Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats want 'John Doe' provision cut
Washington Times ^ | July 19, 2007 | Audrey Hudson

Posted on 07/19/2007 7:40:49 AM PDT by Verloona Ti

Democrats want 'John Doe' provision cut

By Audrey Hudson

July 19, 2007

Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.

Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or “John Doe” passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on Nov. 20 before their removal.

(cut)

Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.

(cut)

Similar thread on LGF

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: democrats; dhimmicrats; eatingourown; flyingimams; johndoeamendment; proterrorist; triallawyers; waronterror; wot
I have to leave, sorry to 'post and run' (I will check back later ASAP)-but I wanted to post this before I go, as it's important. Someone please post the requisite number and start putting on the pressure-hopefully to the "amnesty" level.
1 posted on 07/19/2007 7:40:51 AM PDT by Verloona Ti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Verloona Ti

In a world where Islamonazis kidnap and behead their critics, there are bigger things to fear than lawsuits.

Personal safety is at stake.

LGF has already received numerous death threats.


2 posted on 07/19/2007 7:43:19 AM PDT by weegee (If the Fairness Doctrine is imposed on USA who will CNN news get to read the conservative rebuttal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verloona Ti
I found this at LGF, if it helps:

Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121

Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965

3 posted on 07/19/2007 7:44:36 AM PDT by Verloona Ti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee
I am worried about ordinary citizens perhaps being too intimidated to report suspicious activity for fear of being sued, if that provision is removed.( Didn't that photo shop clerk hesitate to report what he found, for fear of being called 'racist'?) It may seem strange to suggest people would fear being sued more than being killed-but the former seems more likely to actually happen, to many people, and there are so many lawsuit horror stories. I hope enough pressure is put on to prevent the provision's stripping, which is why I am posting this and the numbers. If anyone has better numbers-eg, individual offices or FAX numbers, please post them.

Will check back in an hour or so.

4 posted on 07/19/2007 7:48:09 AM PDT by Verloona Ti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Verloona Ti

“The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.”.....

so murtha gave up his power??


5 posted on 07/19/2007 8:20:26 AM PDT by God luvs America (When the silent majority speaks the earth trembles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee
"In a world where Islamonazis kidnap and behead their critics, there are bigger things to fear than lawsuits."

When "John Doe" becomes fearful of being sued for ratting out muslims he believes are up to no good, then the islamonazis goal of terrorizing us has been acheived. This would be two-fold coup for the islamofacists in America. One, it would represent to the islamic world that they have mastery over us. Two, it would muzzle our greatest resource against terrorism, a wary citizenry ready to report even the slightest suspicion of terrorism. The Democrats who want to scuttle this provision are cowardly to the bone.

6 posted on 07/19/2007 8:21:58 AM PDT by gemma0000 (They obscure the truth by calling it an issue of "immigration"-but it's an issue of LAW ENFORCEMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Verloona Ti

This alone shows precisely whose side the democRATS are on.


7 posted on 07/19/2007 8:25:44 AM PDT by rod1 (uake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Who is LGF?


8 posted on 07/19/2007 8:28:16 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Verloona Ti
I am worried about ordinary citizens perhaps being too intimidated to report suspicious activity for fear of being sued, if that provision is removed.

I also fear, people being harassed and intimidated just because somebody has a grudge against you. That's one tightrope walk on a slippery slope....definitely a tough nut to crack legislatively.

9 posted on 07/19/2007 8:38:30 AM PDT by lovecraft (Specialization is for insects.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Verloona Ti

“citizens perhaps being too intimidated to report suspicious activity for fear of being sued”

which was the whole point of the “flying imams” stunt.


10 posted on 07/19/2007 8:39:59 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gemma0000
When "John Doe" becomes fearful of being sued for ratting out muslims he believes are up to no good, then the islamonazis goal of terrorizing us has been acheived. This would be two-fold coup for the islamofacists in America. One, it would represent to the islamic world that they have mastery over us. Two, it would muzzle our greatest resource against terrorism, a wary citizenry ready to report even the slightest suspicion of terrorism.

I totally agree with both your points. I do hope the democrats hear from angry citizens who NEED protection against "flying imans' hoping for a 'lawsuit lottery' to spread jihadism.

11 posted on 07/19/2007 8:45:10 AM PDT by Verloona Ti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Eva

LGF is Little Green Footballs (www.littlegreenfootballs.com). If you haven’t seen the site before, check it out.

Drew Garrett


12 posted on 07/19/2007 8:45:39 AM PDT by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rod1
That's what I can't understand....WHY is "racism" so horrible (fear of which being the alleged basis for their opposition to King's provision) that they are willing to risk thousands of American citizens of any race being turned to shredded meat? The antics of the 'flying imans' went waaaay beyond simply praying, as the critics of this provision like to pretend-they deliberately mimicked the actions of the 9/11 hijackers, and whether it was a dry run, a simple attempt at getting money, or to terrify US citizens against reporting future suspicious activity I do not know, but I do believe we need this provision.
13 posted on 07/19/2007 8:50:07 AM PDT by Verloona Ti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Verloona Ti

Democrat Slumber Party at work...


14 posted on 07/19/2007 8:52:11 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Little Green Footballs, which like Jihad Watch/Dhimmi Watch is a fine anti jihadist site.
15 posted on 07/19/2007 8:52:32 AM PDT by Verloona Ti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I agree, and the fact that these creature’s know how easy it is to use the courts against us shows how much we need this provision. Ina sane world we would not, since the ‘flying iman’s’ case would have been laughed out of court-but we’re not living in a sane world , are we? (But the judge presiding over this case has so far shown little respect for PC nicities...It warmed my heart when he refused the iman’s request not to allow press coverage, in a ruling which had a snarky, sarcastic ring IMO.


16 posted on 07/19/2007 8:55:30 AM PDT by Verloona Ti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Eva

Little Green Footballs’ blog. An Islamic fanatic at Reuters was among those who sent him a death threat.


17 posted on 07/19/2007 9:05:21 AM PDT by weegee (If the Fairness Doctrine is imposed on USA who will CNN news get to read the conservative rebuttal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Verloona Ti; Cindy; Kakaze; Natty Bumppo@frontier.net; BusterBear; shamusotoole; Lijahsbubbe; ...

Thanks for posting this.......

“Flyin’ Imams” ping!!

On or off this ping list, drop me FRmail. All requests cheerfully honored.

See also: http://campaignsandelections.com/oh/releases/index.cfm?ID=2197


18 posted on 07/19/2007 9:25:34 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (Fight Crime. Shoot Back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verloona Ti
Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.

Not good. Do we know who has been named to the conference committee?

19 posted on 07/19/2007 9:36:05 AM PDT by 3AngelaD (They screwed up their own countries so bad they had to leave, and now they're here screwing up ours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
I looked at the Jihad watch article on this issue, and at the LGF thread ditto-I didn't find names. BUT I did find this, which may be useful ( and a LGF poster says there have been a lot of calls re : the King provision, which is good news; his info was per a "snooty" Pelosi aide so it may be accurate rather than wishful thinking)PHONE NUMBERS: Speaker Pelosi:

Speaker’s Office: 202-225-0100

Personal Office: 202-225-4965

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Thompson:

Personal Office: 202-225-5876

Cmte Office: 202-226-2616

Rep. Van Hollen:

Personal Office: 202-225-5341:

Here is Michelle Malkin's take on all this; it has contact info too.

20 posted on 07/19/2007 10:10:44 AM PDT by Verloona Ti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Verloona Ti

Well, I called the Cloakroom and THEY don’t know.


21 posted on 07/19/2007 10:29:27 AM PDT by 3AngelaD (They screwed up their own countries so bad they had to leave, and now they're here screwing up ours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lovecraft
I also fear, people being harassed and intimidated just because somebody has a grudge against you. That's one tightrope walk on a slippery slope....definitely a tough nut to crack legislatively.

While I am making a presumption, it would be my belief that the amendment DOES NOT protect a citizen from knowingly filing a false report of suspicion. If you have any source of info that would prove my assumption otherwise then please provide it.

22 posted on 07/19/2007 7:31:00 PM PDT by torchthemummy (Al Queda In Iraq - Undocumented Terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: torchthemummy
I read the language of the bill. My presumption is based on that it has to be proven that the Accuser made "knowingly false accusations". The burden of proof is completely on the Accused IMHO. Anytime you did anything that could be considered a reasonable suspicion to a jury, it lets the accuser off scott free. "Absolute immunity" are the words being used.

Though I believe the Imams probably did this on purpose to cause the uproar that they wanted, let's presume they were completely innocent, just for the sake of argument. Have they suffered damages due to this situation? It could be argued. Do you think a lawyer wouldn't be drooling for a shot, no matter the odds, at an airline? As for myself, I carry two red gas cans that are full of saltwater into my house to do water changes for my fish tank once a week. It's highly unlikey, but someone "could" interpret that as something suspicious. Especially if I were Muslim, IMHO. Could I be damaged by something as simple as misunderstanding? It's happened to people before. Will I like the idea of the police dropping by to checl it out? Not likely.

Although this situation is unlikely(I hope), frivolous lawsuits already abound. I work next to an ambulance chaser and I hear some weird things people get sued over. If a suspicious, but unknowingly false accusation, happens to an innocent person, it will at best be a hassle, at worst something much more costly.

I completely agree with the spirit of the law. By no means do I think it's a bad idea. I just think some extra provisions could be made to protect the accused. I want absolute zero chance of my money going down the drain to a lawyer to defend an accusation that may possibly affect my life negatively.

Your presumption(IMO) is the Gov't has made adequate protections for it's law abiding citizens in this bill. I tend not to trust them and especially not most lawyers. You also may be presuming only reasonable people will make an accusation on a reasonable suspicion. I believe there's a lot of unreasonableness in the world.

23 posted on 07/19/2007 9:09:43 PM PDT by lovecraft (Specialization is for insects.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All

This is an important bill.

Here’s a link to find/write your Representative easily:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/


24 posted on 07/20/2007 9:00:42 AM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson