Will Congress protect the "John Does" in the flying imam lawsuit?

Powerline reports that Rep. Steven Pearce (R-NM) and ten cosponsors have introduced legislation to protect the John Does from liability.

The John Does are the citizens who were alarmed enough about certain behaviors of the imams to alert the airlines to what they feared might be a possible hijacking.
In the press release introducing the draft legislation, Rep. Pearce issued this statement:

It is a sad day in America when our own institutions of freedom are being used against us in the battle against terrorism. When I first heard about the lawsuit brought by the 'imams' in Minnesota, it was clear to me that this was an injustice against Americans who were simply trying to protect themselves. These brave citizens should be recognized as heroes for their efforts to report suspicious activity, particularly activity that has been associated with previous terror attacks.

As Americans, we must not allow ourselves to be bullied by individuals who seek to disrupt our way of life. We can not allow the sympathizers of terrorism to make Americans wonder if they could be sued before reporting possible terrorist activity. Whether it is an intimidation tactic or a full scale attack, Americans have the right and responsibility to protect themselves and their fellow citizens. I introduced this legislation to protect Americans and keep all citizens alert and vocal as they serve on the front line in our battle against terrorism here in America.

A Muslim group and lawyers offer to defend the "John Does" in the Flying Imam

Today's Washington Times reports:

Lawyers and a Muslim group say they will defend at no cost airline passengers caught up in a lawsuit between a group of imams and U.S. Airways if the passengers are named as "John Does" and sued for reporting suspicious behavior that got the Muslim clerics booted from a November flight.

Why is this Muslim group stepping forward? "It's so important that America know there are Muslims who understand who the victims are in air travel," said Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, head of the group, American Islamic Forum for Democracy told the Times.

And why are lawyers offering their services for free? One such lawyer, Gerry Nolting, from the Minnesota law firm of Faegre & Benson LLP told the Times that in this case, the judicial system is being "used for intimidation purposes" and that it is "just flat wrong and needs to be strongly, strongly discouraged."

As he went on to point out, "As a matter of public policy, the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] presently tells traveling passengers to report suspicious behavior as part of its homeland security program. This has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but trying to intimidate and discourage reporting of suspicious behavior and [also discourage] the promotion of safe travel."

A bad omen in the flying imams 'discrimination' suit?

Katherine Kersten, columnist at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, has a must-read piece today: "The real target of the 6 imams 'discrimination' suit." First she recalls for readers what inspired this lawsuit.

Recall the November 2006 incident that gave rise to the suit. The imams engaged in a variety of suspicious behaviors while boarding a US Airways flight, according to the airport police report. Some prayed loudly in the gate area, spoke angrily about the United States and Saddam, switched seats and sat in the 9/11 hijackers' configuration, and unnecessarily requested seatbelt extenders that could be used as weapons, according to witness reports and US Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader.

Almost immediately, suspicions abounded that the only reason the imams had acted in this strange manner was to set up the deep-pocketed airlines for a lawsuit. But there may be another angle to imam's action that is truly ominous.

This other angle comes into focus, as Kersten points out, when you see the other defendants aside from the airlines that the suit names - the "John Doe" defendants. These are the people who, as the legal filing itself reads, "contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of Plaintiffs' performing their prayer at the airport terminal."

As Kersten reports, the lawsuit describes these "John Doe" defendants as "an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch" as they prayed. "The gentleman ('John Doe') in the couple ... picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray," then "moved to a corner" and "kept talking into his cellular phone."

Kersten draws the logical - and disturbing - inference:

The imams' attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security. Average folks, "John Does" like you and me, initially observed and reported the imams' suspicious behavior on Nov. 20. Such people are our "first responders" against terrorism. But the imams' suit may frighten such individuals into silence, as they seek to avoid the nightmare of being labeled bigots and named as defendants.

Update: This story gets even creepier. As Powerline reports, it turns out that the lawyer representing the flying imams, Omar Mohammedi, is the president of the New York chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, otherwise known as CAIR. As Powerline reports:

CAIR is a well-funded organization, from Middle Eastern as well as American sources. It is willing and able to fund litigation, and has a history of using litigation to silence its opponents. Any case that Mohammedi may bring against the passengers who reported the imams' suspicious behavior will be a terrible lawsuit. The imams won't win it. But getting even a terrible lawsuit dismissed often costs thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars. That's not much money to a well-funded advocacy group like CAIR, but it is a great deal of money to most average citizens. Not to mention, of course, the understandable horror most people have of becoming embroiled in a lawsuit.