Those Imams were trying to be put off the plane so that they could sue. It was their goal.
They didn't listen to instructions from flight attendants and they didn't take their assigned seats. They made a spectacle of themselves at the gate with loud prayers using Allah's name. The Imams want to test the waters by suing everybody in sight to pave the way for more airline terrorism. I'm sorry if typical Americans on a plane get nervous when Muslims invoke Allah's name. The words Allah Akbar have been sullied, because these words are usually the last thing said before detonating the suicide belt, or crashing a plane into the W.T.C., for example.

Sent by Michael | 2:10 PM ET | 07-30-2007

I just have to say, since 9/11, I have not been on an airline. I agree, there days you have to use vigilance.

Asher Heimermann

Sent by Asher Heimermann from Wisconsin | 2:20 PM ET | 07-30-2007

Mr Pierce uses his quote about vigilance and liberty out of context. Besides being mis-attributed to a founding father (Wendell Phillips, an abolitionist, was the author), the vigilance referred to here is to be directed at the government, not against fellow citizens.

Sent by David W. Odefey | 2:23 PM ET | 07-30-2007

I can't see what this amendment adds. In order to sue someone, one needs to show the person caused them harm - a harm recognized by the courts. If the suit is for discrimination, they had to show the individuals in question are state actors or had some relationship to providing interstate commerce. I don't see how the plaintiff's have any hope of winning against the John Doe's

Let the current case play out, move for attorney fees when they are dismissed out and set the court precedent.

Sent by Steve | 2:23 PM ET | 07-30-2007

I'm shaking my head at the twisted reference Rep. Steve Pearce (D-NM) made while attempting to explain the necessity of the so-called "flying imams" bill. He asserted that the public must not be afraid to report anything suspicious to the government. "After all, we must remember that the founding fathers told us that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave. The intent of that sentence was to warn Americans to WATCH THE GOVERNMENT, not to let the government make us so paranoid that we're watching EACH OTHER instead of them.

Sent by An actual reader of the Bill of Rights | 2:27 PM ET | 07-30-2007

These guys were probably just trying to make a buck. They figured they could freak-out everyone on board, be singled-out, claim discrimination and collect.
Priceless.

Sent by Bill Paci | 2:28 PM ET | 07-30-2007

I understand the concerns of Muslims but what are we to do as a society? Terrorist are home grown, and blend in with our society. Terrorists count on our open society and listen to these conversations and are probably laughing at us. If Muslims really want to protect themselves then they have to vigorously denouce terriorists and out those amonst themselves that aim to hurt us. I would err on the side of caution. With all we hear today and with todays climate why would we not turn in people who are suspicious?

Sent by mark maurer | 2:28 PM ET | 07-30-2007

Trauma victims can easily be framed by abusive family members as terrorist suspects. When police start to follow the trauma victims, they can become terrified and want to get away, especially if the abuser has scared them about police during the abuse. Police can then think the victim's behavior is suspicious, and ratchet up the pressure. Police usually think if you don't want to be around them, you are wrong. This is why criminals easily fool police, just by acting open and easy-going with them.

Trauma victims already blame themselves and feel terrible about what happened to them. When the police come against them, they feel like the world has turned on them at a time when they desperately need support. This can put people through extreme stress that taxes their health and permanently ages them in a very short period.

Police should be aware of how calm and intelligent criminals are. They can easily mask themselves from looking suspicious. It is their victims that look suspicious. These issues are not so clear-cut. It's like the McCarthy era, when people could turn in their enemies as Communists. All people who are put under distress and followed as terrorists, when they are not, should be compensated for the suffering they have undergone. Such an experience can destroy a person's mental health. Then they have a hard time finding love and success in life.

This is an issue of serious pain, not just an inconvenience, to be targetted as a horrible person when you are not. This is a devastating trauma especially if no one ever recognizes that you were wronged and makes up for it. We can compensate people without punishing others, by drawing compensation out of public funds.

Sent by Irene | 2:29 PM ET | 07-30-2007

Regardless of what these men were trying to do, what they DID do was something everyone is told not to. I don't think the issue was the praying, and I think the fact that everyone in the media leads with that does the "John Does" a disservice. The issue revolves arround refusing to sit in assigned seats, disobeying flight staff, and getting the seatbelt extenders for no visible purpose. I would also imagine that they were not altogether quiet in their complaints, which has gotten non-arab, and non-muslims kicked off planes recently as well (like the screaming baby, confrontational drunks, etc.)

Sent by Josh | 2:29 PM ET | 07-30-2007

A few years ago, it was obvious to me that i fit a certain profile....i walked into Houston airport, and was immediately taken aside (long before getting to the ticket counter) and searched. i then went to check in and was taken aside and searched again, and then AGAIN (though i protested) at the gate. BUT I agree with all this..if someone who looks like me might want to blow up a plane, I WANT to be checked!! "profiling " to me ais a false issue!! Of course we don't stop cars with women in them if there is a search for a rapist...we "profile" to a male!

Sent by Rod King | 2:30 PM ET | 07-30-2007

As individuals we are much more likely to be mugged by a black or white citizen than killed by a terrorist incident yet we can not call police willy nilly without being open to a lawsuit. Why would this be different without being bigoted?

Sent by Ron Smith | 2:37 PM ET | 07-30-2007

Mr. Pollack. why should anyone trust you about your conclusions about Iraq? You were one of the war pushers and you were so wrong. You continue to push for a confrontation with Iran and you have 'allegedly" come under investigation in the Aipac Rosen espionage trial.

Why should anyone trust you or your opinion?

anna
Nelsonville ohio

Sent by Anna Pytel | 2:39 PM ET | 07-30-2007

Why don't we just change our nation's name from America/United States to HilterLand. It is the same process that Hilter took when he began his persecution of the Jews. History is repeating itself and on one is paying attention. Wake up America!!!

Sent by damein | 2:39 PM ET | 07-30-2007

One should consider that a grooming tactic could be in use by sympathizers to the Jihad cause and thus attempting to raise fear and push the boundaries of the "normal" into a more hostile and legal realm would be in their interest. I.E. ask for things and stand out intentionally to illicit fear and "test" the system for the next level of fear...and the next thus the grooming effect.

Sent by Jarrett B. Bolin | 2:42 PM ET | 07-30-2007

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- from FOUNDING FATHER Benjamen Franklin

Sent by John | 2:43 PM ET | 07-30-2007

I am a "white American female" and I find it a sad day when Americans feel that they must fear other cultures enough to profile and persecute others based on certain cultural differences. We are making each other nervous! People are being innocently dragged off of airplanes.

Sent by Kerri Evonuk | 2:44 PM ET | 07-30-2007

If we would change the law on the way lawyers are paid for lawsuits, from a fee base to a percentage of the award you would see less lawsuits everywhere. A lawyer would not take on a case if they did not think they would win.

Sent by JeffreyJohnston | 2:45 PM ET | 07-30-2007

Absolutely, reasonable observations about people's behaviors causing someone to suspect terrorism in some form should be protected. Certainly, given the accounts of the imam's behaviors in the Northwest incident, those John Does should be absolutely be protected. Even if the accounts were somewhat exaggerated in 'the media', clearly, those men attempted to make a
statement.

Sent by Leo Horishny | 2:49 PM ET | 07-30-2007

Perhaps the question we should be asking is how effective is an untrained tipster at spotting potentially dangerous situations. Remember that, in an airport, there are a lot of people, so there are potentially a lot of tips. If untrained observers generate a large number of false reports, security officials will either start ignoring or be so busy dealing with them that they won't have time to do their other security jobs. In that case, we'd improve security by either training people to better recognize actual dangerous situations or by arranging our laws in such a way as to limit the number of false alarms (so reporting an unattended suitcase would be OK, but you might face a defamation suit for calling someone a terrorist just because he's wearing a turban and speaking in a foreign language, for instance).

On a related note, Bruce Schneier conducted an e-mail interview with TSA Administrator Kip Hawley about the restrictions on carry-on liquids and other TSA security screening. Schneier has been critical of the TSA for several years now and is not afraid to ask hard questions. It makes for some interesting reading. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/07/conversation_wi_4.html

Sent by Jeff | 2:50 PM ET | 07-30-2007

I am a white 66 yr. old female who has been humiliated a number of times by the TSA personnel. To be totally "pat down" because of my knee replacement has had me angry and once in tears. While in Europe I experienced a respect and an offer to be examined in private. What a contrast to my experience in my own country!

Sent by Marilyn C. Hummel | 2:50 PM ET | 07-30-2007

To the caller who said its okay to give up civil liberties in order to be safer. Unfortunately, when we give up our civil liberties, people and authorities all too commonly abuse their new authority to go after people for unfair and unreasonable reasons. I believe its far more common for a person in authority to abuse their power than it is for someone to go into a frivolous lawsuit that will cost them time and money. Remember there are protections in place for frivolous lawsuits, but if you take away protections of our civil liberties, you create open game for people with vendettas and prejudices to go after people. Don't think the world isn't run this way, it surely is. Our founding fathers went to great lengths to create a system that would protect us from people with less-than-altruistic motives. To dismantle this beautiful system is a travesity.

Sent by Teri | 2:53 PM ET | 07-30-2007

While I disagree with the bill on its face, I think it reveals a larger issue with the American civil courts: viz., that the individual with the best attorney wins, even in the case of a lawsuit that is factually inaccurate and can be exhibited to be frivolous with even a brief discovery.

This case would appear to be the epitome of that, in that the Imams have access to a great many attorneys (and indeed they should) while the John Does presumably do not. As I have discovered first-hand, the merits of the case are not the issue; even the very best of attorneys cannot afford to take an almost-certain case that may take years to complete. Once the case enters discovery, costs skyrocket and though the plaintiff will presumably be required to repay the court costs once judgement is made, having a few tens or hundreds of thousands tied up in legal retainers is next to impossible for a normal defendant.

When we were in the situation, our attorney (and indeed her whole firm) felt we would ultimately triumph, but that it would take several months of discovery and motions, paralegals and lawyers working many hours, to demonstrate that the claims against us had no basis in fact. Instead we settled, giving up our rights to speech in exchange for being left alone. The experience cost us almost an entire year's salary, for a case that to all third-party observers appeared to have no merit.

I'm sure the same story is repeated every day, in California they even have an easily-circumvented law against such SLAPPs (hint: claim libel, even if you cannot provide evidence of the same).

If it was possible to defend oneself in civil court, then protections such as this would not be necessary; unfortunately, it is not, and so meritless cases quash public discourse. Laws like this can help ameliorate specific situations while causing others, but perhaps we ought to consider redesigning the courts instead of putting small bandages on the current system's weaknesses.

Sent by Timothy Crone | 2:57 PM ET | 07-30-2007

John Does should not pay to compensate the victims who have been harassed by being falsely accused, unless it's evident they did it intentionally to harass someone. The national program that has trained citizens to report people should pay to compensate falsely accused victims. The John Does are simply citizens who are "working" for the national program, having been trained by the TV media. The harassment that these profiling victims suffer is part of the cost of defending the country. So, the cost to compensate them should be in the NSA's or TSA's budget.

A key example how false profiling can be much more than just an inconveniemce is the man who was shot by federal air marshalls in Miami. The man, Alpizar, was having an argument with his wife and was trying to get away from her in December 2005. TOTN did a show on this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5044245 -- Do I recall correctly that a caller to TOTN who was on the plane did not recall the man mentioning a bomb like the marshalls claimed?

Alpizar had been called bipolar. Such people have the symptoms of trauma victims, so they are often nervous. They are used to people always finding problems with them. So, they often look suspicious because they are used to being suspected without reasonable proof. There's no hard proof obtained when a person is called bipolar -- no blood tests, analysis of body chemistry. Just a psychiatrist's belief that emotions are wrong. The man in the above scenario died because he was falsely profiled. So yes, compensation should be given whenever possible.

Sent by Irene | 3:09 PM ET | 07-30-2007

For years, officials have been asking citizens to be on gaurd and report suspicious activity. On the other hand, they are not revealing specific behaviors to look out for, since this would only cause terrorists to change their tactics. Many Americans are unfamiliar with foreign customs and cultures, and the combined responsibility and lack of information is sure to instill a certain level of fear and paranoia. Under these conditions, it is unreasonable to expect the average citizen to understand what actually constitutes suspicious behavior. I thind the legal responsibility for infractions on peoples' personal rights should lie almost entirely with the authorities who determine what action will be taken based on the information provided. After all, a tip is nothing unless it is acted upon.

Sent by Jeff Hammel | 3:14 PM ET | 07-30-2007

If I damage the reputation of a private citizen without substantial cause--no matter how that citizen provokes me into such a mistake--I deserve to be forced to grant financial reparations to that citizen (after all, I can't repair his reputation). It's a sensible practice, and we should have the guts to resist permanent reductions in our civil rights in hopes of relieving a temporary paranoia. Any complaints we may have about lawyers, judges, or juries should be addressed separately.

The REAL "price of liberty" is showing the courage to maintain "eternal vigilance" against the gradual erosion of those liberties!

America can't possibly remain The Land Of The Free unless it's also The Home Of The Brave.

Sent by Gregg Hodgson | 3:53 PM ET | 07-30-2007

mark maurer, and others: After Timothy McVeigh perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing, I don't recall anyone advocating for extra scrutiny of white, Christian males who had served in the military -- much less demanding that ministers and priests make proclamations against terrorism.

This simple fact reveals the essential truths of American xenophobia and racism that fuel this kind of ridiculous and utterly superfluous law. If what you want to say is "I will FEEL more comfortable if we harass brown men with funny accents," then say that. But please don't pretend that this misguided behavior has any justification in fact, efficacy, or history.

Sent by A white, middle class male | 3:55 PM ET | 07-30-2007

I am really bothered by a particular statement some make when beginning these arguements--It is necessary to give up certain rights in order to be more safe. That is an erroneous statement and goes with the larger problems of racial profiling.
The bulk of Americans are not giving up anything, it is members of minority groups who are being asked/forced to give up their dignity and rights. Mainstream-white americans will continue to travel with a min. of delays, while arab-americans will continue to faces hours of delay, African-american will continued to be pulled over on the road at a higher ratio than their white counterparts. Poorer Latinos will face employment discrimnation(even when they have been here for generations). What of Japanese-american and German-American during WW2? In the end these types of policy increase anymosity and persecution-and the likelihood that profiled people will begin taking action-legal and otherwise.

Sent by Jones | 4:41 PM ET | 07-30-2007

@damein
'hitlerland'? how idiotic. Were the jews blowing up airplanes and markets and soccer celebrations?

Heres how Muslims can keep from getting profiled: stop setting off bombs (road-side, strapped to yourself, or otherwise) and killing thousands of innocents every year. Ive yet to hear of a Buddist monk, or christian priest blowing up a market, or plane.
Discover the truth -http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Sent by AO | 4:49 PM ET | 07-30-2007

Oh, NPR, you never disappoint. How many other dissenting commments never got posted?
Can you guess how much Ill be donating to my local NPR station this year?

Sent by AO | 5:11 PM ET | 07-30-2007

If we would change the law on the way lawyers are paid for lawsuits, from a fee base to a percentage of the award you would see less lawsuits everywhere. A lawyer would not take on a case if they did not think they would win.

Sent by Jef Ray | 5:41 PM ET | 07-30-2007

It seems many of the comments are focusing on the Imams race/appearance. I believe what raised the alarm with the passengers & crew was the series of actions and dialogue observed. I seriously doubt the outcome would be any different if a group of white bearded men in flannel shirts prayed loudly before a flight, made the sign of the cross on themselves, refused to take their assigned seat, and asked for items they appeared to have no use for.

Based on what I have heard in either situation if I was a passenger on that plane I would have raised my concerns to the crew. Its post 9/11 those actions are not acceptable behavior regardless of who you are or what you look like.

Sent by Steve, WA | 6:13 PM ET | 07-30-2007

So racial or religious profiling is wrong in theory, but if the target happens to be Muslim or from the Middle East it's okay? So the government can't watch people that look like you but if they are different then they should be watched? Where is this supposed liberal media bias because this could easily be on a Fox Noise blog...

Sent by Eric | 12:18 AM ET | 07-31-2007

This amendment will only promote racism and fear based on differences in appearance and culture. Why would someone not report suspicious behavior? After all, he or she would have immunity. Americans need to learn and understand other cultures rather than fear them because that is the key to tolerance and peace. I think it is very dangerous to believe that in order to maintain our freedom, we need to give up certain liberties.

Sent by Kristine | 12:03 PM ET | 07-31-2007

Anger: the emotion that drives much of American legislation, legal action, and administrations post 9/11. We all are still angry I believe for the attack on our New York city and its citizens. It is very hard not to be. But this law will not achieve what some may think it is capable of. Your fears will still come true and people will still be hurt. The people who we label as terrorists will not be caught unless we are lucky. Those like the Imams wanted to be caught as was said above.

It is a sad truth that many angy Americans want to disappear. I am still one of those, but judgement and ego must be left at the wayside after attacks such as 9/11.

Security will improve, detection will become easier for detonators and weapons, but how do you detect a terrorist? A perception does not 'look' Muslim/Islamic/Jewish/Catholic or even American. A terrorists looks like the idea that decides that there is no other way for there to be change.

Sent by Harryj8 | 12:13 PM ET | 07-31-2007

Why are we so ready to give up our rights for so called safety? I think that if we are harmed we should have the right to a jury trial to decide if we have been harmed. Whats the big deal if we have to go to court? Lawyers cost money but you can defend your self with out one. For one I am not willing to give up my rights so that I cannot be sued.

Sent by Alvin Harwood | 3:33 PM ET | 07-31-2007

I have a strong doubt that any of this is something that can be so to speak Effectively be controlled... A person who has no regard for his own life has next to nothing as a matter of fact no regard for his, mine or anyones life per say.

Having people report eachother is just going to increase animosity amongst racial/ethnic/religious groups in general.

I don't see if this is going to change anything... sooner or later we will see Imam's reporting Jewish Rabbi's who will then report suspicious Fathers of the church... What goes around comes around effect in the long run.... What's next a minority group claiming when we reported of suspicious individual belonging to a different group, authorities didn't take appropriate action and here comes another amendment... so just keep going around in circles instead of changing our action & foreign policies which are causing issues around the globe..

Sent by Mustafa | 10:43 PM ET | 07-31-2007