If You See Something Suspicious at the Airport ...

If you fly or take the metro, you have heard that announcement asking you to report anything suspicious. But if you do that you might find yourself sued by an aggrieved terror suspect. This is just fine according to Democratic House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson. Bennie figures being PC is more important than your safety.

After the flying Imams threatened to sue the citizen or citizens who reported their suspicious behavior to the authorities, Republicans rushed to protect the "John Does" They inserted a shield provision into a rail bill and it passed 301-121. Bennie Thompson screamed, but even most liberal Democrats dared not vote against it. They may not have to. Bennie can strip it out in committee. It is a sneaky thing to do. Usually, guys like Bernie can pull it off in night and fog of congressional complexity. Not this time.

The hero is Joe Lieberman and a bipartisan group of senators. They have introduced shield legislation in the Senate. Now it will not be so easy for Bennie to hide is nefarious deed and we will in all likelihood have a shield law.

PC thinking is a nuisance at university and funny on TV, but it can be deadly if applied to the war on terror. Many times - most times - people behaving suspiciously are doing nothing wrong. But it is better to be alive to apologize for being wrong than to die of an exaggerated sense of PC. When you see someone behaving suspiciously in an airport, maybe it makes sense to say something, even if he is armed only with something as harmless as … maybe box cutters or a pair of oversized shoes.

Just say no to Bennie Thompson's sneak attack. Flush him into the open. He is unaccustomed to the light and is likely to scurry off.

Posted by Jack at May 15, 2007 10:16 PM
Comment #220478

Can somebody please define suspicious?

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #220480


No. We really cannot. That is why it is hard. That is why we need the shield. Box cutters on Sept 10 were just ways to open boxes. A guy trying to light his shoe is weird, but maybe not suspicious. Guys playing war in the Poconos may be just some guys playing around.

Posted by: Jack at May 15, 2007 11:02 PM
Comment #220481

Just a snide remark about PC
Since other people can change the meaning of words, I am going to change PC to mean Politically Challenged.

Posted by: tomh at May 15, 2007 11:04 PM
Comment #220483


Thanks for the straight forward answer.

If we cannot define what suspicious behaviour is then what are we doing here?

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #220484

As it relates to air travel I suppose it would be some activity that makes one go “hmmmmm” or freaks one out like witnessing a fellow air traveler trying to light his shoes on fire.

Allegedly the flying Imams were praying and shouting anti American slogans. I don’t know if that really happened, but it would make one go “hmmm” should I take another flight…report this or what?

Posted by: bigkenzombie at May 15, 2007 11:17 PM
Comment #220490

Of course it all depends, doesn’t it? Really it’s about balancing individual rights against public rights. If we abridge private rights, then we make our societies less than they are, and hand extremists a victory of sorts.

And who can tell what the motives of the informer are? Perhaps someone who is prejudiced against a particular race or religion will maliciously report suspicious behaviour? And again it depends on the harm done to the one accused of suspicious behaviour. Maybe they will simply be approached and courteously questioned and searched in the airport without major delay or inconvenience. On the other hand, what if they are arrested,, taken into custody and imprisoned pending further investigation, have their pictures all over the media and major speculation as to their character and patriotism. Very considerable damage could be done to innocent people arising from such suspicions, malicious or not.

So what’s the answer? I don’t know. But I do know that we have to be very careful in reducing our democratic safeguards. And it is at least as important in these times of threat from fanatics to ensure that individual rights are upheld and vindicated. If one accused of suspicious behaviour suffers consequential damage, perhaps very serious consequential damage, surely they should have to right to be adequately compensated and put back in the situation they were in before their character was questioned, at least in so far as it is possible to do this? Whether it should be the informant who must compensate, or the state, surely innocent people are entitled to have their rights vindicated and their property protected, especially their property in their good name?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at May 16, 2007 4:30 AM
Comment #220494


Often we cannot come up with a bureaucratic or legal definition, but we still need to take action. When you are managing a project, you often know who is the best worker of a particular task, but you might be hard pressed to defend that decision with precise criteria. There are many factors at work when we assess a situation. Some we can articulate; others not. We have the problem of the false negative and the false positive and we need to figure out which is more prevalent or more dangerous. I believe that exposing someone to potential ruinous lawsuits if they report something they think is suspicious is a serious problem. The shield does not protect people against malicious acts, just honest mistakes, or maybe not mistakes.

If you were planning a terror act with something as “harmless” box cutters on the morning of Sept 11 and someone reported that you were behaving in a suspicious manner, wouldn’t you claim you were just the victim of prejudice and profiling?


See above and read the Lieberman link. The shield specifically does not include malicious intent.

We are very liberal (small l) about these things anyway. In our recent Virginia Tech shooting, for example, everybody who knew the guy thought he was a nut and dangerous, but the authorities still could do nothing. The guy had rights. I recall the shooting in Scotland about ten years ago. The perpetrator hung around the school. The kids called him Mr. Creepy, but he never did anything they could articulate until he murdered a bunch of kids. When we err, we tend to do so on the side of rights, sometimes with deadly consequences.

I used to travel a lot. I was stopped for that extra search several times, so was my then 17 year old daughter and 11 year old son. It is annoying, but you just answer the questions, stay calm and you move on. It is also important that you behave in a circumspect manner at airports etc. My boys were rambunctious and they thought all this security stuff was sort of a joke. I had to tell them that they had to behave properly because it was serious. It is just good manners and good sense.

I think the key is to target behavior, not status.

Re the Imams, it is not surprising they got in some trouble. Their behavior was suspicious. It could all be explained, but explanation was necessary.THey really suffered very little. Compensation in the form of airline tickets was offered. The reason it got to be big news is because they made it big news and worked hard to do it.

They should have been a little more circumspect. I was traveling in Turkey during Ramadan. I drink a lot of Coca Cola and tend to do it most of the time. I was waiting in the airport by myself with my drink, but when groups of pilgrims came in, I put it away and showed some respect for their customs. I didn’t eat on the streets. It is just good manners and good sense. Of course, I could have been a jerk and asserted my “rights”. You have a right to be a jerk, but maybe you should not do it.

Posted by: Jack at May 16, 2007 8:14 AM
Comment #220502


Of the three reported “plots” that have been reported and foiled by our intrepid law enforcement, including the recent New Jersey plot, not one of these guys was a rocket scientist.
This wasn’t about luck, all of these plotters were dumb as stumps. If the Sept. 11th plotters were this intellectually challenged they never could have pulled it off.

As for the Imam incident, would what they were doing seem “suspicious” anywhere else?

If Bin Laden’s stated purpose was to change America, I’d have to say that he’s damn near succeeded.

Does that mean that Americans shouldn’t be more aware of their surroundings?
Absolutely not!
But, many things happen every day in America that some would deem out of the ordinary, and if all were reported as suspicious, the authorities wouldn’t have time to investigate the actual threats.

Posted by: Rocky at May 16, 2007 10:16 AM
Comment #220507


This is far from black and white, as you would present it. We probably have many people in Gitmo who were disliked by their neighbors and fingered in revenge to the CIA. Giving folks carte blanche to make accusations without any fear of consequences will not lead to happiness and light. Never has, never will. It does feed paranoia, though.

What we need is a balance between rights and security. Some in this country want to swing the pendulum all the way over to security; essentially, they feel any intrusion is fine as long as they feel safer. Their sway has led to the joke that is security at airports (yeah, take off those shoes and put those little bottles in this here plastic baggie). Oh, yeah, I do feel safer. I like to call it “security theater.”

For as long as I have been politically aware, there has been a small slice of the body politic that would like to overturn civil rights to enhance “law and order.” That crowd currently has gained the upper hand through continually scaring the US citizenry to obtain acquiescence to encroaching on civil liberties. It’s shameless. Now the meme (yes, Katherine Kersten, the local right-wing talking point columnist, just had a column on the same topic) is it’s okay to be prejudiced against Arabs and other dark-skinned types because they might be terrorists. This state of mind was deliberately created by those who are uncomfortable with a free society. But if you look at the history of terrorism in the US, it ain’t all less-than-white-skinned folks (Timothy McVeigh) or Muslims (Eric Rudolph). Yes, the most spectacularly successful terrorists were darker-skinned Muslims, and so we have a mortal and irrational fear of people who look like them.

Get a grip folks. They’re all over in Iraq and Afghanistan so we don’t have to fight them here.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 16, 2007 11:01 AM
Comment #220509


As usual, you sound so reasonable, and indeed I agree with many of your premises: folks with legitimate concerns about others’ behavior shouldn’t be afraid to report it & it’s absurd to sue a legitimately concerned tipster over a little inconvenience caused. But does the amendment passed really protect such tipsters from frivolous lawsuits, and are you certain that it might not shield someone with malicious intent? I don’t really know and haven’t researched it thoroughly.

I’m inclined to suspect the same of you. Certainly your labeling the Congressman who objected to it as “Bernie” rather than Bennie Thompson suggests you got your opinion mostly from this editorial where his name is similarly misspelled.

I do agree with you that this business of killing legislation quietly in committee is the wrong way to do the people’s business, in spite of the demagoguery which often pushes legislators to vote based on political pressure and fear of the negative sound bite rather than their own common sense and detailed knowledge. Tom DeLay and his cronies perfected the art of legislating out of public scrutiny during the years of Republican misreign in Congress. In their case it was generally in deference to the well-heeled corporate big wigs who funded them.

As for protecting rights while encouraging the reasonable reporting of suspicious behavior, I think we are less in need of more laws than we are in need of common sense enforcement. As Paul from euroland noted, a professional response to such reports should do more to sort legitimate concerns from false alarms without deciding up front that every suspect is a terrorist. If the Imam’s complaint is frivolous and without merit, then I certainly hope their suit has no legs.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at May 16, 2007 11:43 AM
Comment #220512

I don’t know what your problem with Thompson is. Apparently he hasn’t actually done anything.

Same for the suit against the “John Does”. Nothing will come of it. And frankly, I’m in favor of letting the courts throw it out rather than have even more laws made — especially a law that could shield people who make malicious false accusations against you or me based on a personal grievance.

I think everyone understands that the fault lies with the airline for not handling the situation with tact and respect.

I’ve traveled quite a bit, and in my experience, US airlines and airports are horrible and staffed by rude idiots. They treat passengers like cattle, with no respect or consideration.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 16, 2007 11:54 AM
Comment #220520

First, if the aggrieved terrorist suspect sues, it is because they WERE NOT a terrorist.

Second, if the suspect is handled by the authorities in a manner inconsistent with our laws and Constitution, and they are innocent, a law suit SHOULD ensue. That is how Americans protect their liberties. Being an ACLU member, I would call the ACLU. That’s what they are there for, to protect our liberties defined in our Constitution and laws.

Lastly, there is the Government conundrum. Those who would be fore the Shield, would, by a vast majority, also agree that the Government errs, huge, and often. They champion less government for this and other reasons. Now, do we really want to give a government that errs routinely the power to screw with our lives and liberties in error, with nothing more than an Ooops! when you are finally returned to your life, (IF you are returned to your life?)

The U.S. is looking more like China and Russia with every legislation passed out of fear of the all powerful terrorist. America should be ashamed of its cowardice and fearfulness. The best weapon against any enemy of the U.S. is the courage of our conviction to live free of government intrusion and dictate. What an incredibly afraid people we are becoming.

Our brave soldiers are dying to protect what? A majority of cowardly civilians giving the Bill of Rights away hand over fist. Republicans are the worst offenders, and thus the more fearful as evidenced by their broad undermining of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But, they do have numbers of ducking Democrats coming along with them as the opposition to Bernie’s actions attest.

The day is coming when egregious violations by our anti-terrorist laws of basic civilian rights and liberties will become national headlines. And we will have all those afraid to live with liberty to blame.

We are at war with the terrorists. Our soldiers are not afraid to fight them. But, we civilians sure seem to be. We are abdicating the most powerful weapon of all, refusal to give up our liberty to hide from their terrorism. Yes, 9/11 may happen again. We are at war. In war thousands may die. In our past wars we died to protect our freedom and liberties.

In this war we are giving them up. There is no excuse for acting like a nation of cowards passing laws that allow our government to imprison our liberties and freedom to pursue our lives and happiness. Those lying in Arlington Cemetery must be very ashamed of us at this point in time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 16, 2007 12:55 PM
Comment #220544

If a person had good enough reason to believe that they were faced with terrorists, they would not fear a lawsuit, and could ably defend themselves in one.

The Republicans are far too neurotic about homeland security for their own good. Americans will not stand for invasive breach of their rights on an ongoing basis.

Moreover, there’s little evidence that such driftnets, dragnets, and wholesale diversion of information yields much more in the way of results. It just lets in more noise, more volume of information that human beings still have to process. You get both too much information, meaningless and irrelevant, and too little information, the meaningful and the connected.

The best way to sift through information is to know what you’re looking for. This is the glory of our justice system, because the system of warrants and safeguards forces our law enforcement officers to focus their energies on gathering evidence, rather than leaping to conclusions that turn even the reliable information meaningless to them.

What we need on al-Qaeda is good human intelligence. What we need is to follow the clues we have to other clues and so on. Relying on random chance to catch the terrorists will not do us much good.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2007 3:23 PM
Comment #220566


“First, if the aggrieved terrorist suspect sues, it is because they WERE NOT a terrorist.”

just curious how you came to this conclusion. doesn’t seem make much sense.

Second, if the suspect is handled by the authorities in a manner inconsistent with our laws and Constitution, and they are innocent, a law suit SHOULD ensue. That is how Americans protect their liberties. Being an ACLU member, I would call the ACLU. That’s what they are there for, to protect our liberties defined in our Constitution and laws.

i don’t think they should be able to sue the individual who reported them, only the authorities if thier rights where violated. why doesn’t the aclu defend the 2nd amendment ? seems lately thier out there pushing an SP agenda trying to stop people from mentioning god in public, or defending nambla. BTW it’s the numerous frivilous law suits that have created this politically correct nightmare we’re now living in.

Posted by: dbs at May 16, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #220571


“If a person had good enough reason to believe that they were faced with terrorists, they would not fear a lawsuit, and could ably defend themselves in one.”

not true. many would choose to look the other way, rather than face the nightmare of defending an expensive lawsuit. the weight should rest with the authorities. after all they’re the ones who evaluate the percieved threat, and choose whether to proceed. allowing an informant to be sued would only make it less likely for someone to speak up, because they weren’t absolutely certain.

“Moreover, there’s little evidence that such driftnets, dragnets, and wholesale diversion of information yields much more in the way of results. It just lets in more noise, more volume of information that human beings still have to process. You get both too much information, meaningless and irrelevant, and too little information, the meaningful and the connected.”

so are you saying people shouldn’t be encuoraged to report suspicious activty, that it’s a complete waste of time ?

Posted by: dbs at May 16, 2007 6:16 PM
Comment #220574


our liberties are protected in our constitution. laws by nature act to limit freedoms by setting boundries, or restricting them.

Posted by: dbs at May 16, 2007 6:24 PM
Comment #220581

Right. First thought through the mind of somebody seeing a person take a knife aboard would be “I should allow me and my fellow passengers to die because I’m afraid of a lawsuit.”

Personally, I think most of the time, people like that aren’t even going to be a factor. The al-Qaeda terrorists who showed up on those flights did not show up in turbans and Lawrence of Arabia robes. They deliberately did not call attention to themselves.

What this article is symptomatic of is the mistaken impression that if you simply let authority have all the power it wants to invade people’s lives, you’ll be better able to catch the terrorists before they strike again.

Truth is, being right is as important to being there in time as having the information available to you. In fact, one usually aids the other. If you follow a false lead, the likelihood is that you will not see much good information from your investigation, as you’ll be looking in the wrong place.

America is fortunate enough to have a system that obligates the government to discover just cause for suspicion befor it can employ its power. When it is necessary, there is a system in place for emergencies, and there are few restrictions on surveillance of non-citizens. The only problem comes when a citizen is involved.

There if we cross the line, we create both the opportunity for unnecessary invasiveness, and the motive and means to cover it up when it goes wrong.

It is not a waste of time for people to report suspicious activity, but this insistence that people not be held accountable for what can be a damaging accusation is just the right letting the terror go to its head, especially since they’ve decided terror suspect, even American Citizens can be subjected to terrible treatment for the sake of divining the truth.

Mistake can and will be made. If we protect people too much from their consequences, we encourage abuse and corruption. This becomes especially troublesome when the means employed are not all that good at doing the job. The lack of accountability perpetuates bad policy at the expense of better alternatives.

There must be feedback. There has to be a way to correct things when they go astray. That is what the fearful right neglects in its vain quest to prevent all future terrorism. The zeal can protect faulty policy, making future attacks more likely, rather than less.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2007 8:24 PM
Comment #220582


“Right. First thought through the mind of somebody seeing a person take a knife aboard would be “I should allow me and my fellow passengers to die because I’m afraid of a lawsuit.””

overly simplistic, don’t you think ? of course someone seeing a person carry a weapon on to a plane is going to report it, thats a no brainer i’de say. the problem lies when someone is doing somthing that appears highly unusual, unusual enough for the average prudent person to say to themselves WTF !, but may not illegal, just very odd, so the person brings it to the attention of the officials. they act on it, but it turns out to be just an average wierdo. should the person who brought attention to the situation be sued ? i don’t think so. this is what i’m talking about. the officials make the call, they are responsible. BTW those imams on that plane IMO should not be able to sue the other passengers.

“Truth is, being right is as important to being there in time as having the information available to you. In fact, one usually aids the other. If you follow a false lead, the likelihood is that you will not see much good information from your investigation, as you’ll be looking in the wrong place.”

people usually have to sift through piles of information to find anything useful. if you haven’t noticed when a crime is commited police usually ask anyone with any info regaurdless of how inconsequentail it may be to give it to them, and they sort through it. sometime seemingly worthless info turns out to be the missing link needed to put a puzzle together. so saying all the false leads that could result, is a waste of time, is very inaccurate.

Posted by: dbs at May 16, 2007 8:46 PM
Comment #220583


Bin Laden does not want to change the United States. He wants to defeat us and drive us out of the Middle East and eventually anywhere else Muslims live, which he thinks will be everywhere.

Most terrorists are dumb as stumps. They do not have to be rocket scientists. They just need to be lucky one time.


I did not see that editorial. I misspelled Bernie because I do not pay close enough attention. I actually got the idea from another source you probably don’t like, The Washington Times. They spelled it right. After the Times, I checked internet and found information from Lieberman.

I will edit this.

The Imam case was handled reasonably. Before 9/11, nobody would have paid attention to a bunch guys yelling Allahu Akbar at the airport, but things are different now. I am sorry that some symbols have become associated with the wrong message. But consider the word crusade. In ordinary American usage, it had nothing to do attacking Islam. You could crusade against cancer and Eisenhower could crusade in Europe against Hitler. Now we know we cannot use that word.


Many airlines do treat passengers like cattle. I do not like it either. But it is not a civil rights issue.


They do not have carte blanch. Malicious behavior is specifically not protected in the Lieberman proposal.

We are judging behavior, not lineage. BTW - what happened to the Imams? They did not end up in jail. They were inconvenienced and now stand a good chance of winning big money from the airlines. I just do not think they should also win big money from ordinary Americans whose crime was being nervous and perhaps making a mistake.


Maybe. On Sept 10 the guys with box cutters could have claimed they were just misunderstood. It would also make sense for terrorist to test the limits of the system and if caught claim they were “just kidding”.

But in any case, the ordinary guy cannot be expected to make such a complete judgment based on incomplete information. The person reporting the suspicious behavior is the first link. The indicating whether or not the guy is a terrorist is the last step.

Re making laws to imprison people, the Lieberman proposal is meant to do precisely the opposite. It is meant to protect the innocent.


This was not a dragnet. If I report something strange because I am either in fear or just want to be a good citizen, I should not fear lawsuits. Such people should not be forced to defend themselves, even if they are bound to win.

People are affected by fear of lawsuits. We have had to pass good Samaritan laws to protect people. This is much the same thing.

Posted by: Jack at May 16, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #220589

dbs, jack-
Please define suspicious. If we’re talking about being Arab looking, wearing clothes that look arab, praying ostentatiously in Arab or something like that, I have my doubts that this is really going unnoticed by others, or that these suspicions typically amount to much.

The right is entirely too obsessed with reducing liability. Accountability should not be treated as an obstacle to good security. Fear of lawsuits is doing more damage than actual lawsuits. This is just more of that kind of overthinking of things. It also puts remarkably little faith in people’s courage and willingness to step up the plate on these matters.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2007 9:27 PM
Comment #220592


A group of Arabs, shouting Allahu Akbar - the same thing that the 9/11 highjackers shouted, loudly criticizing the U.S. and demanding seats spread all over an airplane (just like the 9/11 guys) might look like a sign of trouble to someone not an expert in Muslim culture, religious practices or the personalities of the Imams at the airport. Imagine a group of Christians in an airport in the Middle East loudly singing “Onward Christian Soldiers” and praising the idea of the a crusade. Of course, since Christians have not recently highjacked airplanes, I suppose the Muslim passengers would not be surprised of frightened.

Remember too that the Imams were not jailed. They recieved an offer of compensation.

BTW - re loud praying in public, if I were in the airport, I might ask the boisterous faithful of any religion to speak more quietly to God, who we assume can hear the whisper as well as the wail, and those of us who can are trying to read in peace.

Posted by: Jack at May 16, 2007 9:58 PM
Comment #220596


“Please define suspicious”

thats just it, what one person may think suspicious, another might not. ultimately it’s up to security to make the final judgement once attention has been brought to a particular situation. the one who brought the attention to security is irrelevent, and should not be liable.

“The right is entirely too obsessed with reducing liability. Accountability should not be treated as an obstacle to good security. Fear of lawsuits is doing more damage than actual lawsuits. This is just more of that kind of overthinking of things.”

laibility and accountability are not the same thing. and the left is far to obsessed with liability. it is liability that created this political correct nightmare we now have to deal with. you can’t do anything anymore without being worried about lawyers coming out of the woodwork. being accountable for ones actions does not nessarily mean having to pay someone in $. liability is an obstacle to good security, because it forces security concerns to be weighed against posible $ liability. i will agree that fear of lawsuits is doing more damage than the actual lawsuits, and thats why we need serious tort reform in this country.

Posted by: dbs at May 16, 2007 10:25 PM
Comment #220616
Many airlines do treat passengers like cattle. I do not like it either. But it is not a civil rights issue.

I never said it was. But the reason these guys are pissed off is because airline officials publicly humiliated and needlessly inconvenienced them instead of just quietly and respectfully looking into the other passenger’s concerns.

The “John Doe” lawsuits will be thrown out. There’s no need for new laws. This is a non-issue.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 17, 2007 2:03 AM
Comment #220625

When I said “define suspicion”, I really meant it, because suspicion can be both founded and unfounded. It can stem from what a person knows, or what an ignorant person might think they know.

In the real world, no self-respecting terrorists would have drawn so much attention to themselves. The 9/11 terrorist went on the planes dressed in clothes just like you or I would wear, clean cut, short hair. When they do draw attention to themselves, ala The Shoe Bomber, they don’t last long until people find them suspicious.

Lawsuits are typically not the first thing on people’s minds when suspicion comes into play. Uncertainty is. What information can a person like that glean from the quick glances at the passenger, that they would trust? People aren’t afraid of being sued, they’re afraid of looking like idiots, earning the emnity of the other passengers and the humiliation of being proved wrong by the police.

People don’t trust appearances, and they learn early in life that if they jump on everything that appears to be suspicious, they’ll make fools of themselves. Do not underestimate the inhibitions we put on adults to mind their own business.

Trouble is, what is suspicion in these cases? Are people simply going, “well that guy has a turban and dresses like he’s from the Middle East”, or are they seeing hints of a weapon, or whatever?

The problem with suspicion is that its often highly subjective. If you base your suspicion on religious displays and appearance, then you’re indulging people’s prejudices at the expense of the rights of the people in question, and it’s going to be rare when you’re right.

The courts are what hold people responsible for mistakes involving life and limb, civil liberties and the like. If you make people immune to suits like this, you take away the ability of folks who were harmed to be compensated for the humiliation and other mistreatment.

This is what you get from a low regulation society. The Courts take up the slack. But what happens when the courts fail to do that?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2007 7:26 AM
Comment #220628


The shoe bomber was a real terrorist. Just because he was caught, do not forget it. Those guys planning to attack Fort Dix were real terrorists. We have caught and broken up many plots. We catch the bad guys when they make mistakes. We should not give the a “do over” until they get it right. The Fort Dix guys were caught because someone was rightfully suspicious. The same goes for the shoe bomber.

Or even consider the 20th highjackers. Someone got suspicious when he wanted to learn to fly planes but not land them. In fact, all the 9/11 highjackers behaved in strange ways. It is just that nobody was suspicious enough to notice.

How do you feel about ordinary crime? What if you see a young man hanging around the back of your house? Do you just ignore it or do you take a closer look? USUALLY the suspicious activity is explainable. That does not mean you should not check it out.

How do you feel about health? What if you notice a strange mole on your skin. MOST strange moles are not skin cancer. Do you just ignore it, or do you check it out?

How about putting on your seatbelt. I have been using a seatbelt regularly for 30+ years and I have yet to need one. Maybe I should just ignore the seatbelt.

This is just common sense.

And lawsuits are on people’s minds. They do not want to get in trouble. We had to enact good Samaritan laws to protect someone who might try to save your life in a accident. Some of them HAD been sued by the person they saved.

Why not simple protect a citizen who in good faith tells the authorities that he thinks something is wrong. Most of the Senate and the House and most of the American people agree with me. If Bennie wants to argue it, let him be honest enough to bring it out into the open and let people decide whether or not he is right?

The authorities investigate. If it is like most things in life, most of the investigation do not lead to something really threatening. Like that guy hanging around in your yard, that strange mole on you skin, or the seatbelt in your car, it is only a small percentage of the time something happens, but when the consequence are serious, you take those small percentages seriously.

Posted by: Jack at May 17, 2007 8:11 AM
Comment #220643

I wouldn’t think one would wear their hip-hop outfit to a Klan meeting and shout “kill whitey, “and I wouldn’t think a Klansman would wear his outfit in the inner-city and shout black people suck.

There is a time and place for everything.
IF, these imans wanted Americans respect, they would respect Americans instead of acting like assholes.

They wanted this attention, maybe even hoping to sue and make money from what they knew would happen. Thankfully, there are still Americans who don’t just shut up and accept things that are considered not PC.

Posted by: kctim at May 17, 2007 12:58 PM
Comment #220666

The shoe bomber and the Fort Dix guys were amateurs. It’s good to catch them, but these are the kinds of people who make boneheaded mistakes that get themselves noticed.

Those who boarded the jets that Crashed on 9/11 were not so careless, not so boneheaded. You can’t and shouldn’t count on broad suspicion to catch these people.

I did not and would not say that we should release those who can reasonably be believe to be plotting a terrorist act.

The trouble with zealously looking for these kinds of signs is that you deal with too many false alarms, and despite what we’d like to think, there’s a cost attached in credibility and in a sense of fairness to those who get hit the most, without scoring as hits as real security threats. In short, too much paranoia will merely try people’s patience and reduce the willingness of people to cooperate.

You have to know what to look for, when it comes to suspicious activity. Is religious devotion a problem?

Well, the trick is, Allahu Akbar is basically God is Greatest in Arabic. The terrorists say it in religious devotions, but so do the vast majority of Muslims. It’s a basic part of their prayers. If Christian Terrorists started saying Glory to God, or Praise Jesus before their attacks, would it it be proper to stop a person saying that, if they were doing nothing else?

Try something more conclusive. Attempts to bring weapons on board. fuses sticking out of one’s shoes. Wierd fiddling. Objects in hands that look like switches or triggers. Funny smells.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to be vigilant. I’m saying it’s important that people be vigilant for the right reasons. I’m also saying that if a person really believed there was a problem, that they would be all that concerned about being sued. Most people naturally shift into a different mode of thinking when they perceive a threat, and lawsuits are not all that well programmed into our primal circuitry.

There needs to be a check in place, though, because we can do stupid, terrible, offensive things to other people if we don’t think. We should weigh whether our suspicion is all that well founded. We cannot make our perceptions perfect, nor our observation entirely reliable by focusing our suspicion merely on ethnic, religious, and racial superficialities. Let’s recall the very good job our enemies did at keeping a low profile. They cut their hair and beards, and dressed like you or I would. They blended in. They made some mistakes, but they didn’t bend over in a jet’s aisle and light their shoe, or other stuff.

The better defense for this country, ultimately, is the more subtle one, that investigations be brought with both zeal and focus, that evidence and fact be the guiding lights. Suspicion can take us on wild goose chases, if not properly constrained by evidence. That’s the story of this administration’s response to terrorism, and I believe it’s left us vulnerable. We should not rely on the suspicious fellow passenger to stop the terrorists. They should be arrested the morning before the flight, or the month. We should be proactive, ahead of them.

If somebody was acting like an asshole towards you, would you be more or less inclined to be civil their way. Of course, we should be thankful that their response was not to quietly turn away to support and plot terrorism. That they made a loud nuisance of themselves, probably in an effort to bring attention to what they felt were prejudices, is more encouraging than that.

This is not about political correctness. The 9/11 hijackers let us be distracted by what we thought terrorists would look like. The politically incorrect picture of wild-eyed “ragheads” was absolutely no help to the Americans on those flight, in the towers, or in the Pentagon. They used our ignorance against us. Should we continue to wallow in our ignorance and our prejudices so they can use them against us again? Know your enemy means find out about them, not assume you know them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2007 6:34 PM
Comment #220673


The 9/11 highjackers did lots of strange things. That is why they did succeed in stopping Moussaoui. Most terrorists make mistakes. That is why most do not succeed.

The Ft Dix guys and the shoe bombers were typical.

If we followed your advice, we would never stop any crimes. The flying Imams acted very much like the 9/11 highjackers. Investigation indicated they were not a threat. But it made perfect sense to check.

kctim makes a good point about just showing MUTUAL respect. I do not think Christians should loudly pray either. I think that if we had a bunch of them speaking in tongues just before boarding a plane, they might get in trouble too. They certainly would not be allowed to do that in most Muslim countries.

But let’s get down to what we are really talking about. You want to put a person in legal jeapardy if he makes a good faith report to the authorities that he believes may save lives.

You are insisting that an ordinary citizen anticiipate the results of an investigation by the authorities. If he is wrong, you want to put him in legal jeopardy. And consider the Imams. What did they really lose? If they sue for actual damages, they will get a free plane ticket and hotel room, just like you get if you are held up at the airport. They threaten to sue ordinary citizens only out of a need for revenge and a desire to intimidate you next time.

Posted by: Jack at May 17, 2007 8:59 PM
Comment #220689

Look, I’m probably bigger on decorum than most people. If I were in an airport, and this kind of thing started up, I’d complain about the noise. If you focus on the disturbance, there’s no real lawsuit they have grounds for.

There’s also less of a basis if people’s suspicions are based less on ethnic grounds, and more on behavior that would be suspicious regardless of who was acting that way. What’s wrong with accountability forcing people towards more objective and less prejudiced reasons for suspicion?

Are we so desperate and terrified that we’ll jump at the least shadow, and encourage people to do the same? That’s just going to waste our time and efforts, which could be better devoted to real threats?

The Right demonstrates a great deal of zeal, but also a great deal of recklessness, and disregard for accountability, which means they stir up a lot of outrage for the few terrorists they catch.

This is a America, and must remain America. Our nation was set up on the premise that the Government didn’t need to know everything about us, and act on any suspicion it wanted to to protect America. Though it may seem in the wake of 9/11 that we need to yield to the dark side and set aside things like civil liberties and due process in order to protect ourselves, the truth is we are a nation that functions best free, that knows life best free. We can not change so fast, and what’s more, we should not.

People like me oppose this kind of police state sensibility because we believe that protecting America is about protecting its principles as well as it it’s physical borders and the safety of its citizens. There’s no question that we should do our best to defeat the terrorists, but our best must be done in a way that moves with, rather than against America’s beliefs and sensibilities. Any security plan that works against them either runs the risk of giving up what’s best about our country or being destroyed by it’s unpopularity and political radioactiveness.

Only a plan that interface well with America’s character and it’s sensibilities will survive long enough to give us security long term.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2007 11:18 PM
Comment #220691

I was fltiny out of Manilla a couple of days after the shoe bomber.For US flights they lined us up to take off our shoes with “inspectors ” that clearly did not have a clue what they were looking for. I was about the only white guy in the terminal. I was also sigled out for a lugage search. Probably to impree Americans. A few words of Talalog ended that.There was even a tribe of Arabs sitting on the floor,women in veils. Its a big world. Lets not be stupid.Reports of suspicion because someone has a turban? I think it is reasonable to doubt that and even to consider it harassment. I even suspect the representitive you question has a constituency that is worried and offened by by malisious reports of suspicion. Such is democracy. Its his job.

Posted by: Bill S at May 17, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #220696

No reported “suspicion” of criminal activity should be subject to a law suit filed by the alleged perpetrator. All reports to authorities regarding “suspicion” should be handled as anonymous with the informant’s identity completely protected. In this way there is no report of “accusation”, but rather one of “suspicion” only. It is then solely up to the authorities to act upon the lead or not. Just because another individual reports a “suspicious” behavior such as the flying imams, or the crack house down the road, it does not constitute an “accusation”, (pressing of criminal charges), which requires the filing of a police report. Maliciously filing a report of a crime is different than reporting “suspicions” of criminal activity.
When individuals can be pulled into a civil law suit for reporting “suspicious” behavior, we go down the extremely steep slope of tying the hands of, not only citizens, but the law enforcement officers as well, who rely on the public for their leads. If criminals are allowed to file lawsuits against everyone who has ever called in a lead, and law enforcement is required to reveal the identity of the individual due to the sole fact that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, then every law-abiding individual who has notified the police about a “suspicious” activity would be in danger of being outed by those same police at the request of those who may or may not be charged as the perpetrator of a crime.
Even if they are charged, until proven guilty they would have the right to know who the informant was, and would jeopardize every undercover operation, citizen report, etc., etc., etc.! This information would be really beneficial to a neighborhood thug, terrorist organization, or mafia kingpin, for that matter.
Reports of “suspicions” of criminal behavior should have total anonymous protections. However, the filing of a police report of an “accusation” of criminal activity to press charges against another individual should have no such anonymous protections as is the law according to the Constitution.

Those “accused” do have the right to face their accusers. according to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Comparing the reporting of a “suspicion” of criminal activity to reporting an “accusation” of a crime is like comparing Little Leagues to playing in the BIG HOUSE!


Posted by: JD at May 18, 2007 12:31 AM
Comment #220698


The imams were acting in ways very similar to reports re the 9/11 highjackers. They were talking loudly about how rotten the U.S. was (one of the John Does spoke Arabic and understood it), they asked to be scattered around the plane (as the 9/11 guys did). They asked for seat belt extenders (although they were not fat). Investigation indicated that these were not dangerous guys. But given the behavior (not the ethnicity) checking this out made sense.

If the authorities behaved poorly, these guys should have a right to seek redress against them. But they should have no right to attack the people who mentioned the strange activity and reported it in good faith.

This is the dangerous thing. If you think someone is abusing his children or his wife, do you report it to the authorities or do you just ignore it? If you see someone climbing into a rear window, do you just assume he must have locked himself out? Would you be a good citizen if you just turned the other way?

Posted by: Jack at May 18, 2007 12:58 AM
Comment #220710

As far as I can tell, the people on the 9/11 airplanes never talked or prayed out loud on the flight. As for for asking to be scattered around the plane, reports I’m reading say they were already scattered.

In terms of seatbelt extenders, and praying while on the plane, we should indicate that these are imams, men who are devout adherents of Islam, which requires prayer five times a day. Second, let’s consider for a moment the absolute ridiculousness of six people taking over a plane by swinging seatbelt extenders, and the likelihood that people bearing such weapons would be capable of taking over a plane of enraged passengers.

As far as I can tell with the Allahu akbar, the only time people were shouting it was in support when they finally found some way to get where they were going.

The real trouble here is that the Right believes it can prevent all subsequent terrorists attacks by being more indiscriminate and by lowering standards of reasonable suspicion. The track record of those efforts under Bush have been anemic, with far more false positives than real hits. By reducing the thresholds that count towards a reasonable suspicion, the zealous defenders of the realm make the mistake of thinking that they can remove the uncertainty from real world investigation, and anticipate all attacks and prevent them, merely by allowing themselves to be more credulous, and go after people for less evidence.

Unfortunately, that means you’re acting on weaker evidence, and being wrong more often, which means you’re wasting your own time, while the terrorists move ahead with whatever plans they have. Though the nightmare is that by being so skeptical and critical about filtering through the information is that you would dismiss an important bit of intelligence, the truths, much of the information out there is crap, and acting on it so hastily means you have less time to go in the right direction anyways.

Our knowledge about the terrorist’s activities will always be imperfect. We cannot and will not know everything, so we might as well follow the most credible information, seeking out a pathway that increases the reliability and relevance of the information. The only way to be right more often is to find the best evidence possible, and act primarily on that. Otherwise, you waste time and lives following wild goose chases. Iraq is a supreme example.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2007 8:25 AM
Comment #220718

“This is a America, and must remain America. Our nation was set up on the premise that the Government didn’t need to know everything about us, and act on any suspicion it wanted to to protect America”

Unless you are an American citizen who wishes to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights, right Stephen?
Anti 2nd Amendment legislation is based on the “suspicion” that everybody who owns, or wants to own a gun, could be a nut who is going to shoot up a school. I would bet that those so opposed to how these imans were treated, would have no problem with concerned citizens reporting somebody wearing a trenchcoat and talking about how they hated the liberal govt or bullies, to the proper authorities.

Ever heard of what the best way to stop another OK City bombing? Be “suspicious” of white guys who buy fertilizer and who express anti-govt behavior.

Right-wing Christians are not the only group that people are allowed to offend. NOBODY has the right to NOT be offended.
If you find it offensive that people think you are acting like a terrorist, then quit acting like one.

A muslim in a Christian nation has to respect Christians and their nation just as much as he expects Christians and their nation to respect him.

Posted by: kctim at May 18, 2007 10:11 AM
Comment #220747

Actually, I think that stuff about going after gun violators that way is just as worthless as well- trenchcoat mafia reporting, and that stuff. I knew a guy in college who wore trenchcoats all the time, and he was a computer animator!

I’ve done a lot of study in Neuroscience and Information theory, and it’s lead me to believe that people are better off applying some critical thinking skills to the whole thing. People are just reacting, banning certain kinds of dress, certain kinds of haircuts, require inanities like clear backpacks. That is what comes of the kind of suspicion these guys are talking about. We try to control everything, we fail, we become less vigilant, and one day we get hit again, and we go through the same old crap again.

You know why there’s a building code in most cities? Because people got sick of fighting the kind of firestorms that would erupt when row after row of tinderbox buildings went up over an over again. So they did their best to require a set of common regulations that would ensure that such a firestorm would be less likely. Now you can’t prevent fires from ever occuring, but you can do some common sense things to keep that from happening on a constant basis.

Your very examples indicate the absurdity of using such generalities. Taken far enough, it could represent the feelings of many in the rural west. But most people in the rural west don’t get radical or violent enough to consider a bombing like that in Oklahoma City a legitimate means of expressing such sentiments.

No, what you do is that you investigate groups connected to known troublemakers. You infiltrate, and they might be able to tell you about certain activity. You follow that up, look for people buying large amounts of fertilizer and diesel fuel who have no farms or mining operations that would justify getting that much. Here’s a point where you can also make it easier on yourself by requiring business who deal with that amount of the stuff to report purchases of a certain size of that stuff.

You cross reference things like the purchase or rental of heavy duty vehicles and the like.

Point being, there are better and more efficient ways to be suspicious. Tell people to report folks taking knives or guns on a flight. Get the watchlists and everything integrated so that somebody on the Watchlist who shows up never makes that flight. That could have stopped some terrorists right off the bat. Plant moles in al-Qaeda, or recruit among their number. Work logically, using reasonable theories of how these people would operate to figure out what would rightly bring suspicion.

As for Muslims in a Christian nation? This is a secular nation, with no established church, which is prohibited from writing laws interfering in religious practice. Respect is reasonable to ask for, but I don’t call being hauled off a plane in handcuffs because of overcooked racial and religious suspicions respectful. These guys were not merely kicked off the plane, but arrested, interrogated, denied further transit on the airline when they were cleared, and forced to take separate flights home. And how many people’s lives did this save? Nobody’s.

Protecting Our country does not begin and end with getting suspicious of Muslims and Arabs. It’s looking for the signs that distinguish a terrorist’s behavior from an innocent person’s. I’m afraid prayer and unpopular opinions doesn’t count. The strong likelihood is that people who really were meaning us harm would be disarmingly silent on such matters until such time as their loudest message was ready to be heard.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #220754


Imagine the absurdity of a taking over a plane with box cutters.

Remember the outcome. The authorities checked the situation and found these guys were not a threat. Should they just not check until it is too late? I have been checked with the special care a couple of times. They should just get over it.

You will always get more false positives than real hits. Every time I go to the doctor, they check for prostrate cancer, heart disease etc. They profile me because of my age and gender. So far, there has been no reason to check, if you go by outcomes.

I agree with you that we are too paranoid, but I do not think that is a right wing thing.

Re being a secular nation - good. We do not need people praying loudly in public airports. God can hear a whisper. Keep it between you and the Lord and we will have not troubles.

Posted by: Jack at May 18, 2007 3:07 PM
Comment #220822

Imagine the absurdity of asking your potential victims for a weapon, and as such putting them on guard.

Also imagine the absurdity of doing things that increase your false hits. We waste time, patience, and energy in trying these blunt force ways to fight terrorism. Moreover, we alienate those with the greatest potential to be recruits.

We need to undermine their portrayal of us at every opportunity, and these folks are the provocateurs some folks think they are, not rise to the bait.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2007 10:59 AM
Comment #220828

Stephen Daugherty

Stephen, I really believe that you do not know our enemy. No weapon should be left unused in fighting this group of terroriststhat have a variety of labels. They have made it their life goal to destroy the US and Israel. They have make a number of inroads in the US. As I speak there are cells of those nice guys plotting, sitting and practicing and drooling at the mouth for the day they can put another dagger into this country. While our conress sits with folded hands and a do-good/feel good spirit the enemy is entering our country and setting up camp. We do not alienate potential recruits to the terrorists. They are just waiting for their turn to get the event training. Even congress has kow-towed to the principles they are to work under by allowing someone to take the oath of office sans the Bible. People who run for that job know they have to place an oath using the Bible if they are not in agreement with that they should not run for the office. They are there only to suvert and I did say only. They live by their Qur’an and all the while speaking something else. Actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: tomh at May 19, 2007 12:02 PM
Comment #220859

I actually agree with dbs and Jack, a person reporting suspicious behavior should not be liable for any suit due to erroneous reporting of suspicion. I think reporting of the 6 imams was justified given the dispersed seating and irrational request for seat belt extensions. Although non-experts reporting suspicion should not be held liable, professional airport security personnel should. These people should have the training to know that they should discard allegations of suspicion that are based merely on appearance. Also, racial profiling should be discouraged, perhaps by making use of signs which tell people to report suspicious behavior, but that looking Middle Eastern does not qualify as being suspicious.

tomh, I think you misunderstand the threat posed by our enemies. It is their primary life goal to topple unwanted regimes in the Middle East (namely Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and to replace those governments. In the course of going about this, our enemies have realized that the support the United States gives these countries prevents their desired Islamic Revolutions; therefore the United States became a target with the intention that the United States could be blackmailed into rescinding its support of seemingly undesirable nations and terminating its intermingling in the affairs of these countries.

Even congress has kow-towed to the principles they are to work under by allowing someone to take the oath of office sans the Bible. People who run for that job know they have to place an oath using the Bible if they are not in agreement with that they should not run for the office. They are there only to suvert(sic?) and I did say only. They live by their Qur’an and all the while speaking something else. Actions speak louder than words.

Need I remind you that the Constitution prohibits any type of religious test for office.

I believe Keith Ellison and the new Democratic majority in the 110th congress will reverse the trend you mentioned of sitting on hands, which was established during the past several Congresses. This Congress will provide real oversight to the conduct of the War on Terror. It also tried to score a victory in the recent funding bill that paved the way for a withdraw from Iraq and prepared for a future redoubling of efforts to destroy bin-Laden’s Al Qaeda Presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unfortunately our President wants to do “feel good” things such as prolong the occupation of Iraq and as a result vetoed the bill.

Posted by: Warren P at May 19, 2007 8:41 PM
Comment #220860

For some reason I forgot to include our enemy’s desire for the destruction of Israel as a response to the seemingly illegal occupation of Palestinian land that has been perpetrated by Israel above.

One question for everyone, what thoughts do you have about the ad campaign in Boston that caused a shutdown of the subway and other disruptions a couple of months ago? This is another example of non-experts being suspicious under the correct circumstances by reporting odd metal contraptions with wires sticking out that were placed in several possible target locations.

Posted by: Warren P at May 19, 2007 9:05 PM
Comment #220870

Warren P

You are too far from the truth. I fully understand the theat from our enemies. That includes Russia and their subversion of the Middle East situation. Before we invaded Iraq the terrorists were waging war against us. Our government did not have the moral will to fight them. Now it has escalated to larger proportions. The enemy is in our gates. They do have dirty bombs. They will use them, unless there is a dedicated effort to thwart them. They are tools of the devil and Satan is the great deceiver.

Posted by: tomh at May 19, 2007 10:47 PM
Comment #220871

al-Qaeda. Bin Laden. Jihadist groups that operate like them. People competent enough to pull off the attacks. Various politicians around the region that want to inflame situations for their own benefit. I know who my enemies are. I just haven’t gotten fancy about it, or searched in my own backyard for people to get paranoid about.

Using all weapons is an exercise in avoiding the tough but necessary choice of choosing the right weapons for the job. What helps us to do our job best? That is my question here. We need to make it easier for us to get in the way of terrorist attacks, and more expensive for the terrorists to succeed at striking at us. If you just try everything, you make our approach more costly and less sustainable. Best methods for the most effect.

As for the last part? It’s amazing how warped the Republican party has become in its hatred and fear of liberals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #220902

Stephen Daugherty

Your last sentence appears to be out of context. What does your claim of hatred of liberal have to do with terrorists attacks? The Reps and Dems have both been irresponsible in this war on terrorism.

I should have said all tools should be considered, not necessarily used. There is a time a place for all the tools to be used somewhere sometime.

Posted by: tomh at May 20, 2007 9:43 AM
Comment #220923
The enemy is in our gates. They do have dirty bombs.

I’ve never heard that before, tomh. Certainly the intelligence community has never suggested it. If you have that kind of info, you should talk to the FBI immediately.

Otherwise, you just sound hysterically fearful.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 20, 2007 5:39 PM
Comment #220927

When I was a kid, they called the Democrats commies. When I was a teen, the charge was that Democrats were jackbooted nazis, and Clinton never saw a year in office without a partisan witchhunt occupying his time. And now, in the new decade? We’re terrorists sympathizers, or multicultural idiots who don’t understand the danger.

It’s insulting, and it’s more than half the reason you see such anger and resentment on the left.

The Right in this country has failed to discard inappropriate or failed methods for countering this threat, using means that run counter to our country’s principles, and which are counterproductive to their original intent.

To wit: More terrorists, in a country that didn’t have that problem before, and now Iraq has become a prime fundraising source for keeping al-Qaeda alive.

Additionally, they are underestimating just how much continuing this war is sapping America’s optimism as a nation.

What the Right doesn’t understand about what’s happening now is how much of this rage directed at them is stemming from their refusal to recognize that the majority position in this country on this war is not merely some deluded sensibility, but the deeply felt belief of most Americans. If they thought 2006 was a disaster, they have yet to see anything yet.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 20, 2007 6:48 PM
Comment #220938

American Pundit

I made a rational response, but the editor must have felt differently. I will leave it there.

Posted by: tomh at May 20, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment #220986

Check these out.

Islamberg, New York
Ahmedabad, Virginia
Holy Islamville, South Carolina

These communities were formed by Jamaat ul-Fuqra which interpreted is “community of the impoverished”. These towns have “No Trespassing” signs surrounding the town. I would take that to mean “Ole Whitey-Red-Blood-American” is not welcomed to their compounds.

Are they within our gates?

Are they preparing for the mother of all attacks?

Are they training for terrorists activity within

our borders?

All the while Kennedy-Polosi-Murtha-Reed-Finegold-Biden-Kucinich-Edwards-Clinton, et.al. are selling us out in the global capital of the world where the hot air spewed forth has threatened the sun’s existence.

Posted by: tomh at May 21, 2007 10:07 PM
Post a comment