Saving John Doe
posted at 8:46 am on May 2, 2007 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Washington Times reporter Audrey Hudson is at the top of her game on airline security issues generally, and she’s possibly the chief authority out there on the Saga of the Non-Airborne Imams and the resulting “John Doe” legislation that would protect vigilant airline passengers from being sued by CAIR–as CAIR is doing to the passengers who reported the Flying Imams.
The John Doe immunity, aka the King amendment, passed through Congress not long ago, but now the Republicans who passed the bill are having to plead with Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to allow it. CAIR and the Imams are still itching to sue the very John Does who reported their behavior to the flight attendants.
Judging from the fact that the King amendment passed 304-121, there’s ample support for the measure. And opposing it is a political hot potato–in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on a US target, what politician is going to want to admit he voted to make it easier for Americans to be sued for being vigilant and speaking up?
Apparently Steny Hoyer does.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Steny pandering to the terrorists.
Brilliant!
csdeven on May 2, 2007 at 8:55 AM
They still think that no one noticed that they voted for the war before they voted against it. It’s as if they are counting on the terrorist vote to keep them in power.
bbz123 on May 2, 2007 at 9:06 AM
which would never never never happen in the most ethical congress ever!
Limerick on May 2, 2007 at 9:08 AM
121 voted AGAINST? I am starting to think, like the Supreme Court, we need the minority/majority opinion on WHY someone would OPPOSE such a measure.
CrimsonFisted on May 2, 2007 at 9:12 AM
The chances of Republicans getting to cash in at electiontime on a bunch of those 121 votes against this measure are pretty low given the way that House seats are drawn. The chances of some shrewd new-dog D’s being able to primary some of these people on the grounds of common sense might be pretty decent, though, if they exist. The question… are there enough of them out there to make a difference and, if we can’t dump the Dems in 2008, at least have them dump Nancy Pelosi?
I’d certainly hate to have it brought out in a debate or attack ad that I’d voted to make it easier for a potential terrorist to sue you just because you’d ratted him out to save your own life. Someone with the intelligence of a carrot can see the problems in the logic here.
flutejpl on May 2, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Can the congress serve dhimmitude with that?
tormod on May 2, 2007 at 9:25 AM
If the Repubs even do bother to point out who voted against this legislation at election time the Dems will start screaming “smear!” of course.
Pointing out facts about dhimmicRATs always trots out the “republican smear machine” meme.
That we have amongst us so many who are willing to buy into that obvious lie is the appaling thing.
.
The Machine on May 2, 2007 at 10:22 AM
When that ‘republican smear machine’ charge gets leveled, the pubs need to be strong and remind the People that playing back the words and deeds of someone, in context, is in no way a smear.
Actions and words have consequences. The dems have forgotten or don’t believe that. It’s time to make them pay for all this lunacy. And with the delicious ammo they continue to give us on a daily basis, it should be child’s play to do.
The hypocracy charge needs to be leveled at the dems at every single opportunity. STAND UP, GOP members! Speak out and watch your popularity skyrocket.
techno_barbarian on May 2, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Key Republicans are lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to protect legislation that prohibits airline passengers from being sued if they report suspicious behavior that foreshadows a terrorist attack.
Could ANYONE even imagine such a disgusting way to treat Americans in 1990? This would be beyond imagination, beyond a nightmare.
Two points:
1 they have to LOBBY the speaker?
2 this is even questioned, anywhere in the USA.
the party of American destruction, from w/in. Thx Pelosi, for nothing.
shooter on May 2, 2007 at 11:59 AM
I figured it out.
Pelosi is a Syrian-controlled android that was manufactured in Iran.
Tell me she’s not made of plastic! Go on!
Obviously the Iranians don’t make their robots even “three laws safe”…
I can’t think of a more rational explanation… Occam’s Razor, this one. Syrian Android is far simpler than trying to make sense of this nonsense.
JunkCoast on May 2, 2007 at 1:30 PM
It’s as if they are counting on the terrorist vote to keep them in power.
bbz123 on May 2, 2007 at 9:06 AM
Not “as if”. They are actively courting the terrorists. Look at Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East, in direct violation of the Logan Act; the pork-laden, veto-guaranteed military funding bill; Reid subverting the war effort and military morale by publicly calling the war “lost”; the Democrats’ aversion to receiving briefings from the commander of the troops in Iraq; the list goes on.
Calling the Democratic Party the Party of Treason is no longer hyperbole – it is fact.
Rusty Bill on May 2, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Correction:
Ali-Bubba on May 2, 2007 at 4:55 PM
121 against, eh? Do they all think that Michael Moore lives in their district? Who else are they pandering too? Aren’t they the free speech, freedom of choice crowd? But it’s wrong to speak up when you feel threatened.
Traitors.
Freelancer on May 2, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Meanwhile, Virgin Atlantic Airlines proudly announces that it will be showing the nutjob 911 Conspiracy film “Loose Change” on its flights.
LGF has the details and contact info here.
The rumor is that Branson is ready to rename his airline to: 72 Virgins Airline
auzerais on May 2, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Comment pages: