Hill bill protects flying public

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

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.

A public interest law firm that fights against religious discrimination publicly condemned the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) yesterday for supporting a case it calls "legal terrorism" and said it will file a brief with the court on behalf of the passengers.

"This is a first for us," Kevin Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, wrote in a letter to Nihad Awad, president of CAIR. "We have never opposed someone else's claim for religious discrimination.

"But this tactic of threatening suit against ordinary citizens is so far beyond the tradition of civil rights litigation in the United States that we must oppose it to defend the good name of religious liberty itself," Mr. Hasson said.

Becket Fund lawyers have successfully argued cases for Muslims before, winning the right of Newark police officers to wear beards and securing a place for Muslim public school students in Texas to pray.

"In short, we know religious liberty," said Mr. Hasson, who urged the CAIR leader to "use whatever influence" to "renounce any such intention to sue individual citizens."

"This case is against US Airways and not against the passengers," said Omar Mohammedi, a member of CAIR and the imams' attorney. However, he added, "The imams have the right to face their accusers if they purposely made false reports with the intent to discriminate against the imams."

A spokesman from CAIR did not respond to an offer to comment on the Becket Fund letter.

The imams were removed from the flight after praying loudly in the gate area, speaking angrily about the war in Iraq and President Bush, not taking their assigned seats and requesting seat-belt extenders that were not necessary and that could be used as weapons, according to incident reports and officials interviewed by The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22159-4749r.htm

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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.

Rule of thumb: If a politician of either mainstream party uses the words unconscionable or reprehensible.... then something is seriously wrong with the legislation being argued.

Edited March 24, 2007 by Gupt

[cbd2cai 0]

hmmmmmmm, well, I am not sure what to think about all this.

On one hand, people should be able to report suspicious activity without fear of reprisal. Really, anyone can make an honest mistake, but when it is viewed thru the "filter" of discrimination . . . how can it be determined that their intent was honest or just harassment????

Isn't there a whistle-blower law somewhere?? That was supposed to protect people that reported illegal activities in their company or govt agency? But it seems the whistle-blowers still come out on the bad end in the long run.

Sheeeesh, seems it is hard to be honest or a good samaritan these days!

Oh, lol, good point about the use of "unconscionable" . . . .

Edited March 24, 2007 by cbd2cai

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I have mixed feelings about this. People shouldn't hesitate to report possible terrorism but on the other hand this limits our freedom. I'll guess I'll just buy more guns and continue to protect my family. Think globally, act locally.

[Peikko 1,575]

Whi does buying more guns protect you from the threat of terrorism or for that matter anything else? (Wild animals excluded)

Why, why, sheesh lol

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Whi does buying more guns protect you from the threat of terrorism or for that matter anything else? (Wild animals excluded)

Why, why, sheesh lol

It gives me a false sense of security and compensates for my small #######. Plus their shiny and fun to shoot!!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

LS,

ROFL.

[Peikko 1,575]

Aha, I now see the attraction.

[cbd2cai 0]

I thought that's why guys drive Hummers too!!

hmmmm, except that doesn't explain the powderpink H3 I saw at the Hummer dealership here!!! But no way would I buy a PINK car! Although . . . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I just had another thought!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Thank you for not sharing

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

[Caladan 19]

Gupt gets this exactly right. I suppose all I have to do if I want to inconvenience someone with impunity is accuse them of "legal terrorism", which may just win the award for the stupidest phrase ever uttered.

O we Spartans at the pass, indeed.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Message board terrorism is next

[Peikko 1,575]

Beware the Trolls!

[Scott & Lai 12]

Whi does buying more guns protect you from the threat of terrorism or for that matter anything else? (Wild animals excluded)

Why, why, sheesh lol

Terrorists are at least as dangerous as wild animals, so why shouldn't I protect myself from them with the same means that I would use on an attacking animal?