BACKLASH AGAINST FLYING IMAMS CONTINUES: Now there is an op-ed in the New York Times by James Zumwalt, a retired marine as well as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, an anti-terrorism education and advocacy group--whose members include: Sen. Joe Lieberman (Honorary Co-Chairman), James Woolsey, George P. Shultz, Newt Gingrich, Elie Wiesel, and Václav Havel among others.

Zumwalt writes:

Some security experts suggest the imams’ conduct may have been intended to identify aviation security weaknesses. Their John Doe lawsuit tends to support this theory, as such a complaint can also serve to manipulate our legal system to silence those who might otherwise report suspicious activity.

Anyone in the security business knows that if a passenger exhibits suspicious behavior before takeoff, he or she cannot be allowed to board — or remain on — the plane until that behavior has been satisfactorily explained or otherwise resolved. Post-9/11, anyone entering an air terminal should be sensitive to this need and should work in a cooperative spirit to remove any suspicion.

Nothing can prevent a passenger who believes he has been wronged by the screening process from filing a lawsuit. What is outrageous is to hold good Samaritans liable simply for doing what any reasonable person observing suspicious activity should do. This is pure and simple intimidation.

In the interests of national security, Congress cannot allow this to happen.

The goal is to extend even further protection for those who report suspicious activities--some good may come from the flying imams/CAIR lawsuit.
[Hat tip: Instapundit]

Technorati Tag: Flying Imams.