The Democrat gift to the terrorist

Rich Lowry:

IF you see something, hire a lawyer. Then, perhaps, you can say something.

That would be the new mantra for passenger vigilance - replacing the ubiquitous "If you see something, say something" - if Democrats get their way in Congress. They oppose an amendment to the homeland-security bill sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R.-L.I.), that would protect anyone from civil lawsuits who, in good faith, offers a tip about suspicious activity on mass transit.

The case of the "flying imams" prompted King's amendment. On Nov. 20, 2006, six Islamic clerics were removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis after passengers complained about behavior they considered suspicious. The imams prayed before boarding the plane, didn't sit in their assigned seats - arranging themselves in a pattern associated with the 9/11 hijackings - and asked for seatbelt extenders. Authorities questioned and eventually cleared them.

America wouldn't be a boon to grievance-mongers if such an incident didn't occasion a lawsuit. With the help of the Muslim pressure group the Council of American-Islamic Relations, the imams filed a discrimination suit against US Airways and the passengers who alerted the airline to their worries. The imams allege a "conspiracy to discriminate" against them that was "intentional, malicious, willful, wanton and callous."

This conspiracy was launched in the boarding area by "an older couple who was sitting behind them and purposely turning around to watch" them as they prayed. Then, the older gentlemen made a cell-phone call, and "while observing the plaintiffs discreetly, he kept talking into his cellular phone." We're supposed to believe that this man was just waiting to stumble upon a few Muslims whom he could arbitrarily inform on for no purpose other than denying them their rights.

Obviously, this wouldn't have happened if the men weren't Muslim - but fears of Islamic terrorism necessarily focus on Muslims. If the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Madrid, London and Bali bombings had been Episcopalian, a group of strange-acting priests traveling in their vestments would warrant extra suspicion. This isn't discrimination, but common sense.

A good-faith response from the flying imams would have been to say, "We don't like it, but we understand." Instead they seek damages for their "fear, anxiety to fly, humiliation, embarrassment . . . and financial injury." Their agenda - and that of CAIR - is to make everyone ignore the association of Islam with terror forged by jihadists, and to punish anyone who acts on knowledge reinforced in headlines every day.

...

The Democrats oppose fighting al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, oppose key provisions of the Patriot Act, oppose President Bush's electronic-surveillance program, oppose Guantanamo Bay, oppose the aggressive interrogation of terrorism suspects - and now they oppose lawsuit-free passenger vigilance. If only they took the terror threat as seriously as that man who may have to defend his cell-phone call in court.

What this issue demonstrates is the Democrats instincts in a war against Islamic religious bigots are all wrong. Their tendency is to give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorist and put all citizens at risk rather than inconvenience a few whose weird conduct deserves extra scrutiny. What Rep. King has done by pushing this legislation is highlight how unsuited Democrats are for leadership in a time of war. What he was trying to do is protect ordinary Americans from frivolous lawsuits when they are trying to help us defend against this wicked enemy. The Democrats should pay a political price for this poor judgment.