James H. Walsh
Monday, Aug. 6, 2007

Reprint Information

Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves White House: We're Not Subject to FOIA FBI Seeks 2 Mysterious Men on Ferry Publisher: Conservatives Do Read As Much As Liberals Romney Shrugs Off Mormon History Film

On Aug. 3, President George Bush signed the Implementing Recommendations of the 9-11 Commission Act of 2007. The most contentious element of the bill was the "John Doe" amendment proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives by Peter King, R-N.Y.

It provided immunity from civil lawsuits for those who, in good faith, report suspicious activity in and around transportation facilities, including airports, bus terminals, and railroad stations.

The amendment first came to a vote on July 19. Denounced by a majority of the House Democrats, it was defeated. Also opposing the amendment were Democratic presidential candidates, ultra-left-wing anti-American zealots, and those Muslims who contend that Islamic terrorists are no threat to the United States.

Supporting this contention is former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, who has announced that the "war on terrorism" is no more than a bumper sticker. This see-no-evil mentality supported by the Democratic Party aids and abets Islamic terrorists and their goal, which is to intimidate and demoralize non-Muslims into submission to the rule of shari'ah (Islamic law).

A moderate Indonesian Muslim scholar recently lamented the "creeping Shari'ah-ization of Islam" by radical Muslims, whose anti-West (especially anti-American) and anti-Israel mentality is permeating every strata of society in Muslim countries.

The constant barrage of criticism and derogatory name-calling of the U.S. president, the U.S. military, and corporate America by Democrats, the radical left, the news media, and the vacuous entertainment community promote Islamist propaganda that Muslims are being victimized by the bullying tactics of the West.

The John Doe Amendment Protection

On July 19, 2007, the House Democrats declined to provide legal protection for U.S. citizens reporting suspicious and questionable conduct by persons that may cause death and injury — they defeated the John Doe amendment to House bill H.R. 1, Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007.

Story Continues Below

The House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D–Miss., and others opposed the immunity amendment as supporting racial profiling. Other opponents of the amendment claimed that it was merely for "bigoted and racist" panicked persons to target people of color and Muslims.

Subliminally their message is that these "bigots and racists" are white Christians and other non-Muslims including Jews, who will falsely report Muslims and people of color as being terrorists. Steve Pearce, R–N.M., replied that, in defeating the amendment, the Democrats made a choice as to "whether they are going to side with the American people or with the terrorists." After the House failed to enact the amendment, Adam Putman, R–Fla., stated, "Democrats are discouraging citizens from reporting suspicious behavior. And that, simply, leaves America vulnerable to terrorist attacks."

Meanwhile, Web sites of Senate and House Democrats and the Democrat National Committee, made no mention of the John Doe amendment; nor have they reported that the immunity provision was inserted in the final Senate-House Conference Committee bill passed by the full Senate and House and signed by the president into law.

Apparently the Democrats oppose protecting U.S. citizens from lawsuits that would punish them for doing their Constitutional and moral duty —to protect the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The John Doe amendment is the direct result of two incidents involving allegations by litigants claiming to be Muslim students or imams. The first incident occurred in 1999 when two Saudi students, Hamdan al-Shalawi and Mohammad Al-Qadhaieen, of the Tucson Islamic Center filed suit. On an American West flight, they had attempted several times to force open the pilot's cockpit door. Because they were forced back to their seats by the airline personnel, they claimed racial and religious discrimination.

The 9/11 Commission Report (page 521, footnote 60) states that the FBI now considers this incident a "dry run" for the 9/11 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

In 2002, an article in the Washington Post asserted that the Tucson Islamic Center of Tucson was basically the first cell of al-Qaida in the United States. After their case was dismissed, the two Saudi students left the United States.

The second lawsuit was based on an incident that occurred before and during a U.S. Airways flight in November 2006. According to police reports and witness statements, six Muslim imams, prior to boarding the plane, conspicuously prayed in a loud manner, shouting slogans in Arabic, making anti-American remarks, and chanting, "Allahu, Allahu." The vocal outbursts continued on the plane.

The imams asked for belt extenders with heavy buckles, which they placed at their feet and did not use. Then, two imams moved to front-row first-class seats, two sat mid-plane at an exit row, and two were seated in the rear of the plane. Such a placement is consistent with terrorist tactics in previous plane hijackings. Prior to takeoff, other passengers reported their concerns over this behavior and clapped when the imams were removed from the plane.

The "flying imams" filed suit against U.S. Airways, the Minnesota Metropolitan Airports Commission, and "John Does" (those passengers who complained about the conduct of the imams).

Attorneys for the imams have sought to obtain the names of the passengers who complained in order to include them in the lawsuit. Listing "John Does" in the lawsuit is meant to put a chilling and intimidating effect on tipsters as to possible terrorist activity —despite the announcements at airports that repeat the message: "Any bags left unattended will be confiscated, and passengers are to report any suspicious activity."

Ironically, Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress, compared America's response to 9/11 to that of the Nazis in exploiting the 1933 burning of the Reichstag (the German legislative building). The congressman's statements indicate that he and many other Democrats do not believe in the Islamist threat to cause injury and death to the American people.

The families of the 9/11 casualties may take exception to this kind of thinking.

Funding for the plaintiffs in the 1999 Saudi student case and in the 2006 "flying imams" case was supplied by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). This group has a notorious reputation.

Members or associates have been convicted of terrorist crimes while associated with CAIR. Also the Council was charged as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal criminal trial in Texas. In April 2007, Nihad Awad, CAIR executive director, argued that the "flying imams" lawsuit is designed to protect religious and civil rights.

Moderate Muslim groups, such as the American Islamic Forum (AIF), repudiate repeated efforts by CAIR to intimidate U.S. transportation facility managers and travelers. The AIF has offered to defend the "John Doe" passengers if necessary.

Only after widespread outrage by U.S. citizens, reported by conservative talking heads and bloggers, were Democrats in Congress forced to include the immunity language of the "John Doe" amendment in the Senate-House Conference bill.

Islamist Tactics

Three theories are being postulated to explain the growing influence and power of Islamists worldwide, but particularly in Western countries. Some say Islamists are seeking political power, others say they are ideologues, and yet others say they are religious fanatics. In actuality, Islamists are all three.