Does it have to foreshadow a terrorist attack?
I hope not.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at May 2, 2007 8:52 AM

Surely if I have "reasonable suspicion" that a terrorist act is about to happen - then NOT to speak is nothing more than complicity in a terrorist act?

What happens when somebody fails to speak out thorugh fear of the "John Doe" law and a plane goes down?

Will the relatives of the victims sue the "Jon Doe" for not speaking out?

Will "John Doe" be charged with withholding information and conspiracy to perform a terrorist act?

Unless something is done about this it will be "damned if you speak out" and "damned if you don't speak out" ...

Posted by: drk at May 2, 2007 8:57 AM

President Pelosi has been talking to the Islamists not the John Does....

...I suspect she would rather prosecute the John Does instead of protecting them...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 2, 2007 8:57 AM

Since when is Ms. Pelosi’s allegiance to America in the first place? I’m definitely not optimistic as long as this legislation is in her deceitful hands!

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at May 2, 2007 8:58 AM

Either way this is good. If the Dems pull their collective heads out their asses for a second, they will not try to overturn Pete King's passed recommitting of the bill to protect John Doe. If they do not support it, they will undoubtably suffer a major self-inflicted wound.

No matter what the MSM tries to tell the US citizens what we believe, once the curtain in the voting booth is closed, and political correctness is temporarily blind-folded, people vote the way they want, and with the exception of American Muslims, who could possibly fight against the protection from litigation clause in this bill?

Posted by: awake at May 2, 2007 9:00 AM

If Speaker Pelosi loves this country, the country that has given her the opportunity to speak freely about her beliefs and opinions,and to rise to a position where her voice can be heard throughout her country, she'll vote to protect those who exercise their free speech to protect their fellow Americans from harm.

If Speaker Pelosi loves her children and her grandchildren, and the promise of future generations to be born in her family, she will vote to protect them by protecting those who exercise free speech to preserve life.

If Speaker Pelosi loves truth, loves what is noble and good, not what is politically correct nor politically beneficial, she will vote to protect free speech which sides with truth, nobility and goodness in opposition to hate, intimidation and the evil designs of men bent on destroying this country.

It is her choice, which will she choose?

Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at May 2, 2007 9:11 AM

Has anyone seen the Democrats' justification for opposing this law? I suppose something about protecting the civil liberties of persons who would otherwise be the target of purposefully harassing finger-pointing. Is that right?

Posted by: StillBreathing at May 2, 2007 9:13 AM

You can't have jihad without muslims.

No muslims, no jihad.

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at May 2, 2007 9:28 AM

The republicans wouldn't have reacted with such lightening speed if they still controlled things. They're just as bad as the dems.

Posted by: Bingo at May 2, 2007 11:12 AM

"Key Republicans are lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi"

Evidence yet again that the Republican party contains, at least incrementally, more rationality than the Democratic party.

Another piece recently was the Republican Texas Senator who walked out of the prayer session by the Muslim cleric who had been invited by Texas Democrats.

Many more such pieces over the last few years can be adduced.

While Bingo's cynicism above about the Republicans is likely correct, it ignores the fact that politics operates normally through opportunistic mechanisms anyway and that perfection is not required for incremental superiority. Degrees matter -- even slight degrees. Yes, the Republicans have been profoundly infected with PC -- particularly in the one sphere where it matters most: the tendency to swallow whole the PC multiculturalist paradigm whereby Islam itself and the vast majority of Muslims remain hermetically harmless while the problem of Islam is surgically detached as one of a tiny minority of extremists whose motives have nothing much to do with Islam itself and whose motives never taint an antiseptically protected and easily identifiable vast majority of Muslims.

Nevertheless, we regularly see signs of residues of rationality among Republicans (and among those on the Right in Europe) to a degree incrementally higher than among Democrats and Leftists.

Posted by: remote_control at May 2, 2007 11:43 AM

Thank you, remote control.

Bingo-

I hope that was just a rare lapse of sense on your part. Failure to discern such differences are the result of being force-fed a disability to discriminate between various shades of gray.

Right up there with "Fundamentalist Christians are just as dangerous as radical muslims"

Let's keep an eye on just who is contributing to Steny Hower's campaign funding. CAIR, anyone?

Posted by: turn at May 2, 2007 11:54 AM

That Texas, esp., invited a Muslim cleric is beyond belief.

Hey Texas - your Dhimmicrats are letting the Muslims "mess" with you - you gonna do something about it or remain silent Dhimmis?

Posted by: darcy at May 2, 2007 12:24 PM

Republicans lobby Pelosi to protect 'John Does'

It's bad I know, but this just strikes me as plain hillarious.

She is, well ... on the other side!

Maybe there are a couple of GOP'ers out there with enough remaining grey matter to work this into a good opportunity for her to embarrass herself.

I have my doubts though.

Pelosi Galore has pretty clearly thrown her lot in with the enemy and the fifth column -- apparently in the belief that it will help her gain traction against the GOP.

Directly supporting the al-quaeda-dry-run imams ought to fit pretty smoothly with her overall program.

--------

BTW: How long do you figure that the American public is going to tolerate her sort of rather blatant, in-your-face treasonous behaviour?

Is it so far gone that there will be no public outcry?

I think it's time to start organizing some sort of protest march on DC.

It could be called The March on Treason. Catchy, don't you think?

Posted by: joeblough at May 2, 2007 12:46 PM

Pelosi will remark:

I can not support this chauvenist bill as it is sexist in not protecting women and only speaks of John Doe. Unless the Republicans can stop the bigotry in attacking Islam over this and put in a provision to allow Muslims to sue then I as Madame Speakerette can not support this.
Also, I demand the name be changed from John Doe to PERSON Doe.....or since Doe is a female deer this is another attempt to make women take second place so therefore John Doe must be changed to Female Person can not be sued, but all American males can as we don't like them any way.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 2, 2007 12:49 PM

Why should the republicans have to lobby Pelosi on this issue? This should be a slam dunk without question. Is there something in the language of the original bill that brings extra baggage to the table that is beyond the focus of protecting Mr.& Mrs. John Doe? Hopfully not, or shame on Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM), the congressman who authored the bill and pushed it through only to have it voted back to committee.

After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats' Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121. This is where it has apparently languished since the March 28th vote. The introduction of the motion to recommit the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language was introduced by Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee. Why did Representative King need to table this back to committee? Pelosi, and Reid should be bringing this issue to the floor as fast as they can.

I haven't looked at the congressional record on this bill, but I wonder who the 121 congressman who voted against this bill if it is clearly stated without extra pork attached to it?

Here are some of the nay votes ;The usual suspects.-------Ellison (no surprise there)
Waters
Kucinich
Sanchez
Harman
Jackson
Jackson-Lee
Kennedy
Nadler
Conyers
and Rangel....

As in the bill that gave a time line to President Bush requesting that he leave Iraq in defeat and embolden the Islamists. That bill had more pork in it than Oscar Meyer, let alone the democrats put a request for the minimum wage to be raised in that bill, knowing far well that the president would veto it; thus they could claim he was against the raising of the minimum wage; This is of course real leftwing liberal slime democratic politics.

Posted by: Mackie at May 2, 2007 1:20 PM

OT, but, did you hear about the incident about the Florida man who is suing to halt Mosque construction? It is on Fox as well as MSNBC. Just wondering if anyone knows anything about the leader of the Mosque, Imam Hassan Sabri. Check out the article. Looks like his lawyer is marginal (sued Usama Bin Laden??), but perhaps someone can help this guy, Rodney Wright in his effort to stop the building of this Mosque. Of course, CAIR is all over this, who claim that it is "an act of religious intimidation".

As far as Pelosi goes, she is worse than an Islamic apologist, if she backs the "John Doe's", I'll be surprised.

Posted by: igetit at May 2, 2007 1:38 PM

There were big electronic signs on I 80 outside Sacramento, Cal USA, that said " Report suspicious behavior". The gov encourages people to do that, and then is ambivelent in protecting them from malicious or frivilous lawsuits. You better elect the right people next time, cause it's obvious you elected the wrong people this time...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 2, 2007 4:35 PM

lobbying that closet marexist...to do anything...?
LOL...you'd have better luck asking cindy cheehan to sing the laurels of George W Bush...LOL

Paraprahsing a comment Patton made:

"I would rather have an armed islamofascist division in front of me...than people of nancy pelosi's ilk behind me."

She's part of the problem...but that's another sibject vein altogether.

Posted by: jcom972 at May 2, 2007 4:38 PM

Much of law enforcement depends on the cooperation of the public in reporting suspicious behavior or criminal activity.

States routinely provide a limited immunity for citizens who step forward as complainants and witnesses. A frequent example is the reporting of child abuse. Most states make reporting MANDATORY for certain persons: doctors, psychologists, police officers, teachers, and even attorneys.

These witnesses can come forward with their reports, secure in the knowlege that they will be protected as long as their reporting was made in good faith, that is, not made with the purpose of slandering someone or causing harm. Usually, the fact that "something happened" is enough to prove the good faith of the reporter.

The "something" does not have to be proven to provide the shield, only that there was a reasonable belief or suspicion.

Witnesses can always be called to testify at trial if the case gets that far, because defendants have the right to confront their accusers. Most often, upon investigation, the police agency acquires enough evidence so that the original reporter may not have to testify. After all, what defendant wants ANOTHER witness telling what they saw, heard, or otherwise came to know about the defendant.

The only exception to the above, that I can think of, are child abuse cases where the original report is made to Childrens Protective Services. Police reports are usually not shielded.

What is needed in a case like that of the flying imams, is a shield for witnesses so that they cannot be harrassed by people like these imams, who will sue just to make a point through their intimidation. They will not prevail in any real legal sense, like securing a money judgment against the witnesses (unless a witness fails to fight), but the witness can be forced to spend a lot of money to put up a fight and get the case against them dismissed.

It should be noted that an aggressive lawyer for one of these witnesses can make those imams jump through their own assholes.

Immediately upon being joined in any suit, the witness should subpoena ALL records of telephone conversations to and from each imam, each mosque with which they are affiliated, each home, and each business. This includes all cellphone records directly from the providers. (I do this in every contested divorce case. It's easy, the phone companies are set up to take the subpoenas by fax, avoiding constable fees, etc.) A call by call analysis can reveal the imam's girlfriends as well as attorney contacts, etc.

A recent favorite is to subpoena the hard drives of the computers.

Also to be subpoenaed would be the imams' financial records, bank account and brokeraqge statements, cancelled checks, invoices, licenses, real estate records, etc. Every damn thing you can think of. These subpoenas are sent out under court order. Failure to obey is punishable by contempt (jail and fine), although you do have to jump through some hoops to make it happen.

In addition, the imams should be hit with Requests for Disclosure, Requests for Admission, and Requests for Production (for documents and other tangible things) that you forget to subpoena. While the imams are getting their shit together, file a motion to dismiss, asking for monetary sanctions and attorneys fees for their frivilous complaint. Run up their costs before they can run up your costs. Get an accountant to dig over their mosque books and their crapy businesses, because they all cheat.

Yes, sadly, the imams are usually dirty.

They will have two sets of books. Smoke the bastards out. After all, they don't want to pay TAXES to the infidels, do they??

Just thinking about these anti-jihad techniques gets my juices flowing. I'd volunteer my services if those imams ever pull their crap in my corner of TEXAS.

Posted by: texan at May 2, 2007 8:00 PM

Pelosi should be impeached for treason!

Posted by: The Resistance at May 2, 2007 10:51 PM

The resistance...Nancy Pelosi cant be impeached. She is going to be president when Murtha, and Hairy Reed impeach Bush/Cheney. Don't worry, be happy, Nancy will protect us...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 2, 2007 11:34 PM

I doubt hell will freeze over that soon!
LOL

Posted by: jcom972 at May 3, 2007 12:15 AM