July 19, 2007
The anti-anti-terrorism party
Would you like to know why Americans don't trust the Democrats to be good on security?
National Review's Andy McCarthy provides a stunning example of the Congressional leadership -- Genus: Democratus constupro improvidus crapweasels -- in action.
In November 2006, six Islamic leaders were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in Minneapolis after they were observed acting suspiciously — including not sitting in their assigned seats, asking for seatbelt extenders although not needing them, and making anti-American statements. The men were questioned by authorities and then cleared. However, in March 2007, with the help of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the imams filed suit — not only against the airline but against the heroic "John Doe" passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.
Congressman Pete King (R., NY), the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, sprang quickly into action, concluding that the lawsuits were cheap attempts to intimidate everyday Americans from taking action to help protect our country. Congressman King introduced an amendment to protect passengers and commuters against frivolous lawsuits such as those filed by the imams. The language was overwhelmingly adopted by the House in March, 304-121, as an amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.
The House-adopted King language ensures that any person who voluntarily reports suspicious activity in good faith — anything that could be a threat to transportation security — will be granted immunity from civil liability for the disclosure. The amendment is specific to threats to transportation systems, passenger safety or security, or possible acts of terrorism, and also shields transportation systems and employees that take reasonable actions to mitigate perceived threats. The amendment is also retroactive to activities that took place on or after November 20, 2006 — the date of the Minneapolis incident.
I am reliably informed that House Democrats are attempting, under the radar screen, to strip the King Amendment from the legislation based on an alleged technical violation of Byzantine House rules.
[I]n a post-9/11 reality, passenger vigilance is essential to our security. Given the variety of threats we face and terrorists' history of targeting mass transit systems, encouraging passengers to report strange behavior to authorities is really just common sense.
Failing to report suspicious behavior could end up costing thousands of lives — and while the "flying imams" don't seem to understand this, the American people do. We must make certain that brave citizens who stand up and say something are given the protections they deserve. The King amendment does exactly that, and Democrats musn't be allowed to strip it from the 9/11 conference report on a technicality.
The fact that the Democrats are trying to accomplish this bit of legislative skullduggery without attracting attention (i.e., without a press conference choreographed by Pelosi and her pals) speaks volumes about how much -- or how little -- the Dems can be trusted on the national security issue.
UPDATE: Well, it's official. The Democrats killed the "John Doe" provision.
John Hinderaker notes:
This is a good example of how Congress really works.
The "John Doe" measure passed the House on a 304-121 vote, which means that many Democrats didn't want to go on record as opposing the measure. Instead, they killed it quietly in conference committee.
So now Democrats in "swing" districts--those must be the ones where voters take seriously the risk of terrorist attack--can tell voters that they voted for the measure, and take no responsibility for the fact it never became law. This dodge is as old as the Republic.
It also shows the importance of party affiliation. If the Republicans still controlled Congress, a majority of conferees never would have voted to strip "John Doe" protection out of the bill.
Pathetic. Even if we don't suffer another attack, moves like this give the Stupid Party GOP an issue with which to hammer the Dems during the next election cycle. And the Dems deserve it, too.
Posted by Mike Lief at July 19, 2007 10:33 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
I'm not surprised; sneaky, unfaithful, pot smokin' liberals....a taste of what's in store if Hilary-Dillary or Hama-O'Bama end up driving the boat.....Do you have a blue pigeon?
Posted by: Vern at July 19, 2007 02:11 PM