Democrats Want a Don't Ask-Don't Tell Terror Policy

You hear the words again and again, every time there is another foiled terror attack "be vigilant," "if you see something say something," "your eyes are our best defense." All of these quotes are saying the same thing if we want to be safe, we need open our mouths and tell the authorities when something looks strange. Like the smoking car in London, or the Jihad pictures in the Fort Dix case, even the attempt to blow up Kennedy Airport was foiled because a good person opened his mouth.

Of Course on the other side there is the Minneapolis case described here by Congressman Peter King:

While boarding, passengers and flight staff witnessed these six individuals demonstrating suspicious behavior, including not sitting in their assigned seats, but rather sitting in a configuration similar to that used by the hijackers on 9/11; requesting seat belt extenders but not using them; and speaking loudly about Osama bin Laden and the United States' role in the death of Saddam Hussein. Concerned passengers and airline personnel properly reported this suspicious behavior, and the pilot and the Federal Air Marshall determined that the behavior warranted asking the individuals to leave the plane. When they refused, airport security and law enforcement personnel responded and removed the individuals to investigate whether a true threat existed. "...passengers on a U.S. Airways flight reported what they saw as suspicious activity. That resulted in six imams being removed from the plane. Now, that is a matter that is going to be in litigation between U.S. Airways and those six imams. But what is absolutely disgraceful is to find out that lawyers are coming forward and advocacy groups are coming forward to represent those imams and suing, attempting to find the identity of those passengers, those citizens who acted in good faith, who responded to their government and reported what they deemed to be suspicious activity." The removed passengers were later allowed to board a plane and fly to their destinations. They were not indicted for any criminal activity.

They were not reported because they were Muslims they were reported because they were acting suspicious.

King has placed an amendment in the Homeland Security granting:

"immunity for reporting suspicious activities and mitigating terrorist threats relating to transportation security," was passed. In plain English, the intent of the legislation is to protect those "who take reasonable action" to report suspicious activities to the authorities by providing the persons reporting the suspicious activities with immunity from civil liability (lawsuits).

But the Dems who represent the ACLU and the PC Police feel that this will lead to profiling (which I think should be OK but thats a different issue). They would prefer a "don't ask-don't tell or we will sue" policy, something that will lead to more of us having our body parts scattered across the lawn in a terrorist explosion.

Democrats want 'John Doe' provision cut

By Audrey Hudson
July 19, 2007

By Audrey Hudson - Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.

Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or “John Doe” passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on Nov. 20 before their removal.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.

“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” Mr. King said.

“I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.

Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, initially opposed the legislation for fear it would lead to racial profiling.

The lawsuit also names the Minnesota Metropolitan Airports Commission .

The imams are asking for an unspecified amount of money in damages. Their claims include false arrest, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, failure to train, conspiracy to discriminate, and negligence.