John Does Still Under Threat Of Law Suit

While this posting isn't directly related to Islamic going-ons here in Northern Virginiastan, the implications could directly affect each one of us anti-dhimmis who report suspicious actions.

Via this posting at Little Green Footballs:

I’m informed by a reliable source that the Associated Press report we linked earlier today, that said CAIR and the flying imams had dropped their suits against anonymous passengers who reported the imams’ suspicious behavior, is not correct. Apparently the Associated Press got this wrong.

Repeat: CAIR has not dropped the “John Doe” lawsuits. They are still named.

Meanwhile, CAIR is trying to intimidate Young Americans for Freedom, where Robert Spencer is scheduled to speak today. According to this posting at The Center for Vigilant Freedom:

...[A]t no point does CAIR do what a responsible organization involved in an argument of political ideas would do, which is offer to take the stage with Spencer and debate his interpretation of Islamic theology....

Instead, CAIR rattles their sabres of legal jihad and makes demands. See this copy of the letter which the CAIR lawyer sent to Young Americans for Freedom.

How about this? We DEMAND that CAIR open their financial records--the real ones.

Victory for John Does!

See recent postings at the The Center for Vigilant Freedom. Excerpt from a recent posting, quoting Frank Gaffney:

Thanks to the leadership of Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, the chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and especially that of Rep. Pete King, Sen. Collins’ counterpart on the House Homeland Security Committee, legislation along the lines of that adopted by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives last May at Rep. King’s initiative will shortly become law.

The language will provide protection against the sorts of harassment lawsuits filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) after several unidentified individuals reported six Muslim imams engaged in suspicious – and frightening – behavior prior to boarding a USAir flight in November 2006. CAIR has been identified as a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood and is an un-indicted co-conspirator in an alleged terrorism-financing plot.

"We Are All John Doe"

From this source:

Pete King (R-NY) tried hard but the “John Doe” amendment protecting passengers’ rights to report suspicious behavior without being sued by CAIR in its Saudi-funded lawsuit jihad failed.

and

UPDATE (as of 9:30 p.m., July 19): Susan Collins (R-ME) submitted her “John Doe” passenger protection amendment for a vote in the Senate (S.A. 2340) but the amendment failed just 3 votes shy of the 60 needed to pass. Michelle Malkin has the vote roll of aye’s and nay’s here. No Republican voted against it, but Sam Brownback (R-CA) and Obama (D-IL) did not vote.Malkin points out that the final conference report could be a last place to add language protecting passengers who report suspicious behavior from lawsuits - but this is becoming more of a longshot.
So, time to gear up:

— Expect more probes of the 6 Flying Imams variety, especially as we go into the August vacation season.

— Bring a videocamera or video cell phone with you, so you can gather evidence as needed to protect yourself and your fellow passengers, from both terrorism and lawsuits. You can pick one up for less than $100 at Walmart (online price maybe cheaper in the store), Target, or Radioshack.

— It’s time for a Passenger Bill of Rights and Passenger Training. If we have to protect ourselves, so be it. Kyle Shideler did a great post on this on May 3, and I’m reposting it below or link here (A Passenger’s Right To Survive) because it’s even more important now.

How the vote went:

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---57 (Protect those who support suspicious behavior)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---39 (Those who support suspicious behavior can be sued)
Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 4
Brownback (R-KS)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Obama (D-IL)

Go to THIS LINK for more information from "We Are All John Doe." Lots of internal links!

How did our local representatives vote? HR 1640: Anti-dhimmitude From Congress

A followup to Northern Virginiastan: HR 1640: Anti-dhimmitude From Congress:

Cheers (voted Aye):
Tom Davis (R-VA, 11th District)
Jim Moran (D-VA, 8th District) - !!!
Frank Wolf (R-VA, 10th District) - extra props for sponsoring the bill

Jeers (voted No):
Steny Hoyer (D-MD, 5th District)
Chris Von Hollen (D-MD, 8th District)

CAIR Amends Law Suit

From this source, dated March 31, 2007:

A group of imams suing US Airways for discrimination amended their lawsuit this week to target only the "John Doe" passengers who they say are racist and falsely accused them of behaving suspiciously.

The six imams were removed from a flight in Minneapolis in November for disruptive behavior reported by passengers and members of the flight crew.

The lawsuit filed earlier this month targeted "passengers who contacted US Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of plaintiffs performing their prayer at the airport terminal."

The amended lawsuit identifies possible John Does as individuals who "may have made false reports against plaintiffs solely with the intent to discriminate against them on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity and national origin."

"The only individuals against whom suit may be raised in this litigation are those who may have knowingly made false reports against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them," Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in a letter this week to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm. The Becket Fund had publicly condemned CAIR for supporting the case.

"The imams will not sue any passengers who reported suspicious activity in good faith, even when the 'suspicious' behavior included the imams' constitutionally protected right to practice their religion without fear or intimidation," Mr. Nihad said. "When a person makes a false report with the intent to discriminate, he or she is not acting in good faith."

The imams are being represented by New York lawyer Omar Mohammedi in the lawsuit, which has triggered an outcry among lawyers who say they will defend the "John Does" for free.

Becket Fund Chairman Kevin Hasson criticized the amended changes in a letter to CAIR on Thursday.

"There is no way Mr. Mohammedi can possibly determine whether the John Does 'knowingly made false reports' against his clients 'with the intent to discriminate against them' without taking their testimony under oath, at least during pretrial discovery," Mr. Hasson said.

"That prospect alone, of being dragged into court proceedings, will certainly provide a great disincentive for other citizens to come forward with their own suspicions," he said.

The case prompted House Republicans on Tuesday to insert a shield law for "John Does" into a rail safety bill. The legislation would protect passengers against lawsuits for reporting suspicious behavior that foreshadows a terrorist attack.

It is "unconscionable" that those who report suspicious activity could be "terrorized in our own court system in our own country," said Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, who introduced the measure.

"Religious liberty is not absolute," Mr. Hasson said. "It must yield before the government's legitimately compelling interests. And the prevention of terrorism aboard airlines is certainly such an interest."

The Becket Fund labeled the case "legal terrorism," which Mr. Awad said "only adds to the empty and sensationalistic rhetoric of those who seek to disparage and demonize a segment of our society."

"It was not meant as an insult," Mr. Hasson said. "I think the public outcry over the targeting of the John Does proves the point I was trying to make. That legal tactic is self-defeating."

See? Defying CAIR can have positive results! Don't be intimidated by the threat of litigation by CAIR.

List of pro bono attorneys who stand against CAIR

HR 1640: Anti-dhimmitude From Congress

Now, for some news which is bound to rile up CAIR.

Excerpt from the March 27, 2007 Washington Times:

House Republicans tonight surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity -- the first step by lawmakers to protect "John Doe" airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.

After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats' Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121.

Check out the roll-call vote and other updates at The Jawa Report.

Jihad Watch: Flying Imams' lawsuit

Long before 9/11, I had thought that CAIR's aim was to conduct witch hunts against anyone who dared to say any critical about Islam, thereby threatening people's lives and livelihoods. Shortly after 9/11, CAIR had set up a bulletin board on its web site, no doubt expecting an outpouring of goodwill from people who didn't fault Islam or the ummah for 9/11. What CAIR got were articulate criticisms of Islam by people writing under names such as "Al-Hallaj" or "Asma bint Marwan," the name of a poetess murdered by Muhammad's henchmen for writing satiric verse about him.

In response to a defense of CAIR as a "civil rights group" I posted a message about CAIR's true aims. My friend The Adventuress, whose presence on the Web is sorely missed, alerted me to the fact that CAIR's webmaster had deleted my message. CAIR is backing the Flying Imams' lawsuit, in which the imams seek to identify the passengers who tipped off the crew in order to sue them as well.

Writes Katherine Kersten in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Star Tribune:

Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as “an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch” as they prayed. “The gentleman (’John Doe’) in the couple … picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray,” then “moved to a corner” and “kept talking into his cellular phone.”

In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.

The imams’ attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security. Average folks, “John Does” like you and me, initially observed and reported the imams’ suspicious behavior on Nov. 20. Such people are our “first responders” against terrorism. But the imams’ suit may frighten such individuals into silence, as they seek to avoid the nightmare of being labeled bigots and named as defendants.

This lawsuit confirms my longheld suspicions about CAIR.