Flying imams shot down by Congress

posted at 7:54 pm on March 27, 2007 by Bryan

Congress does something that makes sense? And defends average Americans from racial mau mauing? This Congress? I might faint.

House Republicans today 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 a lawsuit by Muslim imams that charges profiling.
The introduction of a motion to recommit the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language was introduced by Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Rusty says the measure has passed, 304-121. Which is closer than it ought to be.

Michelle has more.

More: While we’re on the subject of stories that make sense, the lawsuit against former SecDef Rumsfeld has been chucked.

WASHINGTON – Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cannot be tried on allegations of torture in overseas military prisons, a federal judge said Tuesday in a case he described as “lamentable.”

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan threw out a lawsuit brought on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Rumsfeld cannot be held personally responsible for actions taken in connection with his government job.

The ACLU had brought the case on behalf of captured terrorists incarcerated at Gitmo. Never wonder again which side the ACLU is on in this war, since they spelled it out pretty clearly that they’re on the terrorists’ side.

Allowing the case to go forward, Hogan said in December, might subject government officials to all sorts of political lawsuits. Even
Osama bin Laden could sue, Hogan said, claiming two American presidents threatened to have him murdered.

“There is no getting around the fact that authorizing monetary damages remedies against military officials engaged in an active war would invite enemies to use our own federal courts to obstruct the Armed Forces’ ability to act decisively and without hesitation,” Hogan wrote Tuesday.

Yes indeed. Which was probably what the ACLU was hoping for.

Update (AP): Here’s the roll. More than 100 Dems voted yes; all 121 no votes were also Democratic.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

VERY good news. Finally a law I can agree with and understand.

MalkinFan on March 27, 2007 at 8:01 PM

you’re right, that WAS way too close. oh well, leave it to the democrats to consistently take the side of the enemy…

wryteacher on March 27, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Can we get a ‘roll call’ on this vote?

The Angel Michael on March 27, 2007 at 8:08 PM

BOOOO-YAH!

Defector01 on March 27, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Wonder what the Minnesota Muslim’s vote was.

bbz123 on March 27, 2007 at 8:22 PM

I’d like to know who the 121 were that voted against it.

KCtheKat on March 27, 2007 at 8:24 PM

God acts in mysterious ways!

Zorro on March 27, 2007 at 8:25 PM

Roll call for the vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll201.xml

db on March 27, 2007 at 8:28 PM

Sorry! Wrong link. Here is the correct roll call link:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll200.xml

db on March 27, 2007 at 8:30 PM

The 121 that voted against it? All Dem’s. Not a single Republican. As for a roll call: Here you go.

Ellsworth is the Muslim, right? He voted for it.

Vanceone on March 27, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Actually, correct me if I’m wrong, Ellison voted against it.

amerpundit on March 27, 2007 at 8:39 PM

Gah, sorry… this forum moves too fast. In any case, I’m not surprised that more dems voted to support CAIR and terrorism than against it.

Vanceone on March 27, 2007 at 8:40 PM

You know it’s sad when you’re startled that Congress does something right. Common sense is in short supply on the Hill. Congratulations to the Republican sponsors and leadership on this bill. It’s important legislation.

liberty on March 27, 2007 at 8:43 PM

I don’t believe you people! I for one am absolutely shocked that all those against were Democrats!

amerpundit on March 27, 2007 at 8:44 PM

/end sarcasm.

amerpundit on March 27, 2007 at 8:44 PM

Ellison, Hoyer, Kennedy voted “Non!”

aengus on March 27, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Since you can’t drink, have a dog, or transport pig products in a MN cab, I think that Ellison should be required to vote against any bill with pork in it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 27, 2007 at 9:05 PM

Keith Ellison, Mooslum, voted against the act.
http://ellison.house.gov/about.shtml
Brad Ellsworth, Indiana voted for it.
http://ellsworth.house.gov/

shermacman on March 27, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Being politicians, aren’t they thinking of their political future? It’s not the extreme-radical muslim community that you have to pander to (yet) but the future mexican american citizens by proxy.

Geez this will be egg on face when the mud slinging starts during the next election for their districts!

Let the games begin!
hehehe

But seriously, this is very close to treason. What is our country coming to? GW and gang are spinning in their graves!

lsutiger on March 27, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Ellsworth is the Muslim, right? He voted for it.

Actually, correct me if I’m wrong, Ellison voted against it.

All three Wilsons voted in favor.
So did Gene Green, but Al Green voted against.

So it seems that the Boys from Brazil are 5-2 in favor. Or something like that.

The Monster on March 27, 2007 at 9:35 PM

Shuler (D-NC 11) voted for it! Wonders never cease!

SouthernGent on March 27, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Geez…first Hillary praises Bush at a liberal fund-raiser and now our Congress votes to defend the American public from a position supported by the ACLU…AND…a judge made a decision in support of Rumsfeld. My head is spinning. Something’s afoot at the Circle K tonight.

thedecider on March 27, 2007 at 10:10 PM

I guessed 6 of the nos in about 6 seconds:

Maxine Waters, John Lewis, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Keith Ellison, Pete Stark, Upchuck Rangel.

You know, the ones who are offended the very existence of America.

By the way, on the House website they say “Noes”. Is that really the plural for no?

RW Wacko on March 27, 2007 at 10:11 PM

I don’t see Nancy Pelosi’s name on that list. wtf?

Tuning Spork on March 27, 2007 at 10:24 PM

Noes or No’s are both in the dictionary. I prefer no’s.

csdeven on March 27, 2007 at 10:24 PM

Additionally, foreigners held overseas are not normally afforded U.S. constitutional rights.

My favorite quote from the judge who tossed the Rumsfeld case. This must infuriate the ACLU and the one-worlders. For all of them – Schadenfreude!

Bob Hope used to rant “Kiss can be president and I can’t”, because he (Bob) was a naturalized citizen.

In the same spirit, and just for thought, it really bugs me that Maxine Waters is a Congresswoman, and I probably haven’t a chance in he-l – it’s all symbolic of so many things. And no, I don’t feel victimized.

Entelechy on March 27, 2007 at 10:26 PM

I prefer NOs.

Entelechy on March 27, 2007 at 10:27 PM

I saw a name ‘Fattah’ on the list voting Nay. Anyone know who the person is, where they’re from, and what their background / religious affiliation is?

RD on March 27, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Kucinich voted no. Shocker. Not.

Glynn on March 27, 2007 at 11:27 PM

I don’t see Nancy Pelosi’s name on that list. wtf?

Tuning Spork on March 27, 2007 at 10:24 PM

House vote, not senate

lsutiger on March 27, 2007 at 11:43 PM

My Representatives don’t believe in protecting the public.
They voted against. What’s worst, none of the local folks seem to know or care.

Kini on March 27, 2007 at 11:45 PM

But SouthernGent, aren’t we surprised (extreme sarcasm alert) that our B$tch, Brad Miller (D-NC) voted against.

What an a$$hole!!

tickleddragon on March 27, 2007 at 11:56 PM

I don’t see Nancy Pelosi’s name on that list. wtf?

Tuning Spork on March 27, 2007 at 10:24 PM

House vote, not senate

lsutiger on March 27, 2007 at 11:43 PM

Mrs. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. I notice also that her name wasn’t listed

baldilocks on March 28, 2007 at 12:05 AM

Allowing the case to go forward, Hogan said in December, might subject government officials to all sorts of political lawsuits.

A bit sweet and sour to me….. glad to see Rummy can’t be sued by someone captured on the battle field with arms attempting to kill our troops, but what about those of us who get screwed by government officials on a daily basis?

Point at hand……. Everyone say good bye to the the Southwest of the United States of America, especially California. Government Officials are actively “Reconquista”ing them into Mexico, and our tax dollars are paying for it.

If you get into a traffic accident, get robbed, raped, killed by an illegal alien from Mexico, no sh*t, you have to bring the complaint yourself, then you are called a “racist”, and it is being taught in the schools that this part of the country belongs to Mexico, and that all the “Gringos” need to go back to “Plymouth Rock”…..

Where do I go to try to get an elected official to do their jobs? Trust me, I write, call, vote, along with thousands, but illegals are taught from the first step into this country by the Democratic Party, as long as they vote for them, my writing, my calling, my voting, is erased, by the millions……..!

Who do I go after to save my country. Who can I “Citizen Arrest”? Who can I sue?

Apparently, no one……….. Don’t believe me? Try filing a complaint, call your local Sheriff, call your Congress person, try calling “ICE”, the DEA, the FBI, and tell them your story……. yeah, our tax dollars at work.

Two sides of a coin……..

PinkyBigglesworth on March 28, 2007 at 12:09 AM

Allowing the case to go forward, Hogan said in December, might subject government officials to all sorts of political lawsuits. Even
Osama bin Laden could sue, Hogan said, claiming two American presidents threatened to have him murdered.

Even the Dems (with half a brain) don’t want this because they sure as hell don’t want to get sued for doing something a litigious conservative considers insulting or damaging.

Rick on March 28, 2007 at 12:10 AM

PinkyBigglesworth on March 28, 2007 at 12:09 AM

That’s absolutely right, Pinky. I personally know someone who recently had their vehicle totalled by…you guess it…an illegal alien, and the cops couldn’t do anything about it. Oh, and the alien had no insurance, no money, and didn’t speak English. They were set free. My friend? Well, let’s just say he’s paying more for car insurance these days, but fortunately wasn’t dropped.

thedecider on March 28, 2007 at 12:19 AM

PinkyBigglesworth on March 28, 2007 at 12:09 AM

I hear you, but it would not be a good thing. Keep in mind that liberals tend to be more litigious than conservatives, and that means conservative politicians, judges, etc. would spend all their time defending themselves in the courts – not to mention the amount of tax dollars we’d have to spend on defending these officials. Some of that tax money of yours may end up defending some lib – or paying a judgment on his/her behalf.

Rick on March 28, 2007 at 12:28 AM

Rick on March 28, 2007 at 12:28 AM

Yes, Rick, I understand, and no hit on you, but I see it every day. I see made up charges, and Grand Jury shopping if you are going after a Repulican and no one blinks an eye because the MSM holds their water….. anyone remember Tom Delay?

Yet you find 90K of marked bills by the FBI, a Democrat, and you are a hate monger, he is re-elected, and honora’d by his peers.

We have to have some sort of recourse, for judges, politicians, and civil servants who, for political means, go after “selective” members of our society.

Elections are bought, unions have all the money, and those electronic voting machines can be manipulated by my cell phone……. all I see is my tax dollars defending libs and illegal aliens, when are they ever used to protect the Constitution, our Borders, our Faiths, and our Country against those who want to kill us?

Just one example would be nice…… just one.

PinkyBigglesworth on March 28, 2007 at 12:38 AM

Pinky, no argument from me.

Rick on March 28, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Pinky, no argument from me.

Rick on March 28, 2007 at 12:50 AM

God Bless the United States of America!

PinkyBigglesworth on March 28, 2007 at 1:39 AM

PinkyBigglesworth on March 28, 2007 at 12:09 AM

Note to self:

The frustration of most american’s being articulated very nicely.

Thanks

csdeven on March 28, 2007 at 6:23 AM

Ellison voted aginst the safety of US citizens,as did Oberstar and McCollum,also from Minnesota.
This is what PC gone wild does to a state,or a nation for that matter.

lizzee on March 28, 2007 at 7:04 AM

That’s absolutely right, Pinky. I personally know someone who recently had their vehicle totalled by…you guess it…an illegal alien, and the cops couldn’t do anything about it. Oh, and the alien had no insurance, no money, and didn’t speak English. They were set free.

Was your friend in the backseat of my car in 1997? Only my two young sons and I were loaded into the ambulance. Your friend must have died at the scene…

Babs on March 28, 2007 at 8:38 AM

Russ Carnahan actually casts a vote that I AGREE with?!!!
‘Xcuse while I faint.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 28, 2007 at 8:43 AM

121 no votes, and all Democrats. What are the odds of that “coincidence”.

So much for the dem trolls around here saying we “overreact” regarding their positions on the “war on terrorism”.
Take note of your leadership, again I say, this is who you support.

right2bright on March 28, 2007 at 8:43 AM

Oh and RE: Minnesota
My husband and I spent the weekend in the “Twin Cities” visiting his distant cousin(born in Monteral ’cause mommy and daddy ran there to avoid the draft. hisss)in the spring of ’05.
I was amazed that-what-5 months or so after the election, folks STILL had Skerry signs up in their yard.
Even in Chicago they weren’t that die-hard.
Anyway I was “exiled” to the Mall of America and of ‘course, being me, had to start things.
I went into the “Prairie Home Companion ” store and while conversing with the middle aged male clerk managed to work in that I was a (then) Chicago-area conservative.
He was all verklempt over Norm Coleman and said he loooved “our” senator.
The rest was as follows.
Me: you mean Durbin?
Him: No that new guy.
Me:Oh you mean “Obama Yo’ Mama”.
Him:shocked silence .
Me: smirk.

I really enjoyed my minnesota vacation.lol

annoyinglittletwerp on March 28, 2007 at 8:57 AM

MonTREal.

Proof-reading is my friend.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 28, 2007 at 8:59 AM

I was amazed that-what-5 months or so after the election, folks STILL had Skerry signs up in their yard.

I live in Minnesota and the insanity of the left here never ceases to amaze me. For example, one of my neighbors STILL has a Kerry sticker on his bumper of his gas-guzzling SUV along with a Stop Global Warming Now! sticker. That’s not die-hard, that’s just plain stupid.

I hope the Imam’s and the ACLU gets the hint: You don’t control America. America controls you! Get use to the idea.

RedinBlueCounty on March 28, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Jane Harman and Alcee Hastings voted against it, but Sivestre Reyes voted for it. Some small consolation that the House Intelligence Committee Chair worked out the way it did.

And damn it all, what the hell is wrong with the legislators in the Triangle? Brad Miller and David Price both voted against it.

Dudley Smith on March 28, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Okay if you need proof that the folks in Congress have not a clue and really don’t represent the constituents back home here it is. While my representative was voting yes on the withdrawal plan and no to protecting John Doe we were doing this.
Cobb honors Confederate heritage
As the state Legislature ponders whether to apologize for slavery, the Cobb County Commission on Tuesday
honored April as Confederate History and Heritage Month — with a black commissioner making the proclamation.

Commissioner Annette Kesting said she had no trouble honoring the Confederate cause.

“They were fighting for their families and their history,” said Kesting. She added that this is the third year in a row that she has made the April proclamation for the commission. “Everyone is entitled to their history.”

LakeRuins on March 28, 2007 at 12:10 PM

From my perspective, the whole Flying Imams farce is just another prong in the CAIR-inspired beachhead to use our very own freedoms against us. It’s a part of the overall plan of Islam to dhimmify Western Civilization, and the rest those considered Kaffir by Muslims.

Tolerance is always overrated, and often inappropriate. Those who voted against this measure are giving comfort to our nations enemies.

kdaddy on March 28, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Love the title of this post.

baldilocks on March 28, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Living in Minnesota, (and I do – as I’ve stated before – live in the infamous 5th Congressional district as represented by Keith Ellison) is maddening if you have a modicum of intelligence or any clue on how to manage your money. Amy Klobuchar won Dayton’s old Senate seat by bragging about rolling back tax cuts! Who the heck votes to raise their own taxes? Why da great state o’ minnesota dats who gosh darnit. I’m going crazy living here. Although it seems that my beautiful home state of Virginny is turning blue, too. *sigh*

foxforce91 on March 28, 2007 at 6:08 PM

I hope that this immunity isn’t guaranteed. That is, I hope that the behavior reported has to be corroborated by another witness and has to meet some standard of “suspicious behavior” in order for immunity to be granted. Otherwise we’ve just made bomb threat hoaxes into legally protected behavior.

I guess there’s an upside: never again will I have to endure a child kicking my seat throughout my flight. “Excuse me ma’am. This kid keeps kicking my seat. And he keeps yelling something about ‘Allahu ahkbar.'” Let’s see him kick my seat from GTMO.

Mark Jaquith on March 29, 2007 at 10:22 AM

which the covered individual reasonably believes constitutes a threat to national or homeland security

No corroboration needed, so “reasonably believes” could be based completely on John Doe’s testimony.

This part is interesting:

or which the covered individual reasonably believes constitutes fraud, waste, or mismanagement of Government funds intended to be used for national or homeland security

Homeland Security funds are hugely wasted, and often misdirected. Maybe now people will report such malfeasance more liberally.

Mark Jaquith on March 29, 2007 at 10:37 AM

I agree with tuning spork and baldilocks, what side of the vote did her royal lowness come down on?
Please update when made known.

gunter on March 29, 2007 at 6:19 PM