Democrats cut 'John Doe' provision

[red states rule]

Dems continue on their course to ensure the rights of terrorists are protected and those who would report them to Police are targeted as bigots and racists

I guess the Dems thinking is, when the US is hit again, they do not want the terrorists any more angry at us as they are already


Democrats cut 'John Doe' provision
By Audrey Hudson
July 19, 2007
Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders.

"This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists," said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Republicans wanted the provision included in final legislation, crafted yesterday during a House and Senate conference committee, that will implement final recommendations from the September 11 commission.

Mr. King and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the provision after a group of Muslim imams filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against US Airways and unknown "John Doe" passengers. The imams were removed from US Airways Flight 300 on Nov. 20 after fellow passengers on the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight complained about the imams' suspicious behavior.

On March 27, the House approved the "John Doe" amendment on a 304-121 vote.

"Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement," Mr. King said. "I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity."

While the conference is not likely to meet again, Mr. King noted the conference report has not been written and says he will continue discussions with Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, to insert the "John Doe" language.

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and ranking member of the committee, announced afterward she will attempt to attach a similar bill to an education measure currently under debate on the Senate floor.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NATION/70719001/1001

 

[red states rule]

If you see or hear something - remember what the Dems are telling you...........

 

[red states rule]

Suing Anti-Terror Tipsters
By Rich Lowry

If you see something, hire a lawyer. Then, perhaps, you can say something.

That would be the new mantra for passenger vigilance -- replacing the ubiquitous "If you see something, say something" -- if Democrats get their way in Congress. They oppose an amendment to the homeland-security bill sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.), that would protect anyone from civil lawsuits who, in good faith, offers a tip about suspicious activity on mass transit.

The case of the "flying imams" prompted King's amendment. On Nov. 20, 2006, six Islamic clerics were removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis after passengers complained about behavior they considered suspicious. The imams prayed before boarding the plane, didn't sit in their assigned seats -- arranging themselves in a pattern associated with the 9/11 hijackings -- and asked for seatbelt extenders. Authorities questioned and eventually cleared them.

Twenty-first century America wouldn't be a boon to grievance-mongers of all varieties if such an incident didn't occasion a lawsuit. With the help of the Muslim pressure group the Council of American-Islamic Relations, the imams filed a discrimination suit against US Airways and the passengers who alerted the airline to their worries. The imams allege a "conspiracy to discriminate" against them that was "intentional, malicious, willful, wanton and callous."

This conspiracy was launched in the boarding area by "an older couple who was sitting behind them and purposely turning around to watch" them as they prayed. Then, the older gentlemen made a cell-phone call, and "while observing the Plaintiffs discreetly, he kept talking into his cellular phone." We are supposed to believe that this man was just waiting to stumble upon a few Muslims whom he could arbitrarily inform on for no purpose other than denying them their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Obviously this wouldn't have happened if the men weren't Muslim, but fears of Islamic terrorism necessarily focus on Muslims. If the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Madrid, London, and Bali bombings had been Episcopalian, a group of strange-acting priests traveling in their vestments would warrant an extra measure of suspicion. This is not discrimination, but a common-sense reaction to the facts of life.

A good-faith response from the flying imams would have been to say, "We don't like it, but we understand." Instead they seek damages for their "fear, anxiety to fly, humiliation, embarrassment, mental pain, suffering, inconvenience and financial injury." Their agenda -- and that of CAIR -- is to make everyone ignore the association of Islam with terror that has been forged by jihadists, and to punish anyone who acts on knowledge reinforced in headlines every day.

Because we can't have police everywhere, civilian tips are indispensable. A video-store clerk alerted authorities to the Fort Dix plot after he saw a tape of men in Muslim attire firing guns -- but not before he wondered, "Should I call someone or is that being racist?" Debra Burlingame points out that an airline employee who checked in two of the 9/11 passengers didn't ask for a special search of them because "I was worried about being accused of being 'racist.'"

If the King amendment doesn't make it into law, people in such agonizing situations will have to worry not just about being called racist, but about being sued if their suspicions prove unfounded. The King amendment garnered 304 votes in the House and 57 in the Senate, but a majority of Democrats voted against it in both houses, and now key Democrats are trying to keep it out of a House-Senate conference committee.

The Democrats oppose fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, oppose key provisions of the Patriot Act, oppose President Bush's electronic-surveillance program, oppose Guantanamo Bay, oppose the aggressive interrogation of terrorism suspects, and now they oppose lawsuit-free passenger vigilance. If only they took the terror threat as seriously as that man who may have to defend his cell-phone call in court.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/suing_antiterror_tipsters.html

 

[ReillyT]

Suing Anti-Terror Tipsters
By Rich Lowry

If you see something, hire a lawyer. Then, perhaps, you can say something.

That would be the new mantra for passenger vigilance -- replacing the ubiquitous "If you see something, say something" -- if Democrats get their way in Congress. They oppose an amendment to the homeland-security bill sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.), that would protect anyone from civil lawsuits who, in good faith, offers a tip about suspicious activity on mass transit.

The case of the "flying imams" prompted King's amendment. On Nov. 20, 2006, six Islamic clerics were removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis after passengers complained about behavior they considered suspicious. The imams prayed before boarding the plane, didn't sit in their assigned seats -- arranging themselves in a pattern associated with the 9/11 hijackings -- and asked for seatbelt extenders. Authorities questioned and eventually cleared them.

Twenty-first century America wouldn't be a boon to grievance-mongers of all varieties if such an incident didn't occasion a lawsuit. With the help of the Muslim pressure group the Council of American-Islamic Relations, the imams filed a discrimination suit against US Airways and the passengers who alerted the airline to their worries. The imams allege a "conspiracy to discriminate" against them that was "intentional, malicious, willful, wanton and callous."

This conspiracy was launched in the boarding area by "an older couple who was sitting behind them and purposely turning around to watch" them as they prayed. Then, the older gentlemen made a cell-phone call, and "while observing the Plaintiffs discreetly, he kept talking into his cellular phone." We are supposed to believe that this man was just waiting to stumble upon a few Muslims whom he could arbitrarily inform on for no purpose other than denying them their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Obviously this wouldn't have happened if the men weren't Muslim, but fears of Islamic terrorism necessarily focus on Muslims. If the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Madrid, London, and Bali bombings had been Episcopalian, a group of strange-acting priests traveling in their vestments would warrant an extra measure of suspicion. This is not discrimination, but a common-sense reaction to the facts of life.

A good-faith response from the flying imams would have been to say, "We don't like it, but we understand." Instead they seek damages for their "fear, anxiety to fly, humiliation, embarrassment, mental pain, suffering, inconvenience and financial injury." Their agenda -- and that of CAIR -- is to make everyone ignore the association of Islam with terror that has been forged by jihadists, and to punish anyone who acts on knowledge reinforced in headlines every day.

Because we can't have police everywhere, civilian tips are indispensable. A video-store clerk alerted authorities to the Fort Dix plot after he saw a tape of men in Muslim attire firing guns -- but not before he wondered, "Should I call someone or is that being racist?" Debra Burlingame points out that an airline employee who checked in two of the 9/11 passengers didn't ask for a special search of them because "I was worried about being accused of being 'racist.'"

If the King amendment doesn't make it into law, people in such agonizing situations will have to worry not just about being called racist, but about being sued if their suspicions prove unfounded. The King amendment garnered 304 votes in the House and 57 in the Senate, but a majority of Democrats voted against it in both houses, and now key Democrats are trying to keep it out of a House-Senate conference committee.

The Democrats oppose fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, oppose key provisions of the Patriot Act, oppose President Bush's electronic-surveillance program, oppose Guantanamo Bay, oppose the aggressive interrogation of terrorism suspects, and now they oppose lawsuit-free passenger vigilance. If only they took the terror threat as seriously as that man who may have to defend his cell-phone call in court.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/suing_antiterror_tipsters.html

Could you try posting a personal opinion rather than just articles?

I wonder, even without the amendment, what could a good-faith tipster possibly be sued for? What is the tort?

 

[red states rule]

Could you try posting a personal opinion rather than just articles?

I wonder, even without the amendment, what could a good-faith tipster possibly be sued for? What is the tort?

Dems are doing all they can to undermine the governments efforts to fight terrorists and terrorism

Do the flying Imans mean anything to you

The passengers are being sued by them and CAIR

 

[ReillyT]

Dems are doing all they can to undermine the governments efforts to fight terrorists and terrorism

Do the flying Imans mean anything to you

The passengers are being sued by them and CAIR

Please. I get it. You favor the amendment. Can you please stop with your meaningless rambling, so that, perhaps, someone with some insight can answer my honest question?

So... what is the tort that they would be sued under?

This is my honest question. I am curious and I don't know the answer.

 

[red states rule]

Please. I get it. You favor the amendment. Can you please stop with your meaningless rambling, so that, perhaps, someone with some insight can answer my honest question?

So... what is the tort that they would be sued under?

This is my honest question. I am curious and I don't know the answer.

From the first link

Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders.

 

[ReillyT]

From the first link

Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders.

I saw that, but sued for what specifcally? You can't just sue someone because you are unhappy with them or something that they did. You need a grounds on which to sue someone.

For instance, there are torts for theft, conversion, negligence, false imprisonment, fraud, battery, etc.

So, does anyone know what the grounds would be here? Have people actually been sued for this yet, and if so, on what specific basis?

 

[red states rule]

I saw that, but sued for what specifcally? You can't just sue someone because you are unhappy with them or something that they did. You need a grounds on which to sue someone.

For instance, there are torts for theft, conversion, negligence, false imprisonment, fraud, battery, etc.

So, does anyone know what the grounds would be here? Have people actually been sued for this yet, and if so, on what specific basis?

Like the nutty flying Imans - they are suing the passengers who reported their actions

 

[ReillyT]

Never mind. I read more carefully and see that the passengers are being sued under a conspiracy to discriminate theory.

I will now thank myself.

 

[red states rule]

Never mind. I read more carefully and see that the passengers are being sued under a conspiracy to discriminate theory.

I will now thank myself.

That will be an improvement

 

[ReillyT]

That will be an improvement

Thank you.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Could you try posting a personal opinion rather than just articles?

I wonder, even without the amendment, what could a good-faith tipster possibly be sued for? What is the tort?

Don't hold your breath. The only he has are those he gleans from FOX Noise and the FreeRepublic.

 

[red states rule]

Don't hold your breath. The only he has are those he gleans from FOX Noise and the FreeRepublic.

Facts do drive libs nuts and I enjoy watching the daily meltdowns

 

[Superlative]

Don't hold your breath. The only he has are those he gleans from FOX Noise and the FreeRepublic.

NEWSMAX, NEWSMAX, dont you ever forget NEWSMAX.

 

[Bullypulpit]

NEWSMAX, NEWSMAX, dont you ever forget NEWSMAX.

Ah shit! Sorry, won't happen again.

 

[Superlative]

Facts do drive libs nuts and I enjoy watching the daily meltdowns

You drive Libs nuts. Your lack of intelligence makes them melt down.

 

[red states rule]

You drive Libs nuts. Your lack of intelligence makes them melt down.

The facts drive libs nuts and their inability to counter those facts make them meltdown

I love watching it

 

[Annie]

You drive Libs nuts. Your lack of intelligence makes them melt down.

Hey, he drives some conservatives nuts too, don't forget us. Then again, so do others.

 

[red states rule]

Hey, he drives some conservatives nuts too, don't forget us. Then again, so do others.

What they fail to see Kathy is, America has to do what it needs to in order to ensure it's survival as a nation. Dems are undermining all the methods the government takes to accomplish it

If the facts bug them - to bad