Skip to comments.Democrats want 'John Doe' provision cut
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.
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.
Similar thread on LGF
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
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.
Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
Nancy Pelosis office: 202-225-4965
Will check back in an hour or so.
“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??
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.
This alone shows precisely whose side the democRATS are on.
Who is LGF?
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.
“citizens perhaps being too intimidated to report suspicious activity for fear of being sued”
which was the whole point of the “flying imams” stunt.
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.
LGF is Little Green Footballs (www.littlegreenfootballs.com). If you haven’t seen the site before, check it out.
Democrat Slumber Party at work...
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.
Little Green Footballs’ blog. An Islamic fanatic at Reuters was among those who sent him a death threat.
Thanks for posting this.......
“Flyin’ Imams” ping!!
On or off this ping list, drop me FRmail. All requests cheerfully honored.
Not good. Do we know who has been named to the conference committee?
Speakers 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.
Well, I called the Cloakroom and THEY don’t know.
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.
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.
This is an important bill.
Here’s a link to find/write your Representative easily: