CAIR’s goal: to intimidate the American public into keeping their mouths shut if they see someone behaving in a suspicious manner by using the “good faith” clause. CAIR will still sue Americans who report suspicious behavior because they insist that the only way to determine if the whistle blower truly is acting in good faith is to file a lawsuit:
Hat tip: LGF
Update: Allahpundit at Hot Air:
Major John Tammes commented here yesterday that he thinks the provision will allow judges to decide upfront whether immunity applies. That’s not PI’s reading and it’s not mine either. Whether the passengers acted “objectively reasonably” in their suspicions is a question of fact for the jury; as such, the case will have to be litigated to its conclusion before that question is answered. Or am I reading it wrong? Lawyers are welcome to weigh in but if I’m right than we’re left with the same so-called “chilling effect” on tipsters that we had before. They may win their lawsuit if they’re sued but that’ll be cold comfort after they’ve been buried under legal bills for months and months.