that being Muslim on a plane qualifies as objectively reasonable suspicion.

That is why this provision wasn't good enough to pass muster into law. And that is why the Democrats were right to strip this provision.

Do you think Democrats want to die on airplanes any more than Republicans? Think again. We just don't think insulating people from lawsuits because they baselessly persecuted innocents, make us any safer.

If the lawsuits have no merits they will be laughed out of court by the judge. I see no reason why the case of someone who has been found innocent and was still persecuted, should be any different.

And as for the rest of you. I think that being Muslim is not enough to get someone blacklisted from an airline. Sorry. I believe in innocence until proven guilty.

And I think the Founding Fathers would be appalled that we have become so scared of some uncivilized thugs, that we would allow people to be accused of terrorism with no redress.

Not allowing people to sue if they are still mistreated after they have been found innocent, is not allowing redress.

Right jim. and tell Alice ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Right jim. and tell Alice that's a brontosaurus hole.

barney,
when I say, "theoretically it could be a brontosaurus hole", that is sarcasm. It's not literal dude. It's to make fun of that pseudo justice loving jim (yeah right, liberals like to be truthful and just).

barney, you think mahvelous.

(Now watch that sentence be used in the future to justify that I actually think barney is brilliant -- dumbass).

There is a legal precedent.... (Below threshold)

There is a legal precedent. Unsure if it's been mentioned before, but states like California have a "Good Samaritan clause", which protects someone from a lawsuit if they help out someone who has been injured seriously or in an auto accident.

"In any case, it's now t... (Below threshold)

"In any case, it's now the Imams right to sue - and we don't need to change the law so that the falsely accused can not sue."

And therein lies the rub jim. Who are they going to sue? By your standards, and with the John Doe provision being repealed, they can sue the airlines and/or the people who reported their behavior.

The airline, who is charged with the safety and well being of its passengers, has every right to remove those who are perceived as a threat from the plane. No ands, ifs or buts. The Imams were not reported because they looked "muslim-y" and your exaggerations cannot and do not prove that. They behaved in a highly suspicious manner.

1) Several witnesses and the gate agent said "they were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding.

1) They switched from their assigned seats to be in a pattern associated with the seating of the 9/11 terrorists covering all exits. At least two of them moved to the first class section even after they were told their seats could not be upgraded.

2) Three of the men, who were not oversized, asked for seat-belt extenders and then placed them on the floor, not using them.

3) They were overheard making anti-American statements and talking about bin Laden and al Qaeda. They spoke in Arabic and English and some of what they said was clearly understood.

4) One man went to the back of the plane to talk to another at least three times.

Now any one of these actions is not cause for alarm, but combined, they represent suspicious behavior.

Now you would be just fine with them suing the flight attendants and passengers who reported this behavior in good faith.

Not only that, but you would have any ordinary citizen without the slightest shred of training, asses this situation, determine that they were just playing a prank or had no ill intention, and just keep their mouth shut or they might get sued.

You have no credibility on this issue. None; as you have continued to misrepresent this situation and any situation that may occur in the future to be that people are going hog-wild reporting people because they look "Muslim-y".

As if there haven't been hundreds, if not thousands, who have flown all over the US and have NOT been reported for looking all "Muslim-y".

I support the concept of th... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

I support the concept of the John Doe amendment, but I must admit this is the first time I had actually seen the proposed text of the amendment. Thank you, Robin.

Having seen it, I get a strong feeling that it's worthless and does not deserve to be fought for. Here's why. Note paragraph 2:

(2) FALSE REPORTS.-Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any report that the person knew to be false at the time that person made that report.

Paragraph 1 closes the door on "flying imam" type lawsuits; this one opens it right back up again. The question of whether the person knew the report was false is itself a litigable one, and requires either a judge or a jury to decide yea or nay on it. The point of the imams' lawsuit was never to actually win damages against the John Does. It was to force them into court, when everyone knows that lawsuit participants become public figures, no one can ever predict just what a jury will do, and defending against even a frivolous lawsuit costs enormous amounts of money and time. How is a lawsuit over whether a report was phony any less effective at accomplishing that than a lawsuit over whether or not the plaintiffs were discriminated against?

There are two kinds of peop... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

There are two kinds of people. Pre 9/11 and post 9/11. Jim is firmly in the former. He is content to view the constitution as a suicide pact. Oh, I do believe the muslim terrorists are targeting us for our looks and beliefs also. But, Jim is a terrorist apologist so that is alright by him. Jim, you are a predictable bore. ww

wolfwalker: That's an exce... (Below threshold)

wolfwalker: That's an excellent point. The second provision opens the door wide. It's going to take a walk thru the courts and a bundle of money to prove your report was "in good faith".

It's been my contention that the trained authorities carry the burden of determining whether the report has merit before taking any action. It is not incumbent on the citizen to investigate and make that determination.

Let's say there's a guy in the bank with his hand shoved in his coat pocket, finger pointed making it look like he has a gun. He has a scrap of paper in the other hand, is looking around nervously and obviously perspiring. I'd say that's fairly suspicious behavior.

Let's say I report his behavior "in good faith" to the guard at the door. I've made no determination as to his guilt. It just looks, and rightly so, like a possible robbery in progress.

It's then determined that the guy didn't have a gun and the note was just a grocery list. He's just a nervous guy who sweats a lot.

Jim doesn't care how suspicious the guy's behavior was. Jim is okay with my being sued over it. Jim is okay with the fact that I may have to spend every last penny I have proving that I meant well. And if the guy looked all "Muslim-y" all the better for Jim to claim I was basing my entire assessment on the guy's nationality.

jim:"I wa... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

jim:

"I want to go home. I don't want phone numbers," Shahin said. "They have no reason to refuse service to us just because of the way we look."

I didn;t get all the way through the comments, but there's a malfunction in this man's argument. He was refused service by how he acted, not how he looked.

I would fully expect to be ecorted from a bank by security if I came in all sweaty and shifty-eyed with my hand jammed in my inside pocket.

So you're ok that no one reports any suspicious activity out of fear, and another terrorist attack may occur as a direct result?

Heralder - that's spooky. ... (Below threshold)

Heralder - that's spooky. We posted the same scenario at the same time.

*looks over shoulder* Are ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

*looks over shoulder* Are you watching me?

Your scenario was better written though.

Heralder, don't try to use ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Heralder, don't try to use logic with a liberal, his head will explode. ww

And what about those who <i... (Below threshold)

And what about those who deliberately try to look suspicious?

Like these guys recounting their story to others at their mosque:
"At that point, another student took the podium. His name was Khaled, and he began to recount his recent trip to New York City. Khaled and three of his companions had gone to New York for several days in January. He told of how uncomfortable his trip up to NYC had been. He felt like he was being watched, and thought he was the victim of racial profiling.

Khaled and his friends were pretty unhappy about it, and while in New York, they came up with a plan to "teach a lesson" to the passengers and crew. You can imagine the story Khaled told. He described how he and his friends whispered to each other on the flight, made simultaneous visits to the restroom, and generally tried to "spook" the other passengers. He laughed when he described how several women were in tears, and one man sitting near him was praying.

The others in the room thought the story was quite amusing, judging from the laughter. The imam stood up and told the group that this was a kind of peaceful civil disobedience that should be encouraged, and commended Khaled and his friends for their efforts."
---------------------
Strangely enough, these guys weren't reported, investigated, searched, or anything else apparently, or I'm sure that would have been part of their story.

What if they had indeed been planning something, yet no real proof was found of it because it was just a dry-run? I'd venture to guess that if they had been planning something, this particular episode would have provided a green light to go ahead as planned as they weren't reported for their activities. And this dropping of the John Doe law will make it that much easier for them to train in advance of such an attack.

Sorry, bad link. <a href="... (Below threshold)

Sorry, bad link. Here's a link to the story.

Robin, note that ... (Below threshold)
Robin, note that "objectively reasonable suspicion" is not defined in the bill.

Then note that a lot of the people posting here think that being Muslim on a plane qualifies as objectively reasonable suspicion.


Objectively reasonable suspicion are terms that are already well defined in law, there is no need to specifically define them. And your second sentence is a foul slander for which alone I'd urge your banning to the admins here. Reducing arguments to calling your opponents racists is simply despicable.

And as for the rest of you. I think that being Muslim is not enough to get someone blacklisted from an airline. Sorry. I believe in innocence until proven guilty.

Here you repeat the above misrepresentation and slander all here again. Despicable.

I shall not bother to treat you as an honest commenter again.

Good summary here<... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Good summary here

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/suing_antiterror_tipsters.html
If you see something, hire a lawyer. Then, perhaps, you can say something.
...
The Democrats oppose fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, oppose key provisions of the Patriot Act, oppose President Bush's electronic-surveillance program, oppose Guantanamo Bay, oppose the aggressive interrogation of terrorism suspects, and now they oppose lawsuit-free passenger vigilance. If only they took the terror threat as seriously as that man who may have to defend his cell-phone call in court.

"Then note that a lot of... (Below threshold)

"Then note that a lot of the people posting here think that being Muslim on a plane qualifies as objectively reasonable suspicion."

That is a completely baseless assertion and totally dishonest.

I guess if I called jim a liar for saying so, and upon further reading he discovers that no one said or implied any such thing, he would quickly understand the difference between lying and being mistaken and say he made a mistake.

Here is an example of the l... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Here is an example of the left 's tactic/policy. If another 9/11 occurs because of their opposition to John Doe, what redress do we have? Looks like liberals are willing to tolerate more American troops being killed to ensure that the terrorists have the maximum protection of the law. So much for caring about the lives of American troops! Now, looks like they are willing to suffer another 9/11.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010608.php
Former Gitmo Prisoner In Suicide Bombing

Here you repeat the abov... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here you repeat the above misrepresentation and slander all here again. Despicable.

I shall not bother to treat you as an honest commenter again.

Wouldn't that mean, you'd have to have been treating me as an honest commenter in the first place?

In any case, that's your choice.

Kinda blows my mind that your saying this provision wouldn't have any affect on falsely accused Muslims being able to sue....since this entire provision was written because some falsely accused Muslims sued. But hey, it's your mind, live in it how you like.

But as for accusing me, once again, of misrepresentation - my understanding misrepresentation means saying something that isn't true; and slander means false accusations.

Robin and Oyster, go read the comments here on this very page by Zeldorf at 7:42, Ran at 10:17, jhow66 at 10:31 .

Since those comments exist in reality, my comment about some of the posters here stands.

So, by your logic, you and Robin are misrepresenters and liars. Have fun with that.

Jim, IN the end, yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
IN the end, you are willing to suffer another 9/11 or worse to give the terrorists and their sympathizers the maximum protection of the law. In other words, you would rather have scenario#2 in my post. You would rather give the terrorists the maximum advantage in exploiting our laws and make it harder for us to fight against them.

Jim, Oyster has exp... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Oyster has exposed your lies again. Please admit it and go on. You keep repeating your cheap liberal talking points, ignoring the reality.
------------------------------------
Obviously this wouldn't have happened if the men weren't Muslim, but fears of Islamic terrorism necessarily focus on Muslims. If the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Madrid, London, and Bali bombings had been Episcopalian, a group of strange-acting priests traveling in their vestments would warrant an extra measure of suspicion. This is not discrimination, but a common-sense reaction to the facts of life.

A good-faith response from the flying imams would have been to say, "We don't like it, but we understand." Instead they seek damages for their "fear, anxiety to fly, humiliation, embarrassment, mental pain, suffering, inconvenience and financial injury." Their agenda -- and that of CAIR -- is to make everyone ignore the association of Islam with terror that has been forged by jihadists, and to punish anyone who acts on knowledge reinforced in headlines every day.

Because we can't have police everywhere, civilian tips are indispensable. A video-store clerk alerted authorities to the Fort Dix plot after he saw a tape of men in Muslim attire firing guns -- but not before he wondered, "Should I call someone or is that being racist?" Debra Burlingame points out that an airline employee who checked in two of the 9/11 passengers didn't ask for a special search of them because "I was worried about being accused of being 'racist.'"

There are a large number of... (Below threshold)
Gizmo:

There are a large number of "Good Faith Reporting" shield laws that are on the books in states all over the country for a variety of things that include suspected child abuse, sexual misconduct, etc. What is it about this proposed law that makes it so different from the other such laws that makes it so unexceptionable to these Democrats? Or do they think that all such laws are a bad idea?

Yo People: Why would you tr... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Yo People: Why would you try to persuade a terrorist apologist like Jim? All Muslims are good in his world. Even though all the attacks all over the world that has killed thousands upon thousands of people were Muslim, why should we suspect a Muslim if they are acting suspicious? I really think Jim is brain dead. He certainly is living in a pre 9/11 world. ww

He was refused service b... (Below threshold)
jim:

He was refused service by how he acted, not how he looked.

I would fully expect to be ecorted from a bank by security if I came in all sweaty and shifty-eyed with my hand jammed in my inside pocket.

So you're ok that no one reports any suspicious activity out of fear, and another terrorist attack may occur as a direct result?

No Heralder; that's not my position at all.

My position is that if someone is accused, and they are still persecuted ***after they have been investigated and found innocent***, they should have the right to sue. And if it's baseless, the courts will throw it out.

To use your example, if you were pulled out, investigated and found to be completely innocent, and your account was cancelled and you were publicly escorted from the bank in public and told you can never use that bank or any of its branches ever again - at that point, I think you should be able to sue.

And what about those who... (Below threshold)
jim:

And what about those who deliberately try to look suspicious?

Well Oyster, guys who can be proven to deliberately be trying to look suspicious, will have their lawsuits thrown out, and will be open to lawsuits as well.

So, no need for this provision there, either.

By the way, Oyster, still w... (Below threshold)
jim:

By the way, Oyster, still waiting for you to look at the comments I noted, and admit your mistake in calling me dishonest.

I'm not calling you a liar, because I have good faith that you called me dishonest because you had not noticed or had forgotten about those comments.

Yo People: Why would you... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yo People: Why would you try to persuade a terrorist apologist like Jim?

Hey ww. I know someone who was killed in the 9/11 attacks. Do you?

I want this country to win against terrorists. Winning against them, also means managing to hold onto our soul - and not throwing our principles because we're scared.

All Muslims are good in his world.

What's that called? Oh yeah - "innocent until proven guilty".

Even though all the attacks all over the world that has killed thousands upon thousands of people were Muslim, why should we suspect a Muslim if they are acting suspicious?

Hey, ww - catch up. I know it's easier to think that's what I'm saying, but it's not.

repeating myself once again: acting on suspicions is fine and dandy.

It's further treatment of someone as if they're guilty once they've been ***investigated and proven innocent*** that's the problem.

I think someone should be able to sue if that happens to them, and if the lawsuits' baseless, it'll get thrown out of court.

Why do you think someone shouldn't be able to sue, if they're still treated as guilty after they're proven innocent?

My position is that if s... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

My position is that if someone is accused, and they are still persecuted ***after they have been investigated and found innocent***, they should have the right to sue. And if it's baseless, the courts will throw it out.

So, you oppose all whistleblower protections if the whistleblower's concerns end up not being correct?

Intriguing. I guess we should go ahead and disband neighborhood watches, since they occasionally are wrong and all.

And, man, when the press is wrong, they should ALSO be subject to lawsuits. Why should they be protected?
-=Mike

"To use your example, if... (Below threshold)
Gizmo:

"To use your example, if you were pulled out, investigated and found to be completely innocent, and your account was cancelled and you were publicly escorted from the bank in public and told you can never use that bank or any of its branches ever again - at that point, I think you should be able to sue."

Well then you should have no problems with the proposed legislation!!! Using the above analogy, would still be able to sue, but you'd be suing the bank that kicked you out unfairly. The only thing you would be prohibited from doing would be to sue the customer that thought you were up to something and any bank employees personally.

Gizmo, don't bother. Jim's... (Below threshold)

Gizmo, don't bother. Jim's fake analogies are not honest. His misrepresentations of the imam incident and the text of the John Doe amendment show this. Just as he dishonestly calls people racist for things that they didn't say. You are wasting your time with a dishonest troll as established above.

Robin, That's exa... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Robin,

That's exactly what jim is doing, good call. He misrepresents the situation like it's some 60's lynching then decries it. Then one might ask, "How are thousands of other muslims flying everyday without problems on American planes if it's how jim describes it?".

Well, it's because jim is full of shit. That's as graceful a way as I can put it.

Indeed, nehemiah.O... (Below threshold)

Indeed, nehemiah.

Of course, something else that people like jim won't acknowledge is that in circumstances such as the flying imams, the fact that they are released does not necessarily mean that they are indeed "innocent". It is always possible that a misunderstanding has occurred, but it is also possible that the people had been probing security for weaknesses without the intention of completing a terrorist act. If so, law enforcement would have a difficult time finding a chargable offense.

There may be increased probes of security done in deniable manner. If such people succeed in suppressing reports based on fear of suit by activists like the imams, then these probes will succeed in setting the stage for a successful terrorist attack.

jim, since you're adamant a... (Below threshold)

jim, since you're adamant about receiving an answer, I'll give it. I've looked at the posts you referenced and nowhere do I see a defacto approval that just being Muslim should be qualified as "objectively reasonable suspicion".

No apologies from me will be forthcoming.

That settles it, next time ... (Below threshold)
Ran:

That settles it, next time I'm on a plane, I'm ignoring the 7 muslims.. but I WILL be checking out those white haired ladies from Ohio closely!.. No way I wanna be racist!..*S*.. Question here.. is it POSSIBLE the Imams were refused flight by US Airways because they wouldn't follow directions when told to sit down?.. just wondering.

Well, it's because ji... (Below threshold)

Well, it's because jim is full of shit. That's as graceful a way as I can put it.

I'm way late to this party...will read the rest of the thread for desert.

And the above quote is accurate, except for leaving out the cowardly part. Jim regularly lies and dissembles.Then hides. I've commented on this with multiple links before.

All this would be moot if w... (Below threshold)
BillyBob:

All this would be moot if we had a LOSER PAYS system. Friking imams would lose and they would have to give up their tax payer funded footbaths.

jim is now officially the s... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

jim is now officially the stupidist, most tiresome commentor on this sight. What a freaking blowhard.

Nice web!!! Get your... (Below threshold)

Nice web!!!
Get yourself adsense account. You might be able to make extra $$$
More info:
http://1stmoneymakingweb.blogspot.com/




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy