Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Tipster Provision Back in Play

An article in yesterday's Washington Post, "Lawmakers Reach Deal on Security Bill," says that legislation intended to do something about the old 9/11 Commission report is making progress. According to the Washington Post, "negotiators crafted language to satisfy a Republican demand giving immunity from lawsuits to people who report suspicious behavior."

That 'tipster immunity' became an issue when what the paper euphemistically reffed to as six Muslim scholars ... acting suspiciously" were removed from an airliner last fall.

(Reality check: The imam's fellow-passengers noticed that they demanded seat belt extenders to accommodate their rather bulky clothes, re-arranged themselves into the seating pattern used by the 9/11 hijackers, and then began praying, aloud, in a language that very few Minnesotans understand.)

Imagine! someone being suspicious over that! What is this world coming to!

No wonder the Imams are suing the airline, and the passengers who didn't want to get blown up.

If the bill being run through the mangle on Capitol Hill makes it through, it may protect people who would prefer not being participants in the next jihadist exercise in self-expression.

The bill's prospects are looking better. A article,"Sept. 11 Security Bill to Include Protections for Citizens Who Report Suspicious Activity," says that "John Doe Protections" for people who report suspicious activity stayed in the bill, giving immunity to those who report what they reasonably believe is suspect activity to authorities.

It looks like common sense may have visited this nation's capitol.

At least, I hope so.

Previous post:

No comments:

Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store


Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.