John Doe protection

6 imams, 9/11, John Doe protection, Political wind

Disarmed by the Dems

by  • 

Editor — This commentary appeared today, in the ‘Be Our Guest’ section of the New York Daily News

Congressional leaders fail to protect terror tipsters from insane lawsuits

He’s your son, riding a commuter train to work. Your daughter, taking the subway to go shopping downtown. Your grandparent, boarding an airplane at JFK en route to a family reunion. Your husband or wife, working anywhere in America.

John Doe is you. Me. All of us. And he’s in trouble.

Yesterday, members of Congress met in conference to finalize provisions of the 9/11 security bill, which implements the final recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. But as of press time, the Democratic majority was using a technicality to block the so-called John Doe amendment from being included in the bill.

The amendment, which protects citizen whistleblowers who report suspicious activity from being sued, was sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) after six imams who were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in November filed a lawsuit against the passengers who reported their behavior to flight crews.

Their lawsuit charges that the imams were victims of an “intentional” and “malicious” . . . “conspiracy to discriminate” and seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the airline and “John Doe” passengers – including an elderly couple who, according to legal papers, “purposely turned around to watch them” in the boarding area and then “made a cellular phone call.”

The John Doe legislation, called the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act, passed in the House in April with overwhelming bipartisan support, by a vote of 304-121 – including 105 Democrats. Now, King wants to include it in the 9/11 security legislation as a stand-alone measure to assure its passage apart from the larger bill. It is up to the majority leadership, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whether they will allow the provision to be added to the bill. Reached by telephone yesterday, a senior Pelosi staffer refused several times to say whether Pelosi supports the John Doe legislation in principle.

Why? What could prevent any member of Congress from supporting no-brainer, bipartisan legislation that protects Good Samaritans from frivolous lawsuits? One possible motive: According to key Democrat leaders, John Doe protection will encourage “racial profiling.”

Let’s put this in perspective. The alleged conspiracy to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix was foiled by a Circuit City store clerk who alerted law enforcement after the suspects brought a video to the store for reformatting on DVD.

An FBI spokesman called the 23-year-old tipster an “unsung hero” and acknowledged that the plot would have gone undiscovered if he hadn’t stepped forward. The hero clerk later told reporters that after seeing several Middle Eastern-looking men shouting “Allah Akbar” while firing assault rifles and engaging in military-type maneuvers on the video, he discussed overnight with his family whether or not to call authorities. Lucky for us, he made the right decision.

But would he have made that call if he thought getting it wrong might require defending himself against a multimillion-dollar lawsuit? Would you? “An overwhelmingly bipartisan majority of Congress supports protecting vigilant citizens who are our first and sometimes last resource in the War on Terror,” said Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), co-author of the John Doe bill. “But unfortunately they’re not going to get the support of the new majority leadership in Congress.”

It has been nearly six years since 19 ordinary-looking men boarded four commercial airliners, killed all the pilots and then flew the planes into buildings and the ground.

One of those most haunted by that day is the airline employee who checked in two of the hijackers that morning. He told the 9/11 commission that the pair, traveling on first class, one-way, e-tickets, “didn’t act right.” Though he selected them for secondary screening, he didn’t request a more thorough search because “I was worried about being accused of being ‘racist’ and letting ‘prejudice’ get in the way.”

We disarm ourselves when we succumb to political correctness – which encourages us to second guess our common sense and look the other way. It is an outrage that Pelosi and Reid would allow individuals to be punished when they come forward to protect us all.

Editor — Debra Burlingame is a co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, the sister of Charles Burlingame III who was the pilot of American Airlines flight 77 that terrorists hijacked and then crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, and a director of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation.

6 imams, Aviation Security, John Doe protection

Flying imams lose bid to limit lawsuit press coverage

by  • 

The judge hearing the lawsuit by the six imams (aka the ‘Flying Imams’) who are suing the ‘John Doe’ passengers aboard US Airways Flight 300 who reported their suspicious behavior ruled the press and public would not be denied full access to the proceedings:

A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit filed by six Muslim men who were removed from a US Airways flight last fall has declined to limit public access to the case.

Omar T. Mohammedi, a New York attorney for the six Muslim scholars, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he sought limited media access because he felt some of the coverage of the case has been biased against his clients. “When you think of the media, and the way they have been portraying this case, it has not been very helpful. It has been biased,” Mohammedi said. “That has caused a lot of stress, a lot of stress on our clients, as well as made it difficult for us to handle this case … in a manner that it should be handled.”
…
In a letter dated Tuesday and addressed to Mohammedi, U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery noted that Mohammedi had requested that the court remove members of the media from an electronic distribution list, bar members of the media from attending hearings, and hold proceedings in closed session.

“The Court declines to treat this case in the extraordinary manner that you request,” the judge wrote. She added that the public and press have an interest in full access to judicial proceedings under the First Amendment.

“You have provided no legal authority supporting your request to limit public access to this case,” Montgomery wrote. “While it is regrettable that anonymous individuals have threatened violence, the Court Security Officers will insure that the United States Courthouse here in Minneapolis is secure.”

The judge’s letter was entered in the case file, and it noted that further communications on the matter should also be filed through the court’s electronic database.

CAIR, the Council of American-Islamic Relations, has limited access by our free press in the past. When the imams’ lawsuit was announced at CAIR’s national headquarters, on March 13, 2007, both the Christian Broadcast Network and Washington Times’ reporter Audrey Hudson were barred from the press conference:

Council spokesman Ibrahim Cooper said that the Christian Broadcasting Network airs anti-Islamic messages and that the Times reporter, Audrey Hudson, has covered the imams’ case unfairly in the past.

The imams’ lawyer, Omar T. Mohammedi, is a both a member of CAIR and a board member of New York City’s Human Rights Commission. He was appointed to the latter by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in 2002.