John Doe protections passed

Audrey Hudson of the Washington Times writes;

House Republicans yesterday 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.
    All 121 of the “no” votes were cast by Democrats, while 199 Republicans and 105 Democrats voted in favor.

What could have possibly stopped a rational person from voting for protection against specious lawsuits?

Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, opposed the motion over loud objections from colleagues on the House floor, forcing several calls to order from the chair.
    “Absolutely they should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law,” said Mr. Thompson, who suggested that protecting passengers from a lawsuit would encourage racial profiling.
    “This might be well-intended, but it has unintended consequences,” Mr. Thompson said, before he accepted the motion to recommit.

Unintended consequences like what? Like someone who acts suspiciously might be investigated? Like a terrorist attack might be averted because people aren’t thinking about the litigious consequences of reporting suspicious people?

Actually we all know know that Mr. Thompson is more concerned about the self-esteem of Muslims than he is about the safety of the flying public.

And then CAIR chimes in;

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in an open letter yesterday to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that “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.”
    The Becket Fund criticized the lawsuit last week and in a letter to Mr. Awad asked that the “John Does” be removed from the lawsuit, however CAIR is standing by the decision.

You know if CAIR is involved it might be an effective deterent to terrorism. You can see how your representative voted here. (In case the link is wrong, go here and click on “110th 1st session (2007)” in the right column, then on Roll Call vote #200). Mine voted “No” even though I faxed, emailed and called his office. You know Chris Van Hollen is going to get an earful today.

What really worries me is that there’s nothing anywhere about this vote, except the Washington Times. there’s not even an “Action Alert” about it on CAIR. Looks like the media is keeping this on the “down-low”.

UPDATE: Chris Van Hollen’s office denies that the vote ever happened. He tried to tell me that the Times story was a mistake – no one from New Mexico introduced any motions on Tuesday. And then, though it never happened, it was a political maneuver by the minority to block legislation. I’ve had a couple dust-ups with this idiot’s staff in the past, it’s clear to me that they have no respect for their constituency.

UPDATE II: Michele Malkin gives us the John Doe Manifesto.

Category: Politics, Terror War