The "John Doe" provision protecting passengers who report suspicious behavior is back -- or is it? Paul Green at GreensPiece reports a disturbing element of the new version:
My initial euphoria at the revivification of the "John Doe" protection provision in the Homeland Security bill is much tempered by a look at the actual language to which its opponents agreed. It has quite enough wiggle room to enable the sort of mischief at which attorneys and grievance activists have become adept.Moreover, any hopes that this measure, if passed, is going to "nullify, in part" the "flying imams" lawsuit (an outcome predicted by Washington Times reporter Audrey Hudson at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070725/NATION/70725003/1001)
are likely to be dashed. The devil is in the details:"Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under federal, state, and local law for such report."
The problem, as Allahpundit points out at http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/25/john-doe-provision-the-final-language, is the phrase "objectively reasonable suspicion." This differs from Rep. Peter King's stand-alone version of the bill, H.R. 2291, which reads:
"Any person who, in good faith, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary disclosure of any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence … to any employee or agent of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Justice, any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, any transportation security officer, or any employee or agent of a transportation system shall be immune from civil liability to any person for such disclosure under any Federal, State, or local law."
Requiring a passenger's suspicion to be "objectively reasonable" will enable lawyers such as Omar Mohammedi, the CAIR activist who is representing the "flying imams," to quibble about what is "reasonable" and what is "objective." It will be argued that objections to loudly-voiced professions of Islamic faith at airport gates are entirely reasonable to pious Muslims, and therefore reporting such behavior as "suspicious" is actionable. It will further be argued that any suspicion of Muslims by non-Muslims cannot be objective but only subjective, driven by "Islamophobia." It is not to be supposed that either Mohammedi, his clients, or their backers are going to roll over and play dead if this provision passes.
What is existing law in general? What about other things? If you call 9-11, can you be sued by the perp if the call doesn't pan out?
Should witnesses be sued after a trial where the defendant walks?
One basic claim for immigration is that we can filter people as to who comes and who doesn't. But it sounds like filtering is itself actionable or subject to pitfalls.
If we can't investigate anything suspicious because that's xenophobia, then we shouldn't have immigration. Immigration as a concept relies on the concepts of screening those who come, and monitoring behavior in a civil society in some way. Both are being opposed by the extremists in the Democratic party and others.
They can't say, on the one hand, immigration is safe because we screen them before they come and monitor them after they come, and then on the other hand say, screening and monitoring are actionable.
OT:
Breaking news.
Bomb threat forces jet back to Sea Tac Airport (Seattle, WA)
http://www.kirotv.com/news/13755290/detail.html?rss=sea&psp=news&gg=true
Oh, here we go: get ready for the Dhimmi laywers who will be ready to use that loophole to line their pockets while the United States continues to be the victim of the Islamic Glacier effect.
"What do you call a lawyer at the bottom of the ocean?"
Foehammer,
I wonder how many in Congress are in CAIR's pocket? The ones who voted against the provision...
Congressional hearings, anyone?
It means you cannot call a spade a spade, much like in the UK, where they can't call them mOslems, or it'll spoil the entire report...
it means you have to EXTREMELY careful in wording any potential complaint or alert...certain lexicon is not allowed to be mentioned...
this bill REEKS of political correctness, which is the complete absence of common sense...not to mention smells of the works of collaborator keith al-ellison.
A total business-as-usual waste-of-time bill that solves nothing at all.
political correctness is killing us, and this is a prime example...unless it is purged, by any means necessary, all else is not worth the cost of print.
If the twofaced sell-out democrats who voted against the original language (and that's very nearly all senate democrats) are happy with this new language than we should be worried. Personally I don’t like the new language including the condition of a “report of covered activity”. For instance, I suspect militant Muslim shouting – like by the imams - would not be “covered activity”. If you see something very suspicious you might have to worry about its being sufficiently hidden or “covered” before you report it.
The real point of the any adequate John Doe immunity provision is to ensure that no deep pocket Muslim (that’s really who were worried about) organization or individual is going can make it cost the John Doe the expense & trouble of a lawsuit – not caring if the case is thrown out just as long as it cost Mr Doe’s money & trouble (there’s no loser pay rule). The point is punishment & deterrence. It’s only an adequate immunity law if John Doe can make a good faith alert without his worrying about it costing him.
The original language was fine. Damn these politicians. I don’t trust them at all.
Mr. Spencer: I share your concern but I think it needs to be pointed out that "objectively reasonable" is really just another way of referring to the "reasonable man" standard found in English common law, the basis of our legal system in 49 states and the federal government {Louisiana is the exception since it's based on Roman law}. Arguably, good faith alone traditionally might not be enough because it would then allow for someone who acted sincerely but irrationally. But you're right to be alarmed because, once again, Muslims and their sycophantic lawyers will likely use a reasonable, sound legal precept in a twisted way to achieve a malevolent and destructive end, just as our entire democracy is in danger of being used against us to the point of its obliteration. All this bespeaks to my greatest concern which is that Western freedoms will be utilized by Muslims to eradicate said freedoms.
Did you exspect more from these Dem a-holes of the left ?
Ya gotta laugh at the degree to which the politicians of the majority hold the electorate in contempt.
Did you expect honesty and openness from these beltway whores ?
Let's hope the door dont slam them on their way out.
The point is well made by http://ace.mu.nu/archives/234817.php
“To even provide any protection at all, a John Doe bill would have to allow a judge, from very early in the proceedings (when all is still reasonably inexpensive, and you haven't mortgaged your house to defend yourself yet) to decide immunity applies, and thus dismiss the suit.
Does this bill do that?
No. It allows the suit to drag on for months and months before any decision about immunity is made.”
Otherwise the “immunity” law really adds nothing since John Doe would not have to pay anyway if suit against him fails.
There must be immunity against the pursuance of the LAWSUIT not just against the liability.
These low life politicians are very good at slight of hand.
Remember you're not dealing with the folks known as Democrats of old...it's become the Shadow Party, bought and paid for (their own admission, their own words) by one man, george "the capo" soros.
He's the lynchpin of this entire operation, marginalize him, and you marginalize the problem (read that as the enemy within).
I predict that America will not wake up to the threat of Islam until they hit us again here.
When it happens, we will be in denial, just like in Englandstan.
Brought to you courtesy of the American Taliban, they differ greatly from the Afghan Taliban. For instance the Af T likes to throw homosexuals off of buildings, the AmT wants to see them join hands in matrimony. The AfT wants like to keep women from attending school, the AmT wants to elect a woman president. The AfT demands that you convert to their religion or die, the AmT demands that we worship their ecogod but as is said the enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least for now. Earlier I mentioned that my confidence in the authorities was at an all time low, well, when we are in a race to the bottom these things will change quickly and they have. Don’t worry though, we won’t have to worry about being sued forever, eventually the AmT will destroy the country they will bring the whole thing crashing down and there will be no need for courts/rights/freedoms with the fascistic gubment that will take its place. I can look at the pols faces and see that they have received death threats, I can tell by the looks on their faces that they are frightened in spite of their massive security apparatus (we are on our own, together). How low will they go to appease the islamists, how much will we have to sacrifice so that the traitors among us can go about their so called lives w/o fear of being blown up, burned out or beat down and beheaded? Who knows. I don’t understand this at all, it used to be quite legal to call the cops and report suspicious activity, and then the police would go out and investigate, send a report to the DA which might lead to prefering charges. Evidently the islamists and their political minions aka islamocrats have made that a crime, how? We have allowed immigrants into America who believe they have a god given right to do anything they please to us and we have bootlicking pols who are willing to do anything, say anything to save their lowly butts by complying. I see a future where many a politician takes the long drop after a short hearing and that’s exactly what they deserve, when that day comes I’m serving cake and ice cream to the entire neighborhood.
Here's an excerpt from the NY Slimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/washington/25cnd-home.html?ex=1343016000&en=c80145b12ce773a4&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
"And they agreed to a Republican request that broad legal coverage be offered to people who report suspicious activity. The measure was inspired by an incident last year in Minneapolis, where six Muslim men were removed from a flight after a passenger complained, which provoked a lawsuit against the passenger."
No mention of the Flying Imams and their provocations; this reporter makes it sound like the six Muslim men were removed simply because a passenger complained.
If we're going to be sued for turning these rats in tp the authorities anyway, we might as well make it worth our while, and educate them on how keep their teeth by behaving appropriately instead of mimicking the 9/11 Islamic cowards.
To hell with the CAIR. A few humiliating drubbings and these troublemakers might finally learn that we as Americans have had quite enough of their crap.
I'm happy to see the "John Doe" law restored.
As to the language in the provision its very similar to the language in various "Good Samaritan" laws. "Good Samaritan" laws are ment to encourage doctors and nurses to come forward and help other citizens during medical emergencies without fear of being sued for malpractice. There is not blanket immunity for doctors and nurses who render aid as the standard for "Good Samaritans" is "reasonableness".However, doctors and nurses who give emergency aid are rarely if ever sued.It will be hard for Jihadis and Jihadi sympathizers (CAIR) to sue with this legislation in place.
You can reach your senators and representatives through the Capitol Hill switchboard at (202)224-3121.
If you are not sure who your senators or representatives are, click here to easily find out.
Call your senators and reps and tell them that the currently proposed language for the John Doe bill,
does not provide enough protection from lawsuits against those who report possible terrorist activity.
Tell the senators and reps that if they want your vote, they must return to Representative Peter King's original language for the John Doe bill:
atheling, what did you expect from the NYslimes?
the whole truth? LOL
They're collaborators (as is evidence by continuous "leaking" stories of classified reports, which solve nothing but tipping off the enemy), and should be shut down completely...not just dissenters, but outright aiders and abettors of the enemy.
We know it better as TREASON...the very same thing they accuse their political enemies of for far less, if not downright fiction, which they have also done.
No surprise there...
And witness, fret not...though a valid concern, the opposite will occur. John Q Public will go ballistic, tell the politically correct to STFU & GTFO of the way, and politicians can't do a damned thing about it...what are they gonna do-litigate us?
LOL...that doesn't have much effect against an outraged public who's heavily armed, with more guns than population, let alone more than all histories combined military numers ever recorded, don't tolerate politicians who pee on their legs and claim it's raining, and are ready to shoot NOW (only reason they haven't is the calls for restraint-and that rope has reached the breaking point).
That tolerance level has been reached...another attack means all bets are off...THEN the politicians will finally be reminded who their real boss is...and it sure as hell isn't george "the capo" soros.
l expect the muslims of cair to act like traitors, but the demicrats and their lawyers is beyond the pale. how low can politicians and lawyers go! when the sh*t hits the fan, lawyers and politicians will not have any immunity when islamists strike.
The troublesome part for me is the word "and".
Why not "or"? Good faith, OR objectively reasonable suspicion.
The wording about being immune from liability suggests that one is not immune from such liability if either of these conditions cannot be demonstrated in court. Where does the burden of proof lie?
If a John Doe is charged with, oh let us say, maliciously and mischeviously reporting innocent behavior and getting someone arrested, then what must his argument be?
In order to have immunity against such prosecution, he must show, first of all, that he acted in good faith -- a toughie to demonstrate as it speaks to motivation. How do you prove that you have good, kind, ethical motives? Especially if you are a known critic of the group in question. But you must prove this.
But that's not enough! You ALSO have to demonstrate that an objective reading of the situation would indicate a reasonable suspicion of a threat. There are three problems here: i) "reasonable" in whose mind? ii) By what standard of objectivity? and iii) Objectivity is the opposite, apparently, of subjectivity.
Problems i) and ii) are well covered in the article, but iii) is the scary one to me. You see, if I report something that looks like a threat TO ME, I can do so in good faith -- but I cannot argue on that basis that it is objectively reasonable to deem it a threat. By its nature, observation is subjective. When you SEE something, and SAY something, you are reporting the results of a subjective analysis of a situation. How then, 6 months later in a court, can you claim it to be objectively reasonable? Or, perhaps, you will be lucky, and it will be clearly so and you needn't bring in your own process of observation.
I react to spiders. I jump, I hit myself with hammers, I run and brush myself down for 5 minutes when I see them. Objectively I know that they will not hurt me, but I have an irrational fear that leads, on the basis of my subjective experience, to my reaction to a perceived threat. I cannot prove in court that my reaction is objectively reasonable, though I can show it to be in good faith.
Now, besides the "burden of proof" problem caused by that AND, consider the number of instances in which it would make one liable for prosecution even if both horns of the dilemma could be established definitively.
For example, consider a fellow, say "Ahmed", who is "in on" a terrorist attack, knows the folks involved (though not involved himself), and has no intention to report them until one of the jihadists has an affair with his married sister. He pledges to get even with the scuzzball, and fingers him as a suicide bomber just before the attack so that he is caught red-handed.
Objectively resonable suspicion of a threat? In spades. This is easy to establish. But was his report in good faith? Demonstrably not. Poor Ahmed can have his pants sued off by his suicide bombing, adulterous acquaintance.
This situation is not as unlikely as it may sound -- it is almost certainly the case with Islamist Mubin Shaikh, who ratted on 17 would-be jihadists in Canada last year. Although there is no proof of such I think it is very likely that his was a case of "internal cleansing" -- he used this report to gain status/credibility for himself and maybe get rid of a few rivals in the islamist community. Business as usual.
Now you might think, "but don't we want guys like Shaikh nailed?" Maybe so, if he does something illegal -- but not for ratting on imminant terrorist attackers, for whatever reason. Why should we provide disincentive against islamists ratting out other islamists?
Footnote: Shaikh, it turns out, got nailed anyway, this time for assaulting two 12 year-old girls. His profession, by the way? He's a trained professional in the field of conflict resolution!
Following is a list of the senators who at first voted against John Doe and refused to protect you against lawsuits that might be brought against you for reporting possible terrorist activity.
The senators referred to have dropped some of their resistance, but only in exchange for a weakened form of John Doe legislation -- John Doe lite -- which will weaken protection from lawsuits, protection that Peter King's original John Doe bill would have provided to those reporting possible terrorist activity.
Tell your senators and reps that if they want your vote they must go back to the original Peter King language for the John Doe bill, so that citizens reporting terrorist activity have full protections. (See my 7:33 pm post above if you want to see Peter King's language, and the current, weaker, compromise language.)
You can phone the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.
Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
"atheling, what did you expect from the NYslimes?
the whole truth? LOL"
Did I say I expected something? Should I have not posted it?
“The girls' story, he said, is fabricated and "exaggerated grotesquely."from Archimedes2 link.
Or, the girls story is completely fabricated, it never happened and everything that never happened was grotesquely exaggerated by the way, yep I believe him. I don’t care if they mocked him with osama/Taliban boy teasings, unless its Halloween he has no right to chase little girls around frightening them in his boogie man getup.
I reside near the zip code of Sen Mc Caskill of Missouri, a Democrat I did not vote for but nonetheless is my Senator. I've called her DC office 3 days ago and expressed my desire that she protect the John Doe immunity provision and tonight July 25th E mailed her DC office with the same request..."Please don't vote for a bill that would potentially allow your St. Louis neighbors to be killed because of US Citizens being afraid of being sued for reporting suspicious activity at US Airports ...she was a busy and largely efficient and effective public official in Missouri before becoming Senator and I expressed to her that I hope she drops the partisonship on this one! We'll see..
Why is there no law preventing foreign funding of "civil rights" groups? CAIR's membership is paltry and has declined to from 29,000 in 2000 to 1,700 in 2006.
Yet CAIR spent nearly $3,000,000 in 2006 from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to support its efforts to intimidate, sue, coerce and insinuate itself into academic and governmental institutions in its work to bring Sharia law to the United States.
Was Nazi Germany allowed to fund American fascist organizations during WWII?
Dominating TV news here on the west coast all day long has been stories of suspicious items eluding security searches and being brought into plane cabins. Which (probably) means that the Islamozoid killer-Zombies are of course carrying out dry runs for terror attacks.
For the media to be paying this much attention to this issue, there must have been considerable pressure put on the media-- and a fair number of worrying events occurring within the airline industry to spur this pressure on the media. The media would never give this topic this amount of coverage if there wasn't more than sufficient cause.
This is bad news for the Democrats and good news for us and air travelers in general. More people are going to be demanding that safety in the air be given TOP priority instead of politics. If security can't alone can't stop terrorists in the skies then the passengers will be needed to co-operate further in terrorism prevention. And with all this media coverage about potential terrorism in the skies the Democrats are almost certainly going to lose their battle to remove John Doe protections in the skies. The current crop of Demo's may soon be be seen by the public as accessories to attempted murder.
Although my initial optimism has been dampened by the Dimwit-crats' shenanigans of late I think the John Doe protections are going to come through unscathed since EVERY SINGLE PERSON I ASK ABOUT THIS MATTER is VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE DEMOCRATS' scuttling of the John Doe protections in the homeland protection bill.
Americans seem to be up in arms over the Democrats' actions and I think the American people are ready to call them on this matter and sooner rather than later.
"Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under federal, state, and local law for such report."
Given the history and ethnic profile of terrorist, how can anyone say that reporting suspicios activity by a middle Eastern looking person is not Objectively reasonable suspicion?
When freckel-faced, red headed Irishment start blowing airliners out of the sky, itll be objectively reasonable to start reporting them also.
It's time the American public rise up, as they did with the amnesty bill, and demand that all references to "profiling" as being undesirable, evil or illegal, be purged from all consideration when formulating security measures anywhere in this country.
In fact, any person fitting the profile of suicide bombers , should be taken aside on entering an airport and questioned, and if they complain, tell them flat-out that they're being profiled because they look like 99% of all suicide bombers, and if they want to blame someone, they can blame their Islamic brothers who've been terrorizing the world for the last couple generations.
Profiling is a good thing, not a bad thing, as the ideologues have been telling up for the last 30 years. It can cut crime on our streets, and save many innocent lives that might be lost in a terrorist attack.
Far from allowing themselves to be intimidated by a word like "profiling", the American public should demand that it be incorporated into all law enforcement in this country, and especially anti-terrorism activities.
Archimedes2: As I already indicated in a previous post, the traditional approach in Common Law is that good faith is not enough because someone could still be irrational and yet act in good faith. Thus the necessity of the "reasonable man" doctrine which has existed for centuries (Blackstone mentioned it) in English and American law. The novelty here would be not to require it. And the burden of proof will initially lie with the plaintiff. If the plaintiff can't carry his burden of proof adequately, then the case will be dismissed.
Additionally, your example of "Ahmed" acting in bad faith, even though he was correct, is not germane precisely because the guy he fingered was indeed guilty of felonious behavior, thus any civil suit against "Ahmed" wouldn't have a prayer.
So, in theory I don't have a problem with the good faith AND the reasonble man standard. But I am only too conscious that Muslims and their crony lawyers will use our own ancient laws against us. That is why I would fully support additional provisions in this bill to make criminal frivolous lawsuits and make any plaintiff in these instances who fails in his charge to have to pay all legal costs for both plaintiff and defendant alike.
"Objectively Reasonable Suspicion" is jargon. Make your own by picking any combo going accross:
A B C
Integrated Management Options
Total Organizational Flexibility
Systematized Monitored Capability
Parallel Reciprocal Mobility
Functional Digital Programming
Responsive Logistical Concept
Optional Transitional Timephase
Synchronized Incremental Projection
Balanced Policy Contingency
Who wrote the law, Humpty Dumpty?
"Objectively Reasonable Suspicion"
Who ever worded that knew what he/she was doing.
The difference between good law and bad law is often in the wording.
Who cares about this political word magick...I will report regardless, and may take direct action if I have an ORS. If I was wrong, sue me, arrest me whatever. I am going to do what I think is right, and not wait to get permission from Nancy P or Hairy Reed.
I wonder if actor James Wood is still a Democrat?
I wonder if any sane American is still a Democrat.
OT: and a bit silly....
..."What do you call a lawyer at the bottom of the ocean?"
(Posted by: Foehammer at July 25, 2007 5:37 PM)
A GOOD START!....
__________________
WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OF A SPERM CELL OVER A LAWYER?
A sperm cell has a one in a million chance in becoming a human being....
OT: and a bit silly....
..."What do you call a lawyer at the bottom of the ocean?"
(Posted by: Foehammer at July 25, 2007 5:37 PM)
A GOOD START!....
__________________
WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OF A SPERM CELL OVER A LAWYER?
A sperm cell has a one in a million chance in becoming a human being....
Docgary
atheling:
That was rhetorical, a general blanket statement we both know the answer to...we're on the same page.
The reason why we are all ringing our hands over the wording of the bill is that we have judges in this country that are worse that the lawyer jokes above.
The legal system in this country has lost (and teaches it in school) there is no right and wrong. On top of that they reserve the right to define what is right and/or wrong. Sadly they usually get it wrong.
The congress mean while can word craft vague bills like this and later say that it wasn't there fault.
No leadership or accountability!
Unidentified informers, free to make reckless accusations with immunity that can destroy people's lives, reputations, careers. The Republicans did this before and we now have a term for it: McCarthyism. It would be worse now. With the suspension of habeas corpus a vindictive person could have another imprisoned with mere accusation.
Or think of the woman scorned. Telling law enforcement that she saw you visiting a web site - something to do with Jihad.
Freedom of speech doesn't protect the person who yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But, wouldn't yelling "Terrorist!", actually cause the same result. Would you grant that person immunity from any resulting harm?
It is really the law enforcement that is against this law. They have enough on their plate without investigating every claim made by an idiot with a chip on their shoulder.
What's the difference between a lawyer and a rat?
There are some things a rat will not do.
Actually, I heard that one from my father, who is both a lawyer and a decent human being.
Mick_n_NYC,
Do you think the flying imams should be permitted to sue the passengers who reported the imams' behavior?
LOL @ mick...
Obviously he hasn't read the book "Reagan's War" by Pepetr Schweitzer, who went to Lubyankas own archives (that's KGBs HQ for the first-year college freshmen spewing their professors hate-filth pahblum) and proved beyond doubt, by their own archives, not a single target of his eeeevil mccarthy boogeyman was innocent after all...
...looks like mick's a few years too late, a dollar short (or is that 5 short of a 6pack) and completely unarmed of facts...but that never stops the loony left, so...*yawn*...do continue...rookie.
But don't come in here accusing anyone else of having "a chip on their shoulder"...pots calling the kettle black don't last long here.
lol
Mick_n_NYC,
Frankly, the only thing anyone has in mind, is that if someone points out what they believe to be suspicious behavior by another passenger, security personnel would check the person out, maybe search his luggage, and do a name search on a an FBI database. If nothing is found of a suspicious nature, he would be sent on his way.
I don't see anyone going go to jail, unless there are formal charges lodged and evidence is presented in a court of law.
As for jealous girlfriends, if a person is searched and found to be clean, the girlfriend wasted her time. On the other hand, if they do find something, good for the jealous girlfriend.
The most anyone's going to suffer is a little inconvenience, but what's that compared to people losing their lives.
Nodak, I'm from SWMO where we don't generally vote for Democrats. (Home of Roy Blunt, etc.)UP until the 1950's they were in power here but a series of Grand Jury investigations that took place then has basically kept them out of power. This along will a fairly active and organized Republican party effort.
McCaskill, former State Auditor, voted right down party lines. She was liked by a local conservative talk show host. He has already expressed his displeasure and my guess will lead the charge to unseat her.
I think on this thread the commentors have given lawyers too much credit. Yes, the have the keys to the courthouse washroom, but the janitor does too!
Something needed to be on the books. Yes, CAIR and affiliates could still concevibably sue under this law but they would have to get a real friendly jury. This with their continueing negative image as well as their affiliates would be hard to do. If the bill gets passed and someone sings out to spot something suspecious and is suied, it would take years to get the job done. By then the Republicans would be in power and the law could very quickly be changed. CAIR and its affiliates would be seen for what they really are, a bunch of whiners and the public would be ready for them. Yes, they may be successful but the success will come at a very high price. I'm sure that Rep King knew this and accepted the language as it stands. He didn't seem to be the normal congressional moron that we as Americans have been putting up with for our representation.
Rant off....
"Freedom of speech doesn't protect the person who yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But, wouldn't yelling "Terrorist!", actually cause the same result. Would you grant that person immunity from any resulting harm?"... Mick_n_NYC
Yes, yelling "Terrorist!" would probably have the same result. But, we aren't talking about yelling, here. We're talking about speaking privately to the proper authorities.
If, in fact there were a fire in a theater, and you noticed it, would you yell "Fire!"? I hope you would have better sense, and immediately report your observation to the nearest theatre employee, or grab an extinguisher, whichever was the most expedient.
I think the whole point is to make authorities aware of a suspicious situation, without causing a panic, or tipping your hand to the guys yelling "Allahu Akbar", three seats over.
I've enjoyed the last bunch of posts from the commenters on this thread.
A bit of what is perhaps trivia: The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example traditionally refers to cases where there is no fire. Yelling "fire" when there is a fire is not the classic example always cited of how free speech rights are not absolutes.
Nothing wrong with thinking outside classic examples, of course, but it can still sometimes be useful to know if that is what one is doing.
Mick_n_NYC: You worry too much. First of all, McCarthy was ruined precisely because of his methods (and personality) and also because a fellow Republican (President Eisenhower) let him hang himself (see pp. 459-465 in Paul Johnson's magisterial account of the twentieth century, Modern Times, for a concise assessment of Eisenhower's role in McCarthy's fall and for the deftness of Eisenhower's leadership in general as Chief Executive). Besides, if you're going to mention Republican blacklisting in the 1950s, to be complete and fair, you should mention liberal blacklisting of conservatives in the 1930s, something conveniently and regularly overlooked by folks who always like to bring up the McCarthy era.
Second, what suspension of habeas corpus are you talking about? Wholesale suspension, which is allowed by the Constitution by the way, principally occurred during the Civil War when Abraham Lincoln, the closest we've ever been to a dictator (thank God it was Old Abe), enforced it in entire states like Maryland and Kentucky. I have to laugh when folks talk about how President Bush has eroded our basic constitutional liberties. What an overstatement, to put it mildly. FDR incarcerated over 100,000 Japanese-Americans and President Wilson's Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, engaged in his "Red Raids" all over the place. In one day alone (January 2, 1920), some 6,000 suspects were taken from their homes without any search warrants. I'm not justifying this, merely trying to put into context the hysteria I've come across from so many respecting what President Bush has done to keep our nation safe since 9/11.
So, don't worry your heart out about the John Doe provision being reincorporated in the present Homeland Security bill. The Constitution has survived stretches far more extreme than anything you've mentioned. You can sleep soundly at night. Don't worry, AG Gonzales isn't coming to get you.
What can be done to dry up CAIR's source of financing? Are they not registered as an agent of foreign power(s)? If not, why not?
Every Muslim organization, every Muslim mosque should be registered as an agent of a foreign power.
No foreign agent should be granted tax immunity. Does CAIR get tax immunity?
Is there not a law prohibiting agents of foreign powers lobbying Congress and contributing to congressional elections? Again, if not, why not?
just a few quick observations ...
I am convinced, now more than ever, that the flying imams case was a total setup to advance this intimidation by lawsuit tactic. What is more worrisome is that Peter King's legislation, in its pristine wording, should have been a slam dunk in both legislatures. The fact that the blogosphere had to ramp up to get even a weakened version through is a very sad commentary on how poorly the enemy is recognized by our leaders, or worse, recognized and acquiesced to.
On a different note ...
What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? One is a bottom dwelling scum sucker, and the other one is a fish.
"What do you call a lawyer at the bottom of the ocean?"
Posted by: Foehammer
What do you call a hundred thousand lawyers chgained together at the bottom of the ocean?
The answer is the same:
A damn good start but not nearly enough.
Oh...I was thinkin' along the lines of:
"wal scheist"
lol
“WASHINGTON -- Although Joseph McCarthy was one of the most demonized American politicians of the last century, new information -- including half-century-old FBI recordings of Soviet embassy conversations -- are showing that McCarthy was right in nearly all his accusations. "With Joe McCarthy it was the losers who've written the history which condemns him," said Dan Flynn, director of Accuracy in Academia's recent national conference on McCarthy, broadcast by C-SPAN.”
Hmmm, American exposes communists and is attacked by communists/apologists/traitors and smeared for decades, American exposes islamists and is attacked by islamists/apologists/traitors and is smeared for…? Some things never change. Really people, how many times are we going to fall for the same old bologna? How long until we stop playing Charlie Brown to their Lucy? Reporting suspicious behavior is not an accusation it is an observation. Just because I see a plane heading for the ground at a 45% angle and I report it, that does not mean I am accusing the pilot of error, it simply means I am reporting an unusual/suspicious/out of the ordinary happening.
“McCarthy questioned how, in six short years after America's winning of World War II, the communist world was triumphant and had expanded to include 800 million people.”
Americans are questioning how, in six short years after 9-11 islamists could be expanding in NY assisted by New Yorkers? Answer, paranoia induced cognitive dissonance exacerbated by fetal alcohol syndrome. Hitler smeared the Jews, communists smeared McCarthy and now leftards are smearing average Americans. I find it telling that leftards have no problem embracing the methods of great humanitarians such as Hitler and Stalin. Leftards, hating America since they were 4-F-ed(for their own safety as well as many others) during WWII, no surprise here.
Joe McCarthy American Hero! Tom Tancredo American Hero could take a lesson from that era.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39a68c6e77be.htm
I wouldn't be so sure. The reason doctors and nurses are rarely sued is that reasonable people won't sue them for their genuine attempts to help.
CAIR, on the other hand, is looking any technical reason to sue for the general purpose of keeping people from pitching in.
Reasonable people aren't looking for loopholes to exploit in order to destroy samaritans the medical "system".
The same can't be said for CAIR et al and our legal system.
“On Tucker Carlson’s show, Ibrahim Hooper of Saudi-funded unindicted co-conspirator CAIR talks about how they plan to use the “good faith” loophole of the “John Doe” amendment to continue suing Americans who report suspicious behavior.”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26411_CAIR_Plans_to_Continue_Suing_John_Doe_Passengers&only
Want to drive them nuts, be an anonymous tipster and then sit back and enjoy the show.
Hey US authorities, how bout some charges of obstruction of justice?
tgusa, beat me to the punch...lol
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29276
It's also no wonder they want to bring back the oxymoronic fairness doctrine...lol
That reminds me...hmmmm, KGBs favorite cover was "freelance journalist"...or as they call it today, "unembedded journalists"...lol...but that's another story.
Dark Days in the Newsroom
By Ron Capshaw
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 26, 2007
Dark Days in the Newsroom: McCarthyism and the Press
By Edward Allwood
Temple University Press, 2007
Liberals today express as much eagerness to jump on the McCarthy-as-fascist gravy train as anticommunists were on the Red Scare one in the fifties. The competition in today's cottage industry of "witch hunt" books isn't exhibited in who can portray the period at its darkest, but in who can add members of their particular profession to the list of scapegoats.
Dark Days in the Newsroom strains at every level in adding journalists. But the reader instead leaves the work with head shaking at how much paper was wasted. Allwood concentrates on the 1955-56 Eastland investigation of the New York Times, when McCarthy was already a spent force, humiliated by Joe Welch and shunned by such former allies as Richard Nixon.
Allwood laments the firing of journalists who were or had been Party members, and to bolster reader sympathy, implies that these reporters shelved their party attitudes when at the typewriter. In his defense, Allwood does factor in Venona, which named 18 journalists as targets of Soviet recruitment. But he highlights this number to show how much investigative energy was wasted on the journalistic profession.
But consider the potential national security dangers then of 18 journalists enlisting in the recruitment effort. Journalists were privy to government documents, deep throats, off-the-record comments and military installations. It was after all, the Communist-staffed Ameriasia magazine that was found to house top secret State Department data in a 1945 FBI raid. And one still doesn't know what was discussed or leaked during leftist I.F Stone's lunches with a Soviet official. On the other side, the Chicago Tribune damaged FDR's war effort by publishing his top secret plans. And whatever one's view of the Scooter Libby case, it wasn't Iranian intelligence or Al Qaeda who broke the story of Valerie Plame's once-covert work for the CIA, but an American reporter. It's no coincidence that the second most popular cover for Soviet agents was that of journalist. The KGB conduit to JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis was a reporter and Whittaker Chambers' favorite pose while spying for the Soviets was as freelance journalist.
Allwood tries to attach the same atmosphere of repression to the newsroom as others have to the movie industry. But, as with the latter, Cold War critiques didn't cease with the blacklistings. I.F Stone continued unmolested in his weekly defenses of Henry Wallace's candidacy and the greatness of Stalin; the Nation Magazine was allowed to champion the innocence of Alger Hiss and the villainy of Nixon; the Daily Worker was never banned and regularly, all rationalizations and defenses of Stalin intact, appeared on the newstands; Drew Pearson's readership saw every rumor and hearsay about McCarthy's sexual habits in print (the only retribution for this was a knee in his groin, not from a secret police, but McCarthy himself).
McCarthyism flourished no doubt from a grassroots angry at New Deal denial about Soviet penetrations, but also from journalists, with no ideological axe to grind, printing every one of the Senator's fantastic charges. Reporters back then loved this ism; Willard Sheen of the Chicago Tribune stated that “McCarthy was a dream story. I wasn't off page one for four years." And only one reporter at McCarthy's press conference shortly after flashing the list demanded the Senator name names. AP reporters in small towns would run his charges without verification.
By focusing on this era and the profession, Allwood inadvertently reminds readers, however, of how partisan reporters have become since. Nowhere in his index is mentioned Bert Andrews, who exhibited enough objectivity to condemn both HUAC's hearings of the movie industry and the behavior of Alger Hiss.
Today, reporters scarcely retract what they print, such as the Soviets seemingly exoneration of Hiss and their subsequent clarification that they were misunderstood and pressured unduly by the Hiss people. The first story appeared on page one; the retraction, if run at all, on page 7. Or they display their partisanship by, at President Clinton's request, absenting themselves from the government raid on Elian Gonzales' house. If one network hadn't stayed behind, we would have no images of the black-suited government official pointing a machine gun at an unarmed relative.
Works such as Allwood's, painting an era of conservatives enforcing fascism on the profession, only encourage further such selective reporting. Even in the fifties, readers didn't need an alternative media; today, without it, so much of the copy, dumped down the memory hole, would go unread or unheard.
tgusa: I'm sympathetic to a point with what you have to say about Joe McCarthy but I would add the following comments. First, the vast majority of the damage done to America by Communist espionage occurred in the late 1940s. McCarthy gave his first public speech on Communist infiltration in the American government in Wheeling, WV in February of 1950. So, by the time McCarthy spoke out publicly the worst had already happened. In effect, and excuse the agricultural metaphor, McCarthy was shutting the barn door after the cows got out. Second, McCarthy, although correct respecting the danger of Communism to the American Republic and the West in general, made some serious tactical mistakes. One of his worst was intimating that George C. Marshall was kind of pink. That's what put Eisenhower into a rage and made Ike conclude McCarthy was more trouble than he was worth. Finally, I'm completely with you on those who want to just mock McCarthy. These types invariably underestimate the invidiousness of Marxism. So, when I speak to such individuals I ask them to substitute Nazi sympathizers in Hollywood and elsewhere for Communist sympathizers. Then I ask if they would be just as inclined to dismiss McCarthy and his claims under that scenario. Usually they're speechless, which only proves to me that those on the Left are often ready to exculpate leftist totalitarianism but only too ready to condemn totalitarianism on the right. All forms of totalitarianism should be condemned without reservation. That's why I'm so adamant in my condemnation of Islam, the one major religion which is totalitarian in structure, as Bertrand Russell pointed out the better part of a century ago. My best to you.
"That's why I'm so adamant in my condemnation of Islam, the one major religion which is totalitarian in structure, as Bertrand Russell pointed out the better part of a century ago."
Wellington:
Yes, I saw the Bertrand Russell quote a while ago. (You may already know this) John Quincy Adams succinctly sums up the essence of Islam:
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar the Egyptian [i.e. Muhammed], , combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an imposter, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men." (Emphasis in the original)
We have Russell, de Tocqueville, Churchill, Quincy Adams all condemn Islam. Yet so many academics are blind to this. Are they willfully blind or just poorly educated?
As a lawyer, I can tell you that the revised language is useless (USELESS!) as a defense to the harassment of informants - "objectively reasonable" means that the matter is a question of fact and therefore requires a jury determination, after the presentation of evidence. In short, the provision as written may ultimately exonerate "whistleblowers" who call "foul" on suspicious behavior, but only after they have incurred tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and have gone through a full trial. That is precisely the "chilling effect" intended: "Fink me out at your own risk, because I can sue you and economically break you, even if you saw me wiring together a bomb on the kitchen table." How many Americans have $25K or $30K they can afford to spend on legal fees because they acted responsibly in reporting suspicious behavior? The way this rule is written, the estates of the deceased passengers on United Flight 93 could all be sued for their efforts at thwarting the use of their aircraft as a missile and that is not, regrettably, an argument "reductio ad absurdam". I'm half tempted to file such a suit just to bring the issue to light.
Is it not amazing that we have full protection for folks who whistleblow on their bosses for grab-a*sing secretaries, but literally no protection for those who act against possible terrorist attack? Which is more important: Protecting the workplace from a lecherous boss or from its being blown to Kingdom Come by a nuclear bomb? We know the Democratic Congress' answer to that one...
People need to be outraged and to expresst that outrage to their representatives!
Oldefarte: As a fellow attorney that is why I have already suggested that this new Homeland Security bill with the John Doe provision in it should also contain the requirement of plaintiff paying all costs, including that of the defendant, should any lawsuit fail.
aethling: Hello again. As for academics being blind concerning the inimical nature of Islam, yes they are. They're pretty much clueless. Many are badly educated (let's face it, a PhD no longer betokens what it used to) but I think an additional reason is an inculcated loathing for the West. Political correctness and multiculturalism, both entirely the creation of leftist thought, have now so entered the collective consciousness of the college educated that many despise their own Western civilization without really knowing it. What's both sad and ironic here is that Western civilization gave the world more wonderful achievements than any other in man's history. Democracy, the scientific method, the realization that slavery is immoral, the paramount emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual,-----all of these are attributable to the West.
And, yes, I had come across that quote by John Quincy Adams before but thanks for providing it nonetheless. In years past, there was no hesitation in seeing Islam and its founder for what they were, but that was before the advent of the Age of Nonsense (whose origins can be found in the 1960s) we now live in. Muslims commit atrocities across the world virtually every day of every week of every month of every year and the chattering classes (academics, journalists, entertainmnet personalities, etc.) have virtually nothing to say about it. But let one Christian say something inappropriate and the useful idiot types like Rosie will be out front and center saying that Christians are a menace to freedom and rubbish like that. Stunning but sadly oh so true.
I heard the other day that Thomas Jefferson referred to the Koran as "demonic" but I haven't been able to find the source for that. It sounds like Jefferson though. He admired Jesus for his ethical teachings, although he didn't think Jesus divine, but I can't imagine he would have found anything in Mohammed to admire. But then for the life of me, I can't see how anyone could and yet well over one billion do. Goofy world, no? Take care.
Thanks, Wellington, but remedial/"make whole" provisions (like assessing fees and costs against the loser) only work after the fact. Meanwhile, the well-intentioned informant gets dragged through an expensive legal proceeding (and, of course, they won't be able to sell their houses or get credit, while all their assets are locked up "lis pendens"). CAIR and its backers can certainly afford to pay a few bucks on some losing cases, esp. since the high profile these cases will have will certainly make any right thinking individual think twice about calling "foul" on any suspicious behavior. Given the pace of legal proceedings, that restraint on vigilance will provide the terrorists plenty of time to carry out any number of hostile actions, long before the judge assesses costs against the plaintiffs. Do you think that it is mere chance that the lawsuit by the "Flying Imams" case hit the news shortly before we started seeing all of these "dry runs"? They're testing to see if their intimidation tactics worked. So, think about it - if you saw a guy taping a cellphone to a block of Velveeta Cheese, in an airport restroom, would you report him, knowing that, for the next 3 to 6 years you'd be locked up in a lawsuit? I mean, what if it was just Velveeta?
This law (along with insanities like HIPAA, which will make it almost impossible to quickly identify a biological attack), however well intentioned, are disastrous. I've been a military officer, an intel officer (specializing in the Horn of Africa and Persian Gulf) and a lawyer. I love the law. I also know that writs don't stop bullets. This is a war, not a criminal conspiracy and it requires rules appropriate to a war.
Oldefarte: Your point's a good one, I must admit. Long term the unfairly accused defendant would be OK, but short term and even medium term, maybe not. So, how would you word the bill? I'd be interested in knowing.
I wonder too where you stand on the issue of Islam as protected by the First Amendment (which to me it clearly is). I see Islam as a menace to our very way of life and our democracy but can't see how we can exclude it unless we have an additional constitutional amendment making Mohammed's totalitarian creed the exception to the First. Someone else on this post did suggest (correctly) that Congress could pass a law outlawing Islam and at the same time remove any federal court review of this law from the purview of the federal judiciary. Your thoughts here?
"I can't imagine he would have found anything in Mohammed to admire. But then for the life of me, I can't see how anyone could and yet well over one billion do. Goofy world, no?"
Wellington:
Jefferson was a well-read man; it doesn't surprise me that he had a Koran in his library. So do I, and I'm not half the intellectual giant he was. I think it was also a case of "know they enemy" as he was facing the Barbary pirate situation.
As for the one billion, well, we know that it's by compulsion, so I don't consider that number much to boast about.
Tata!
oops, I meant "know THY enemy"!
oldefart: Islam IS a criminal conspiracy (to commit mass homicide) AND warfare!