See Something Suspicious? Better Keep Your Mouth Shut.

See something suspicious? Better keep your mouth shut or you might get sued.

Last week, members of Congress met in conference to finalize provisions of the 9/11 security bill, which is designed to put the recommendations of 9/11 Commission into law.

Part of the legislation was supposed to be the so-called `John Doe' amendment.

The amendment, which protects citizens who report suspicious terrorist activity from being sued, was sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) after the famous case of the jumpin imams, when six imams who were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in November after some very suspicious activity ( to say the least) filed a lawsuit against the passengers who reported their behavior.

The lawsuit is sponsored by unindicted terrorist co-conspirators CAIR and charges that the imams were victims of an "intentional" and "malicious" . . . "conspiracy to discriminate" and seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the airline and "John Doe" passengers - including an elderly couple who, according to legal papers, "purposely turned around to watch them" in the boarding area and then "made a cellular phone call."

The John Doe legislation, called the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act, passed in the House in April with overwhelming bipartisan support, by a vote of 304-121 - including 105 Democrats. King wanted it included in the 9/11 security legislation as a stand-alone measure to make sure it would pass apart from the larger bill...but the Democrat leadership, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both refused to allow the provision to be added to the final version of the bill. Since they control the committees, they were able to kick it out with ease and made sure it never made it out of committee.

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) likewise attempted to attach the bill to a piece of education legislation..where it was likewise knocked down by the Democrat leadership when she failed to get a 60 vote majority.

"An overwhelmingly bipartisan majority of Congress supports protecting vigilant citizens who are our first and sometimes last resource in the War on Terror," said Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), co-author of the John Doe bill. "But unfortunately they're not going to get the support of the new majority leadership in Congress."

According to the Democrat leaders, John Doe protection will encourage 'racial profiling' and immunity legislation `needs more study.'

Here's a breakdown of the Roll Call Vote.

Now, let's look at what this really means.

For example, the conspiracy by jihadis to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix was foiled by a Circuit City store clerk who alerted law enforcement after the motards brought a terrorist training video in to be reformatted on DVD.

An FBI spokesman called the 23-year-old clerk an "unsung hero" and acknowledged that the plot would have gone undiscovered if he hadn't taken the risk of contacting the authorities after seeing several jihadis screaming "Allah Akbar" while firing assault rifles and engaging in military-type maneuvers on the video and deciding something wasn't quite kosher about it.

But would he have made that call if he thought it might result in a multimillion dollar lawsuit and charges of racism by the likes of CAIR and the ACLU?

M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and someone whom Joshua's Army members are already familiar with asks the same question:

"What if this 'John Doe' had contrarily chosen to be silent due to a fear of litigation?" Dr. Jasser said.

Or for that matter, fear of retribution once his identity was disclosed?

The plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago was likewise ratted out by a `John Doe' who knew the perpetrators and hung out at the Saudi-funded wahabi mosque with them.

And it was only six years ago that 19 Arab men boarded four airliners, slit the throats of the stewardesses, killed all the pilots and then flew the planes into buildings and incinerated 3,000 of our fellow Americans.

One of our military intelligence units code named Able/Danger had already identified some of the hijackers, but was forbidden to share this information with the FBI or other intelligence agencies by Jamie Gorelick, an Assistant Attorney General in the Clinton Administration - because it might compromise the terrorists' legal rights!

The Bush Administration did nothing to break down this `wall'...which is one reason that Gorelick's presence on the 9/11 Commission was accepted by them without a murmur, nothing was mentioned about the `wall' and the colonel in charge of the unit was forbidden to testify.

And during the 9/11 Commission hearings themselves, one airline employee who checked in two of the hijackers told the Committee how he had his suspicions raised by their behavior and had them go through secondary screening, but decided not to push for a more thorough search because he was afraid of being accused of racism and profiling.

Of course, this is all part of a single twisted tapestry. A lot of the same congressmen who voted to exclude this also consistently vote against US military preparedness, against border security, against a pay raise and funding for the military,and against any surveillance or security provisions designed to attack Islamist terrorism here and abroad.

And yes, as much as I dislike saying so, I think it's about time we did question their basic patriotism. Hatred for the present administration is no reason to endanger the country.

We are facing a ruthless enemy who knows precisely how to use our respect for freedom against us...and especially how to manipulate politicians and media types and groups like the ACLU who have agendas that have nothing to do America's victory in this war. For the most part, many of them refuse to even consider the fact that we actually are at war..and that it's a life and death fight.

The Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact, and our successful wars have all been fought under the proviso that a certain level of dissent needed to be temporarily supressed and certain rights needed to be temporarily suspended during the duration for the sake of national security. There was a realization that victory came first, and the implicit agreement that with victory, things would go back to normal. No American government ever failed to honor it throughout the history of our Republic.

That changed with the Vietnam war....the era that a lot of today's Left view as their glory days and one noted for subversion here on the home front.

We ignore what worked for us in the past at our own peril. And we disarm and weaken ourselves when we allow ourselves to put the enemy's rights first, and suspend our basic common sense. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their cohorts have no right to endanger the country for the sake of their political agenda.

And they need to be held accountable for doing so.Remember that in November when you vote.