To this day, there are competing theories as to what the "flying imams" were really up to when they boarded US Airways Flight 300, bound from Minneapolis to Phoenix last November.
The Muslim clerics -- including a Jordanian-born activist from Tucson, Ariz., named Omar Shahin -- performed their religious observances quite loudly and publicly before boarding the plane. All quite legal and constitutionally protected, of course -- but also well-designed to draw attention to themselves.
Once aboard the plane in Minneapolis, several of the Muslim "scholars" switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the Sept. 11 terror attacks -- two in the front row, first-class (where their tickets gave them no right to be), two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle, and two in the rear of the cabin, placing them in position to control all routes of entry and exit.
Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, though flight attendants told police the men were not oversized and merely placed these straps, with their heavy buckles, on the cabin floor.
The captain delayed takeoff. Police removed the six men, questioned them and released them after the plane had departed.
The imams, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other interest groups, then organized high-profile complaints and demonstrations against the airline, claiming religious discrimination. A federal civil rights lawsuit has been threatened against the airline and unknown "John Doe" passengers whose complaints tipped off authorities.
Posters in public transit stations and elsewhere around the country urge bystanders who witness something suspicious: "If you see something, say something."
This works. The recent plot to strike Fort Dix, New Jersey, was foiled by an observant retail clerk.
But should a footnote now be added to those posters, warning tipsters "But you can, of course, be sued"?
That appears to be the way Senate Democrats want things.
They're now pressuring a conference committee to remove language from the final homeland security bill that would confer civil immunity on citizens who "in good faith" report such suspicious behavior.
The "John Doe provision" passed the House in March by a bipartisan vote that included every Republican and 105 Democrats. But in the Senate, opponents including Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., argue it "could invite racial and religious profiling."
Well, the fact that transit systems around the world have been under attack in recent years by Muslim Arab men -- not gray-haired grannies or members of the Swedish Bikini Team -- is hard to miss. But such tips presumably get filtered through professional law enforcement officers who understand "looking like an Arab" does not constitute a bona fide suspicious activity.
"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," warns Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y. and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
The fate of "John Doe" now falls to the conference committee, headed by Sen. Joe Lieberman, who supports the provision, and Rep. Bennie Thompson, who opposes it. Leading Democrats -- including Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers -- continue to work behind the scenes to scuttle the immunity clause, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Rep. King, who drafted the John Doe provision, asks how Democrats "can possibly say they're passing 'the ultimate comprehensive homeland security bill' while eliminating the provision that protects people who report terrorist activity."
It's hard to imagine.
Unless, of course, Democrats expect Omar Shahin and his provocative pals to throw considerable new business to their most valued constituency -- our old friends, the trial lawyers.
RSS