July 20th, 2007, 07:58 AM #1
Tipster shields lifted by Democrats
Congressional Democrats yesterday declined to protect tipsters who report suspicious behavior from nuisance lawsuits.
"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 tried to write the protection provision included in final homeland security legislation, crafted yesterday by a House and Senate conference committee, to 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."
Now people will look the other way for fear of getting sued. No need for terrorists to be covert in their operations, just avoid any police and don't worry about the rest.Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing
July 22nd, 2007, 08:15 AM #2
I'd express my opinion but I don't want to get involved.
July 22nd, 2007, 11:45 AM #3
So if I overhear a terrorist talking to his buddy terrorist about when to arm the bomb and I report it to the police, I get sued?
This is part and parcel of the effort to change the "war on terror" to a police matter. In a police matter, you react to the crime after it is done. You don't have the right to accuse Joe Blow of being a burgler until he burgles.
RICO and conspiracy laws are to weak to work on terrorists.
It time we leveled the playing field for the terrorists. We've been hurting their self esteem!"The world burns while Obama Tweets."
July 22nd, 2007, 11:52 AM #4
I say, let's return to the days when all African-Americans were viewed as lawbreakers based solely on thier skin color."Education: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the
foolish their lack of understanding."
July 22nd, 2007, 03:28 PM #5
What does this amendment do, exactly? I haven't been able to get any text on it. From what I heard, it indemnified airlines against the consequences of discriminatory profiling. Nobody's got a problem with that?
I don't see what's wrong with current practice of reporting suspicious behavior
Basically, this amendment would have given Americans a green light to harass Muslims at will, without fear of repercussion. All they would have had to do was claim that they thought you saw something 'suspicious'. It's an invitation to harass your enemies.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
July 22nd, 2007, 03:31 PM #6
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- inside the Beltway
- Blog Entries
July 22nd, 2007, 04:07 PM #7
All they would have had to do was claim that they thought you saw something 'suspicious'. It's an invitation to harass your enemies.[/QUOTE]
Thats a far stretch from protecting someone against frivolous lawsuits due to their questioning the behavior of someone. With this removed people will look the other way instead of getting involved due to fear of having a lawsuit filed against them. This reminds me of the good samaritian law were people would not stop the render help for fear of being sued.Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing
July 22nd, 2007, 04:34 PM #8
Because of these complaints, the Muslims were removed. Their removal was found to be unwarranted and they were released. They however missed their flight, were caused inconvenience, distress and loss as well as subjected to ridicule. To redress, they sued the airline (psst, not the passengers that complained) for throwing them off the plane without sufficient cause. That's not frivolous.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
July 22nd, 2007, 05:56 PM #9
One of six Muslim imams pulled from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis last night by federal authorities is affiliated with a Hamas-linked organization and acknowledged a connection to Osama bin Laden in the 1990s.
CAIR, however, has its own ties to Hamas, having been identified by two former FBI counter-terrorism chiefs as a spinoff of a front group for the Palestinian terrorist organization.
A Sept. 28, 2001, story in the Arizona Republic that said Arizona appears to have been the home of an al-Qaida sleeper cell, named Shahin as one of three part-time Arizona residents who "fits the pattern" of the terrorist group.
According to Washington-based terrorist expert Rita Katz, the Islamic Center of Tucson included what was “basically the first cell of Al Qaeda in the United States.” The connections between Al Qaeda and the ICT include Wael Hamza Jalaidan, a former ICT president, believed to be an Al Qaeda founder, and Hani Hanjour, who attended the mosque while a student at the University of Arizona and who later flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on 9/11. Wadih El-Hage, a personal assistant to terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden, was active with the ICT in the late 1980’s where he is alleged to have established an Al Qaeda support network, according to the FBI. In 2001, El Hage was convicted by a federal judge in New York of planning the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing
July 22nd, 2007, 06:12 PM #10MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Six Muslim imams were removed from a US Airways flight at Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport on Monday and questioned by police for several hours before being released, a leader of the group said. link
As for the guilt by association, (onnection to Osama bin Laden in the 1990s) I can remind you that George HW Bush is linked to AbL too. I suppose that the former president shouldn't be allowed to fly on commerical jets anymore.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
July 22nd, 2007, 06:37 PM #11Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing
July 22nd, 2007, 07:19 PM #12
It's no secret that the Bushes have been linked to the Bin Ladens for decades. Don't forget that it was the CIA that trained and funded the Fedayen to help defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan."Education: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the
foolish their lack of understanding."
July 22nd, 2007, 08:21 PM #13I don't see what's wrong with current practice of reporting suspicious behavior
This relates specifically to the "Flying Imams" who are now suing the airline and 100 "John Does". The idea is to intimidate people from complaining Koran carrying foreigners who act suspiciously in such as way as to look like maybe they are up to no good.
This is page one of "Security 1A" of the Democrat war on terror: Do not interfere with the government. Get on the plane and get blow up like a good citizen. If you report them, you will be sued."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
July 22nd, 2007, 08:40 PM #14
Under current torts law there is no liability for someone reporting suspicious behavor, in good faith, to authorities. Therefore, the law is unnecessary. As conservatives I thought you guys are against more laws.
In this country you can sue anyone you want, it doesn't mean they really have a case. Without the King amendment, I can't see any judge upholding a lawsuit against persons alerting authorities.
July 22nd, 2007, 08:44 PM #15"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By waynezo in forum Security and Privacy IssuesReplies: 14Last Post: July 6th, 2007, 08:32 AM
By Pexster in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 0Last Post: December 19th, 2005, 01:47 PM
By jetman in forum MotherboardsReplies: 0Last Post: June 7th, 2004, 07:47 PM
By Epidemic in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 14Last Post: April 11th, 2003, 07:33 AM