Traveling Imams Want Kramer And Costanza
James Zumwalt, a former Marine and an anti-terrorism activist, calls for legislation protecting ordinary Americans who report suspicious behavior, regardless of whether their information uncovers a terrorist plot or not. His New York Times opinion piece references the TV show Seinfeld as an example:
IN an echo of the final episode of “Seinfeld,” which involved a violation of a “good Samaritan law” that required a witness to a crime to come to the victim’s assistance, a recent lawsuit in a United States federal court demands consideration of a related law — with real-life application — to protect good Samaritans.The incident that gave rise to the claim occurred last Nov. 20 at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. Six Muslim religious leaders, or imams, were removed from a domestic US Airways flight after fellow passengers and airline personnel became concerned about what they deemed suspicious behavior. ...
While the imams may or may not have suffered an injury, the harm these John Doe claims can cause will go far beyond what the defendants themselves will suffer by being dragged into litigation. It is clear this lawsuit seeks to warn Americans against voicing similar concerns. For if they do, they run the risk of opening themselves up to liability and incurring enormous legal defense costs. The effect this would have — discouraging Americans from playing an active role on the home front in fighting the war on terrorism — is chilling.
Some security experts suggest the imams’ conduct may have been intended to identify aviation security weaknesses. Their John Doe lawsuit tends to support this theory, as such a complaint can also serve to manipulate our legal system to silence those who might otherwise report suspicious activity.
The analogy isn't perfect, as Zumwalt notes. One cannot impose a requirement to act on free citizens when they see someone in danger -- but we can make it safe for people to do so. Allowing suits against people who provide information to authorities about potential crimes and terrorist attacks only degrades our ability to prevent or limit either.
Zumwalt mentions an aspect of this that I believe most people miss. Many people have remarked that the Traveling Imams incident seemed designed to test security procedures, as a kind of intelligence mission against the Transportation Security Agency and the airlines, as well as making the security apparatus question and second-guess itself unnecessarily. The threatened lawsuits seem of a piece with that effort. Forcing people to hire attorneys because they tipped authorities to suspicious behavior will keep the next set of people from doing the same -- and that benefits only the terrorists who want to find ways around the security that has kept them from perpetrating another attack with human-filled cruise missiles.
In the wake of 9/11, one of the points that got broad agreement was that we had been far too complacent about our security in an era when radical Islamists had expanded their attacks on Western assets around the globe. Now their representatives here in the US want to force us back into another form of complacency through the threat of legal intimidation. Just as with whistleblowers, Congress needs to state categorically that the legal system will protect tipsters, the very people we need engaged to help bolster our security against the terrorists. To the extent that the Traveling Imams and their CAIR supporters want to eliminate this front line against terrorism, it demonstrates which side has their sympathies.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on April 14, 2007 10:44 AM | Comments () | TrackBacks (3)
Comments
Please note that unverified Disqus users will have comments held in moderation. Please visit Disqus to register and verify your account. Comments from verified users will appear immediately.