6 imams, American jihad, Aviation Security, CAIR

Legislation in response to 6 imams’ lawsuit

by  • 

Would protect airline passengers who report, in good faith, suspicious activity

While apparently the behaviors of the 6 imams aboard US Airways Flight 300 on the November 20, 2006, only resembled those of the 9/11 hijackers, were the passengers and crew supposed to only pray that there was no danger?

House Republican Steve Pearce, of New Mexico, does not think so. On Thursday, he introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007. The Washington Times reports the measure was introduced:

“…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…
…
Mr. Pearce called the lawsuit “an injustice against Americans who were simply trying to protect themselves…These brave citizens should be recognized as heroes for their efforts to report suspicious activity, particularly activity that has been associated with previous terror attacks.”

The bill is co-sponsored by: Rob Bishop of Utah, Dan Burton of Indiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky, Trent Franks of Arizona, John Kline of Minnesota, Thaddeus G. McCotter of Michigan, Howard McKeon of California, Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, Lynn A. Westmoreland of Georgia and Frank R. Wolf of Virginia:

“…This lawsuit makes me wonder exactly what CAIR and the imams are looking to do with their suit,” Mr. Shuster said. “The inclusion of bystanders as defendants in this lawsuit is a clear indication that the imams don’t want to right a wrong; they want to make a statement.”

The statement by the 6 imams’ lawyer makes obvious the lawsuit aims to intimidate passengers from reporting suspicious activity:

Omar Mohammedi, a member of CAIR and the imams’ attorney [said], “The imams have the right to face their accusers if they purposely made false reports with the intent to discriminate against the imams.” *

* Author’s note added 3/25/07: The 6 imams were held for questioning for a few hours and released without charge so they were never “accused” of anything. If they had been charged and went on trial, the right to face their accusers would be applicable. Nor do they provide factual evidence in their lawsuit of “false reports” for none of the witnesses have been crimimally charged with that offense.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said yesterday:

“As a Muslim, this is not the way to approach our civil rights; this is not the way to build bridges. It’s the most anxiety-laden area in the world right now, the airports and the gates. It is the frontline in the War on Terror. It is not a right to fly; it’s a privilege. The airlines have a huge, huge burden, especially the captain. He has to make some immediate, quick decisions as to whether the flight is safe. And he [speaking of the captain of the November 20, 2006, US Airways flight 300, who is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit] acted upon some things. The imams claim this was about prayer. You know people are not used to or had that much contact with Muslims. Certainly, it is important for people to get educated but to intimidate people and to push your faith in front of them and then to demand equality is completely ignorant about how to build bridges… This is not about prayer. Nobody said anything before they went on the plane.”

We loudly applaud the bill’s introduction yet note it does not extend similar protection to the flight crews. Still, the measure is a tremendous first step and we thank Representative Pearce and the bill’s ten co-sponsors.

If someone acts like a terrorist — even if it is only an act — they ought to be treated like one. The witnesses to such behavior and those responsible for security, like witnesses and authorities testifying about a crime after the fact, must be protected from civil liability.

The crew and passengers who tackled and subdued “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid did not stop to consider his civil rights, thank God.

Iraq, Political wind

Washington Post slams House mandating Iraq withdrawal

by  • 

Today, the editors at the Washington Post slammed the measure before the House of Representatives that would mandate a timetable for withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. When you remove their criticism of the $20 billion in pork spending from their editorial entitled “Retreat and Butter: Are Democrats in the House voting for farm subsidies or withdrawal from Iraq?” here is what the editors said:

TODAY THE House of Representatives … will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.

The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq… The legislation… could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.

Congress can and should play a major role in determining how and when the war ends. Political benchmarks for the Iraqi government are important, provided they are not unrealistic or inflexible. Even dates for troop withdrawals might be helpful, if they are cast as goals rather than requirements — and if the timing derives from the needs of Iraq, not the U.S. election cycle. The Senate’s version of the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan contains nonbinding benchmarks and a withdrawal date that is a goal; that approach is more likely to win broad support and avoid a White House veto.

As it is, House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates… while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek… an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.

In other words, the Washington Post does not think Congress should mandate that we “PULL… OUT… NOW” from Iraq. And they think withdrawal should be based upon the best estimate of those leading the fight on the ground and what is best for the Iraqi people. Medea Benjamin will be disappointed.

Congressman John Murtha standing with Code Pinkers

It will be interesting to see how Congressman John Murtha votes seeing how he so often claims to defer to the opinions of the military commanders in the field.