Putting Safety Second

Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame, pilot of American Airlines flight 77, who was murdered on 9/11, writes a very powerful piece in today's New York Post about the way the Congressional Democrats are putting public safety second. The topic is the recent amendment offered by Republican Peter King to shield the public from legal blackmail by folks like the six flying imams.

This is the kind of no-brainer legislation that every member of Congress should vigorously support. Yet House Democrats reacted to King's proposal as if he'd thrown a bomb into the House chamber itself.

According to witnesses in the gallery and on the floor, Speaker Nancy Pelosi displayed a classic deer-in-the headlights look as the Democratic leadership went into a huddle – plainly eager, not to embrace this common-sense measure, but to sidetrack it.

Meanwhile, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, took the floor to oppose King's motion – and to defend the lawsuit against John Does. "We should be tolerant," he argued; people shouldn't be singled out because they "look different."

In fact, the flying imams triggered concerns by a variety of unusual actions, as well as words that roused the concern of another Arabic-speaking passenger. Witnesses say that House members started booing Thompson.

Finally, a member of the leadership realized how this would look to Americans watching on C-SPAN: Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) was seen staring at Thompson and repeatedly drawing his hand across his throat – an urgent signal to get off the floor.

With Democrats realizing they couldn't argue against King's measure, it went to a vote, and passed, 304 to 121

Every one of those 121 votes aimed at defeating protection for "John Does" was a Democrat – indeed, more than half of all Democrats present voted "nay."

The completely bogus assertion that people were singled out because they "look different" is classic misdirection. Not one description of the events in Minneapolis last November indicate that anyone reported the six imams because of their looks. Rather it was because of their antics. They were clearly acting well outside the bounds of normal, acceptable behavior. (That they were also doing so with the full intention of provoking a response should also be obvious. Note that nothing remotely like this has happened before or since the incident.). And those Democrats who voted against this amendment should be asked to explain their votes by their constituents. Because it sure does look like they are putting the safety of the general public in a distant second place.