Democrats Kill “John Doe” Provision from Homeland Security Bill
Audrey Hudson of the Washington Times reports:
Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders.
The article does not explain the Democrats’ logic, and I cannot fathom it. Does anyone care to defend the Dems on this?
Does Congress really need to pass a law to protect a few Americans (the flying Imams case) from civil penalties?
alphie (015011) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:21 pm“The article does not explain the Democrats’ logic, and I cannot fathom it. Does anyone care to defend the Dems on this?”
Can’t be done.
Does Congress really need to pass a law to protect a few Americans (the flying Imams case) from civil penalties?
Comment by alphie
Ask me that the next time an American sees something suspicious and keeps his/her mouth shut for fear of bogus legal action, and San Francisco desapears. On second thought, don’t, as I will be in no mood to speak to anyone even remotely responsible.
rickinstl (59b5af) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:34 pmAlphie is on the right track. There are other criminals who engage in suspicious activity, which people report to police. Are they not protected already? Why do people reporting suspicions of terrorism need to be specially protected? What’s the difference between a possible drug pusher and possible terrorist in this regard? If there is no protection for reporting possible criminal activity, it needs to be done for all criminal activity, not just the super deluxe brand name type of criminal activity. And if there is already protection, then it should apply to the super deluxe brand name type without any special effort on the part of Congress.
kishnevi (3e2760) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:40 pmThis will sound like a flippant response and I may be dead wrong but I think Democrats don’t like this provision because it is a restriction on the right to sue. Therefore, however slightly, it opens the door to tort reform.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:42 pmThis is “Reason #437 Why the Capitol Hill Water Supply Needs to be Tested for Lead Contamination.”
I mean nobody–NOBODY–could be so stupid as to vote against this type of provision…unless lead has already filtered into their brain and perception of reality.
I’ll finally know if my suspicions are correct when Robert Byrd declares himself Emperor on the Senate floor and appoints his fav-o-rite stud horse as his replacement.
“I knew Caligula. I worked with Caligula. And, by God sir, you’re no Caligula!”
MarkJ (42fe5b) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:51 pmThe common law rule is that any person can bring a good-faith complaint, resulting in arrrest, detention and trial, against another person, without fear of being sued. So this is nothing more, if that much, of a codification of that. I know Illinois follows that rule and I expect that most other states with the possible exception of Louisiana also do, and with the state law of the venue being the rule of decision under Erie ….
But who gives a #$$% in any case. In an older thread here, assistant devil’s advocate made a very good point: Thirty thousand feet up in the air, at 500 mph, is no time and place for due process, cultural sensitivity and political correctness. If I’m flying with my five-year old daughter and some blond-haired, blue-eyed Methodist makes even the slightest threatening move he will find my teeth in his throat.
nk (37689a) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:05 pmMy son thinks Democrats might be concerned this provision would encourage profiling and prejudice against specific religious and ethnic groups.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:10 pmOn the one side is that claim that “prejudice” would be encourage ( the mechanism is of course vague ) and on the other hand is the concern that people would be more reluctant to report suspicious behavior and therefore make real terrorists’ job marginally easier.
That isn’t an argument that is going to convince anyone. Certainly not the general American public who already has a lot of problems with the “profiling” that isn’t being done enough to satisfy them.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:18 pmI’ll finally know if my suspicions are correct when Robert Byrd declares himself Emperor on the Senate floor and appoints his fav-o-rite stud horse as his replacement.
“I knew Caligula. I worked with Caligula. And, by God sir, you’re no Caligula!”
My impresion is that Caligula got a very bad rap from British historians because a) unlike Tiberius he eschewed boys and went strictly after women and b) he was a capable military commander who was not too effete to march alongside his troops (caliga was the Roman soldier’s boot, caligula, “little boot”).
(Also, Caligula appointed his horse as a Senator, not his replacement, and it’s extremely unlikely that it was a stud. Studs make very bad riding horses. It was either a mare or a gelding.) 😉
nk (37689a) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:21 pmThe Dems are bought and paid for by the plaintiffs bar, and they would never allow any restrictions on their God-given right to sue anybody they want over anything they want.
JD (a04d17) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:50 pmAnd, JD, bought and paid for by the racial (or whatever) grievance crowd.
Patricia (824fa1) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:56 pmDemocrats – Proudly undermining America since 1968.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:18 pmMy impresion is that Caligula got a very bad rap from British historians because a) unlike Tiberius he eschewed boys and went strictly after women and b) he was a capable military commander who was not too effete to march alongside his troops (caliga was the Roman soldier’s boot, caligula, “little boot”
Well, actually, he went after his sisters. I’m not sure if most people would think that was an actual improvement over Tiberius. And to be fair to Tiberius, the romping-with-boys came fairly late in life; in youth and middle age he went afer women.
As for Caligula’s military prowes–his nickname was given to him as a boy by his father’s men. In fact, Caligula’s initial support among the Romans stemmed from the fact that he was his father’s son, and he was quite different from his predecessor. However, since George W Bush didn’t marry his sisters, didn’t wish all of Washington DC had one neck so he could off its head with one stroke, and didn’t declare himself a god, it’s probably not wise to push the parallel. Caligula’s actual military record is not so much bad as non existent–for instance, in lieu of invading Britain because he had no transport shipping, he had his soldiers beat the waters of the Channel with their swords to punish Neptune, and later celebrated this with a triumph.
kishnevi (3e2760) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:47 pmA lot of the stories told about him may be propaganda manufactured after his death, but he was killed by his own military guard, who got fed up with the abuse and pranks he inflicted on them on a regular basis.
I too am gobsmacked by this move by the Dems — one that ought to be useful during the next election cycle when “Who’s to be trusted with your safety?” becomes an issue.
Like some of the other commenters, the only thing that makes sense to me is the trial-lawyer lobby’s opposition to anything that even hints of tort reform, as well as pandering to the race pimps and grievance lobby.
Mike Lief (e6260e) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:04 pmI remember when my fellow Republicans were against redundant legislation like this.
What happened?
alphie (015011) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:29 pmalphie is a “staunch Republican.”
Patterico (fefc89) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:37 pm9/11.
Plus, America went to war and the Democrats decided to stay home.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:37 pm“What happened?”
People had a good faith complaint in the Flying Imams case… and then there was a lawsuit. AFAIK it wasn’t chucked.
Al (b624ac) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:50 pmWho gets to bedice whether the complaint was made in good faith or bad faith, al?
I believe some of our fellow citizens called the cops becuse the Imams were praying before the flight.
I know many Christians who do the same thing…
alphie (015011) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:54 pmPatterico, you’d think Moby would be busy in the studio.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/19/2007 @ 9:09 pmCan we call them traitors yet?
thebronze (c16d9b) — 7/19/2007 @ 9:47 pmalphie – There appears to be a significant difference between what you believe, and the actual truth, not that it would ever stop you.
JD (a04d17) — 7/19/2007 @ 9:51 pmI think the Democrats’ logic is that this could be a useful tool for this administration in fighting the GWOT, and that’s not something that will help their chances in ’08.
Some Stupid With A Flare Gun (9090dd) — 7/19/2007 @ 10:05 pmJD,
I see shades of the killing of Kathryn Johnston, the 92 year old Atlanta woman, here.
It doesn’t seem like a good idea to give blanket immunity to informants or the people who act on the information the informants provide.
The discussion in Congress over this amendment touched on the fact that the language was rather “thin.”
I dug around in the Congressional record to read the actual amendment, here it be:
SEC. __X. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES AND MITIGATING TERRORIST THREATS RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.
(a) Immunity for Reporting Suspicious Behavior.–Any person who makes or causes to be made a voluntary disclosure of any suspicious transaction, activity or occurrence indicating that an individual may be engaging or preparing to engage in a matter described in subsection (b) to any employee or agent of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Justice, any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, any transportation security officer, or to any employee or agent of a transportation system shall be immune from civil liability to any person under any law or regulation of the United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision of any State, for such disclosure.
(b) Covered Disclosures.–The matter referred to in subsection (a) is a possible violation or attempted violation of law or regulation relatingX
(1) to a threat to transportation systems or passenger safety or security; or
(2) to an act of terrorism, as defined in section 3077 of title 18, United States Code, that involves or is directed against transportation systems or passengers.
(c) Immunity for Mitigation of Threats.–Any person, including an owner, operator or employee of a transportation system, who takes reasonable action to mitigate a suspicious matter described in subsection (b) shall be immune from civil liability to any person under any law or regulation of the United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision of any State, for such action.
(d) Limitation on Application.–Subsection (a) shall not apply to a statement or disclosure by a person that, at the time it is made, is known by the person to be false.
(e) Attorney Fees and Costs.–If a person is named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit for making voluntary disclosures of any suspicious transaction or taking actions to mitigate a suspicious matter described in subsection (b), and the person is found to be immune from civil liability under this section, the person shall be entitled to recover from the plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney’s fees as allowed by the court.
(f) Retroactive Application.–This section shall apply to activities and claims occurring on or after November 20, 2006.
alphie (015011) — 7/19/2007 @ 10:23 pmAlphie, did the Johnson case involve national security in the area of transportation? I wonder who is a better judge of what is suspicious behavior looks like. You, who only flys on chemicals or people who actually board airplanes? It comes down to who are you going to believe those who want to kill you or your fellow Americans who share some of your values? Although in your case, those who share your values are more likely to be al Qaeda than Baptist.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (434c4d) — 7/19/2007 @ 10:42 pmAnd you think that immunity from civil suit for the reporting citizen is blanket immunity for “informants or the people who act on the information the informants provide.”?
Same old Alphie.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/20/2007 @ 3:05 am#12: You don’t go nearly far enough back.
What we have here is the same Copperheads who referred to Abe the Ape in 1860.
Democrats, treason, and slave-takers: it’s the only tradition they have.
SDN (b41081) — 7/20/2007 @ 3:47 amAlphie: your next logical post will be your first.
Immunity from a lawsuit for expressing your concerns over security in the transportation sector is not even close to blanket immunity that you describe.
Suppose you (gasp!) were to report activity that you thought was suspicious (whatever that may entail) and then ended up being sued as a jane-doe for that, would you still feel as you do?
Lord Nazh© (899dce) — 7/20/2007 @ 4:43 amAlphie, were your position arrived at in good faith, you would note that section should alleviate your stated concerns.
If you reviewed the Congressional record, you also saw how this passed with in excess of 300 votes, making it rather bi-partisan. Remember, when the R’s were running Congress, bipartisanship was a quality to aspire to.
JD (a04d17) — 7/20/2007 @ 5:05 amUm… how do you spell double jeopardy?
Sued if you do… imprisoned if you don’t.
Terp Mole (9355ce) — 7/20/2007 @ 5:43 amHey Terp, you might compare “actual commission of a felony” with “suspicious transaction”.
Did anyone yet take up the challenge why anti-terror informants needs more protection in case of “error” than other informants? Like, it just couldn’t be pandering to nutcases and bigots who can’t wait to turn in their dark-skinned neighbors.
Andrew J. Lazarus (da831b) — 7/20/2007 @ 6:01 amalphie, the kathryn johnston case has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with flying imams/agents provocateur acting up on planes to probe our defenses, then turning around and suing the defenders.
i know why the dems left the immunity provision out of the bill. my party tragically lost its way in the 1960’s when it conceived the notion of group rights, then tried to unite a number of fringe demographics against the big american middle. their distributive democracy is nothing more than an ethnic spoils system, and muslims are just one of the elements of their constituency to be pandered to in order to keep them on board. nancy pelosi’s sacred ground/reverence quote in the article made me laugh; queried about this issue, what else could she do but misdirection clothed in public piety, which is always great for gulling the rubes.
unfortunately the repubs tragically lost their way too when their corporate-christian axis gained control, leading to our current state of a scary party and a laughable party, monsters and clowns. i was surprised to see alphie fess to being a monster (#15); i’m not entirely persuaded.
when the flying imams get around to suing me, i’m bringing a package of bacon along on our dates, and i’m open to settling the dispute in the parking lot before we reach the courtroom.
assistant devil's advocate (01dec7) — 7/20/2007 @ 6:42 amWhat “error”? Reporting suspicious behavior is just that. If the report is accurate, there’s no error, regardless of the outcome. If the report is false, the legislation wouldn’t protect the reporter. As for any follow up, that determination is made by the authorities, not the reporter.
The reason to directly protect such reporters is to encourage them to report suspicious behavior when they see it without fear of getting sued by the likes of CAIR for doing exactly what we’ve been asking people to do for going on 7 years now. I thought that was self evident.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/20/2007 @ 7:24 amThe passengers who informed the airline about the imams didn’t do so because they were merely praying. The imams were heard invoking bin Laden and denouncing the U.S. for killing Saddam, they refused to sit in their assigned seats, and requested seat belt extenders, even though they had no need of them.
NYC 2L (e03492) — 7/20/2007 @ 7:34 amWrong. The reporter has to know the report is false to lose immunity.
Moops (99fd9d) — 7/20/2007 @ 8:15 amIf I’m willing to hire a lawyer, I’m pretty sure I can get out of a lawsuit for reporting criminal behavior, even in error. What we need to protect is against ending up in court for reporting suspicious behavior.
If there is a rationale behind not enacting this statute, I don’t think any of our respondents here have hit on it yet.
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 7/20/2007 @ 8:40 amWrong. The reporter is reporting what they’ve observed, not making judgments on underlying facts. If they saw what they say they saw, the report is accurate. If they report something else, they know it’s false and they’re not protected.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/20/2007 @ 8:55 amSo, Pablo, why is this legislation necessary? We don’t have legislation like this exempting people who report suspicions about possible drug dealers. Under what theory can anyone be sued successfully for making a true report to law enforcement about something that they have personally witnessed? Why do I sense a different agenda…
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 7/20/2007 @ 9:17 amI can’t answer for Pablo, but personally I would prefer not to be sued at all rather than simply relying on the suit to be unsuccessful. I think the idea is we want to clear away any disincentives to report suspicious behavior, and even unsuccessful lawsuits are disincentives.
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 7/20/2007 @ 9:28 amJust curious, Andrew, do you support or oppose hate crimes laws? Since it’s already against the law to lynch a black or torch a synagogue or beat up a homosexual couple, surely hate crimes legislation is unnecessary.
DubiousD (a5aa64) — 7/20/2007 @ 9:51 amSpongeworthy: are you supporting a blanket rule to stop such suits (including about drug dealing) or are does your rule hold only for so-called terrorists?
DubiousD: I oppose all crimes, including hate crimes. But to answer the real question: I think a hate-crime motivation should be taken into account in sentencing (as should other types of criminal motive) and be seen as especially heinous. Whether this is accomplished through sentencing guidelines or a separate charge is a technical issue. I think in certain cases it became necessary for historically contingent reasons to have civil rights legislation, e.g., laws that make it a crime to prevent someone from voting on the basis of their race, that had to be federalized because the Southern states had no interest in doing the right thing. But I don’t think there can be a “hate” crime without an underlying ordinary crime.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 7/20/2007 @ 11:46 amAJL, until I see compelling reasons not to, I am supporting this particular piece of legislation. It appears some individuals intend to push the “suspicious behavior” envelope and some groups intend to penalize anybody who raises a question about that behavior.
Which is fine if you’re a lawyer and all, but if you’re not as well-heeled as CAIR, for example, then that just ain’t right.
Can you give me any compelling reason why this legislation wouldn’t successfully pre-empt such shenanigans?
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 7/20/2007 @ 11:53 amSo, Pablo, why is this legislation necessary?
….
Why do I sense a different agenda…
There is an agenda. See CAIR/Flying Imams v. John Does.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/20/2007 @ 12:11 pmWell, no it isn’t. A separate charge is just that. It is not a sentencing issue. A conviction on a charge requires a BRD finding, and the conviction on it stands alone. It is not the same thing as a finding of “special circumstances” such as with CA death penalty law, which allows for a sentencing enhancement. It is a unique charge, and a person could conceivably be found guilty of a “hate crime” while acquitted of the underlying crime. Sort of like Scooter Libby being convicted of obstruction of justice when there was no justice (investigation/prosecution of an underlying crime committed) that was obstructed.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/20/2007 @ 12:18 pmAndrew,
“Hate Crime” prosecutions give the government a second shot at finding someone guilty for the same crime, don’t they?
They would seem to violate our Fifth Amendment protection against “double jeopardy.”
alphie (015011) — 7/20/2007 @ 12:20 pmPablo–re 33–I think AJL was referring to my earlier question (not a challenge, really, just a request for information I don’t have), but “error” was his type for “terror”.
Look–as it stands now, people who report suspicious activity either are protected from suits or are not protected from suits; it doesn’t matter whether the suspicious activity is related to terrorism or to ordinary criminal activity. If they already are protected, why does suspicious acts of a terrorist nature need to get special protection? If they are not already protected, why does suspicious acts of a terrorist nature get the protection that the rest does not?
The law is illogical. Either the protection already exists in general, and is not needed; or the protection does not already exist, and should be put into place for everyone. If CAIR can’t sue me for reporting suspicious imams, then the NAACP shouldn’t be able to sue me for reporting suspicious drug pushers.
Any other alternative is simply Big Brother urging all goodpersons to do their part in uncovering yet another front organization for Emmanuel Goldstein.
kishnevi (8d267e) — 7/20/2007 @ 1:45 pm(And to answer DubiousD’s question for myself–I see absolutely no need for hate crimes legislation.)
Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. I do not support laws written in this way. However, I don’t think either of us have a problem with separate charges for (say) use of a firearm in commission of a felony. Or that there is a difference between assault and aggravated assault.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 7/20/2007 @ 2:04 pmAs kishnevi and I have said, either we need this legislation for all cases, not just terrorism, or this legislation is intended to do much more than pre-empt shenanigans (or, I suppose, that it is redundant).
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 7/20/2007 @ 2:11 pmWhat is this all about?
Class warfare. Liberals like Alphie and Andrew J. Lazarus put aggressive, Hamas-sponsored organizations like CAIR (an un-indicted co-conspirator of Hamas) over the rights of the average person not to die in a terrorist attack at 50,000 feet.
We are the “little Eichmans” and our lives are “the cost of doing business in the global economy” according to Liberals. Not worth protecting. All real liberals fly on private airplanes. Or aspire to (as part of their special status).
CAIR (again, an offshoot of Hamas and an un-indicted co-conspirator of the same) have conducted an aggressive campaign including threats, suspicious behavior (coming in a group and occupying seats next to the exits, throat cutting gestures, taking suspicious liquids that resemble explosives into the bathroom) to degrade security and enable the next wave of attacks.
This should surprise no one since CAIR was founded by Hamas people with Hamas money. And is enmeshed in terror funding of all sorts of nasties.
Dems have put themselves on the same side as terrorists and should pay the political price when AQ succeeds in blowing more of us up. Of course they do this because as the elite class they have nothing but contempt for Joe Average (right back at ya Dems) and prefer their moral superiority to their duty to protect us.
The American Public is on their own. “If you see something keep your mouth shut!” is the Dems/CAIR/HAMAS message. Proceed accordingly.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 7/20/2007 @ 2:20 pmWhat a patently unserious position to take, Andrew. There are likely tens of thousands of laws that are limited in scope, and in this one, they are limiting it to suspected terrorist activities. This is the result of the feeble Congressional Republican leadership, and an entirely predictable result of letting people like Pelosi and Reid run the chambers.
The Flying Imams should be able to sue anybody they like. If the jihadi sitting in the row behind you starts spewing his odes to Bin Laden, don’t come whining when you are served with your civil suit. Why should there be ANY disincentives to encouraging people to do what they should naturally want to do in that situation?
I fear that the folks that defend this reprehensible action by the Congressional Dems simply do not care. Personally, the R’s should have taken care of this when they were running the show, and this is an example of their failures, but to actively and secretly subvert it the way this was done is flat out wrong. 304 in the House and 57 in the Senate voted for it.
I have yet to see a good defense of why this should have been done. I have seen much misdirection, changing subject, etc …
JD (a04d17) — 7/20/2007 @ 2:24 pmLabeling everyone who disagrees with you a “terrorist” Jim?
How’d that work out for you guys last election?
alphie (015011) — 7/20/2007 @ 2:24 pmKishnevi,
From a legal perspective, I agree with everything you say but I think there is a legitimate concern that we don’t want people to be reluctant to report suspicious behavior – especially now, when just 1 person or 1 vehicle can pose a significant danger. I think you should take into account the chilling effect of seeing concerned citizens have to hire attorneys and defend themselves in court. I don’t want people to hesitate to report suspicious behavior just because they may have concerns about being sued.
Frankly, after seeing what resulted from the Flying Imams case, I would think twice about reporting suspicious behavior, wouldn’t you? Virtually every case is going to be a borderline case. It would be easy to see something strange and decide to ignore it, especially knowing how onerous it can be to get sued. In today’s world, I don’t want the fear of being sued to keep anyone from reporting something that might save a life.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/20/2007 @ 2:32 pmJim – Remember, alphie is a “fellow Republican”. That is one of the more laughable comments that it has spewed.
JD (a04d17) — 7/20/2007 @ 2:33 pmHaha, I’m not a “fellow” Republican, JD.
I’m a Republican.
Nothing gives me more pleasure than imagining losers like Frist, DeLay, Pombo and Santorum fighting each other to suckle at the wingnut welfare teat, which is dwindling to a trickle.
Good riddance.
St. Ronnie would have kept them well out of power.
alphie (015011) — 7/20/2007 @ 2:41 pmIf alphie is a Republican, then Oliver Willis is skinny.
JD (a04d17) — 7/20/2007 @ 2:52 pmkishnevi,
So that you don’t have the likes of CAIR/Flying Imams making people defend themselves for acting to protect themselves and their communities as we’ve asked them to. Again, it’s self evident.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/20/2007 @ 3:41 pmDefine the “much more”, please, Andrew.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/20/2007 @ 3:44 pmDRJ–then what you need is not another law, but a conservative foundation standing pubicly ready to defend anyone against a CAIR lawsuit. If the evangelicals can have the meshumad Sekulow and his group ready to do battle for them in cases they care about, why not conservatives actually concerned with improving security against terrorism?
Another defect in the proposed law was its limitation to transportation. Perhaps this is a symptom of the mindset that sees the next 9/11 as something involving aircraft. I don’t. If I were a jihadi, I would be setting my brains to poisoning the water supply, planting dirty bombs in Chicago, and similar things. If we’re lucky, the jihadis aren’t thinking like me, but I don’t think relying on luck is a good thing. And the limitation to transportation is a problem. It wouldn’t protect someone who sees and reports someone acting like they’re surveying a good place to plant bombs to demolish Hoover Dam, or who acts like a suicide bomber scoping out BART or McDonalds at rush hour.
kishnevi (191aeb) — 7/20/2007 @ 4:57 pmKishnevi,
I like the foundation idea as a solution and I would have agreed with it before 9/11. However, as I said before, today we need laws that make people feel confident they can report suspicious behavior. We don’t need laws that make them think twice about reporting or wonder if they should first call a legal foundation to help them with their defense.
In addition, I’m not sure why the legal foundation you suggest needs to be a conservative foundation. Don’t liberals want to help people report suspicious behavior and/or defend them if they do?
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/20/2007 @ 5:24 pmK-
If the legislation is limited to aircraft (I don’t know but I’ll take your word for it), isn’t that further evidence that this law was designed to respond to the CAIR/Flying Imams case, and isn’t that what Congress is supposed to do?
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/20/2007 @ 5:26 pmWhy a conservative foundation? What’s your logic there?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/20/2007 @ 5:28 pm-I remember when my fellow Republicans were against redundant legislation like this.
-What happened?
-9/11.
“We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it”
brilliant.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/20/2007 @ 5:53 pmDRJ–I’m relying on the text provided by Alphie in comment 24, which refers to transportation and only transportation. It doesn’t actually limit itself to aircraft. I was a little too quick to refer to suicide bomber on BART as an exception: BART being transportation, that situation would be covered. But a person acting like a suicide bomber at a Las Vegas trade show would not be prohibited from suing those who reported him by this law.
As for the conservative nature of the foundation–let’s just call that political reality. I used to be a very liberal Democrat, until I noticed how prone other liberal Democrats were to support terrorism as long as it was directed against Israel. (I’m Jewish, which is why I referred to Mr. Sekulow as meshumad.) That didn’t make me change my politics overnight, but it did catalyze the change that ended up in my becoming a libertarian. Stricly speaking, I’m well to the right of most of the people who comment here at Patterico. In fact, so far to the right that I do come out sometimes sounding like a leftie 🙂 And I never abandoned my dislike of the GOP. I just broadened it out to include the Democratic Party in that dislike.
kishnevi (191aeb) — 7/20/2007 @ 6:46 pmI do tend to supsect anything that comes out of DC as based on political grandstanding. This bill is a good example. If it is needed, it is needed to cover all criminal activities, not just terrorism.
Nor, going by the text provided by Alphie, would it really keep the lawsuits from being filed. A CAIR lawyer would simply insert an allegation that the person making the report knew it to be, or had substantial reason to know it to be, false, and the person making the report would still face the problems of being sued.
K –
But it’s that politicized environment that makes it impossible to pass general laws that cover all criminal activities. In fact, it’s apparently impossible to pass laws that cover this one situation.
Yes, but wouldn’t the burden shift in that situation so the person targeted for suspicious behavior would have the burden of showing the reporter acted wrongfully? We can’t stop people from suing (and I don’t want to – I am a lawyer after all!), but we’re better off with a system that encourages people to report suspicious behavior rather than a system that discourages reports by exposing the reporter to more risk.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/20/2007 @ 6:57 pmBut there’d have to have been something reported to authorities that could reasonably construed as being false. In the Flying Imams case, there was no such report. Nothing that was reported was, to my knowledge, in any way inaccurate.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/20/2007 @ 7:01 pmRight, and such a suit could still be filed. Any suit, no matter how ridiculous, can be filed. But this would simply give the Judge a legal basis for summary dismissal upon a coherent answer that demonstrates the reporting was factual.
Those who would like to spin this as creating carte blanche to make false reports to authorities are doing just that: spinning.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/20/2007 @ 7:11 pmPablo–I’m not spinning, I’m just pointing out that proposed law would not really protect people from harrassing suits. DRJ’s idea (I think) is that with the law in place, people would not need to fear being sued: they wouldn’t be filed in the first place, and you wouldn’t need to hire a lawyer to get it dismissed. I disagree with that. It would not stop Flying Imam suits. And, assuming Alphie’s text is accurate (and I have no reason to assume it isn’t) it would not protect people from Sightseeing Imams who act out a bomb laying survey of Hoover Dam. Even in terms of protecting people who want to report possible terrorism, it’s too limited.
kishnevi (191aeb) — 7/20/2007 @ 8:32 pmKishnevi & Pablo,
First, shifting the burden would not prohibit people from filing suit but it would make it harder to succeed.
Second, I don’t think this law would prevent lawsuits in the short term but I think it would (1) do more to protect people who have lawsuits filed against them and, in the long term, (2) it might reduce the number of lawsuits filed because of the difficulty in meeting the burden.
IMO Pablo and I have generally agreed throughout this discussion but now both of you think I’ve taken another position. I must not be communicating well.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/20/2007 @ 9:17 pmKrishnavi is right, this was just more stupid political grandstanding dressed up as legislation. Maybe the Dems that voted against it did so coz it was more stupid political grandstanding dressed up as legislation… “vote with US or YOU are with the TERRORISTS!!!!” yada yada yada……
Ed Wood (6c95fb) — 7/20/2007 @ 10:59 pmAre the new protections really useful or are they just a big song and dance designed to try and trick us voters into believing that ONLY Republicans CARE about terror and those other guys dont!!!!!!
Even if one buys into the argument that congressmen only care about their Big Corporate Contributors and not the rest of us, Congressmen all still have to care about protecting the country from terror coz ALL congressmen regardless of party have investments and alliances that can only go south if more terrorists suceed in killing more Americans in America. How could anyone in power look like anything but a putz if any terrorists get another big win? No matter how many fingers they point at the other side and “experts” they have in the media explaining how its the other sides fault?
How will passing another hastily written, special case law help us all be safer or congress and Homland Security not look like fools if the law is passed and some loser opens fire on a bunch of citizens ANYWAY?
They had to do something to justify all that money they get from the plaintif’s bar.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/20/2007 @ 11:08 pmWell, the facts are in dispute. For example, one of the imams claims to weigh 290 pounds and to need a seatbelt extender. The John Does said none of the imams used an extender.
Frankly, I think it’s possible that the imams staged some sort of publicity stunt. I seem to recall an activist group for the blind having an exit row sit-in on an aircraft once. Dragging blind people off isn’t good PR. In our system of justice, the courtroom is a good place to adjudicate these questions. To show an example the other way, I don’t think we should tolerate the refusal of a pilot to fly an aircraft because a Muslim passenger who hadn’t done anything at all suspicious was on it. (AFAIK, the civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination trump the authority of the pilot in a case like this.)
No one has yet even tried to explain seriously why we don’t need the same exemption for people who turn in drug dealers. It can’t be that CAIR can sue and drug dealers can’t, because drug dealers can.
Andrew J. Lazarus (093d5a) — 7/20/2007 @ 11:33 pmHave you seen pictures/video of them? I have. No 300 pounder. And several of them asked for extenders which they then put on the floor, under their seats.
That’s only in dispute if you need it to be. Otherwise, it isn’t.
Do you think it’s probable? I do.
What does that have to do with whether this is good legislation or not? If you’re truly concerned about people who report on drug dealers being sued, call your congressman and ask him/her to introduce a bill.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/21/2007 @ 2:47 amEd Wood,
That big song and dance? Quietly passed the house by Democrat controlled House on a 304-121 vote. There’s far more coverage of it being removed than there was of it being passed.
!!!!!!
The point is too keep people from being intimidated about reporting suspicious behavior, which is exactly what CAIR hopes to do by suing reporters.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/21/2007 @ 2:53 amPablo said:
Right on cue, Cox and Forkum make another brilliant political observation via political cartoon, buttressing that point.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/21/2007 @ 6:02 amyou folks comparing terrorists to drug dealers are nuts. if you don’t report the drug dealer’s suspicious activity, he might sell drugs to people. if you don’t report the terrorist’s suspicious activity, he might kill thousands of people in a single stroke. it’s the magnitude of the risk, stupid. extraordinary risks call for extraordinary measures.
assistant devil's advocate (3747e3) — 7/21/2007 @ 7:44 amDRJ,
Or it’s me. We’re still in agreement and my response was intended to bolster your point, ie: this would allow a defendant in such a suit to easily obtain summary dismissal.
kishnevi,
Others are, by suggesting there’s a nefarious, racist intent motivating this legislation.
Of course, any suit can be filed for any reason whatsoever. The point is that you wouldn’t have to go to the expense of having a lawyer put on a defense as you’d be able to get the suit dismissed as unable to proceed under this law. It would also allow a defendant found to be immune from civil liability in such a suit to recover costs and attorney’s fees from the plaintiff. So, IOW, filing such a suit backfires on the plaintiff. Instead of discouraging someone from reporting for fear of legal costs, it discourages filing such suits for fear of legal costs and the great improbability of success.
Right. It would make them pointless, and make the FI’s pay for filing them instead of those they’re trying to intimidate.
Well, I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions on alphie’s presentation of the facts, [Heh – ed.] so I’ll simply paste the text as I cut it.
SEC. __. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTS OF SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR AND RESPONSE.
(a) Immunity for Reports of Suspicious Behavior.–
(1) IN GENERAL.–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.
(2) FALSE REPORTS.–Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any report that the person knew to be false at the time that person made that report.
(b) Immunity for Response.–
(1) IN GENERAL.–Any authorized official who observes, or receives a report of, covered activity and takes reasonable action to respond to such activity shall be immune from civil liability under Federal, State, and local law for such action.
(2) SAVINGS CLAUSE.–Nothing in this subsection shall affect the ability of any authorized official to assert any defense, privilege, or immunity that would otherwise be available, and this subsection shall not be construed as affecting any such defense, privilege, or immunity.
(c) Attorney Fees and Costs.–Any person or authorized official found to be immune from civil liability under this section shall be entitled to recover from the plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney fees.
(d) Definitions.–In this section:
(1) AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL.–The term “authorized official” means–
(A) any employee or agent of a mass transportation system;
(B) any officer, employee, or agent of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Justice;
(C) any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
(D) any transportation security officer.
(2) COVERED ACTIVITY.–The term “covered activity” means any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence indicating that an individual may be engaging, or preparing to engage, in–
(A) a violent act or act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be such a violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State; or
(B) an act of terrorism (as that term is defined in section 3077 of title 18, United States Code) that involves, or is directed against, a mass transportation system or vehicle or its passengers.
(3) MASS TRANSPORTATION.–The term “mass transportation”–
(A) has the meaning given to that term in section 5302(a)(7) of title 49, United States Code; and
(B) includes–
(i) school bus, charter, or intercity bus transportation;
(ii) intercity passenger rail transportation;
(iii) sightseeing transportation;
(iv) a passenger vessel as that term is defined in section 2101(22) of title 46, United States Code;
(v) other regularly scheduled waterborne transportation service of passengers by vessel of at least 20 gross tons; and
(vi) air transportation as that term is defined in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code.
(4) MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.–The term “mass transportation system” means an entity or entities organized to provide mass transportation using vehicles, including the infrastructure used to provide such transportation.
(5) VEHICLE.–The term “vehicle” has the meaning given to that term in section 1992(16) of title 18, United States Code.
(e) Effective Date.–This section shall take effect on November 20, 2006, and shall apply to all activities and claims occurring on or after such date.
End
Item (A) under “Covered Activity” would seem to alleviate that concern.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/21/2007 @ 7:45 amada,
And if you do report the drug dealer, your bigger concern may be that he kills you. Has anyone seen a “He narced on me for slinging dope” suit?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/21/2007 @ 7:47 amPablo #76,
Good post. Thank you for taking the time to unravel this thread and tie it together.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/21/2007 @ 10:58 amComing from you, DRJ, that’s high praise, though I’m not convinced I deserve it. Thank you.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/21/2007 @ 6:12 pmPablo, please add my thanks to DRJs.
But if section A is as broad as you think it is, then section B is sort of redundant. (Unless the technical definition of terrorism referred in section B differs from the common sense definition. At the very least, I can’t think of any terrorist act that isn’t “dangerous to human life”.) And I would change the language of section A from a violent act or act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of to “an act that is a violation of the criminal laws of…”
And you would still need a lawyer to file the paperwork to dismiss this suit, at least in some jurisdictions, and navigate the technical hurdles. And some of those hurdles are not too obvious. I know of one courthouse local to me which thinks (or at least used to think)pro se litigants who used the wrong sized paper were a cause for much complaint (pun semi-intended).
kishnevi (950fba) — 7/21/2007 @ 7:05 pmMy pleasure, kishnevei. And yes, it ain’t perfect, but then, it is Congress we’re talking about. If redundancy is the worst thing about it, I can live with that. I would guess that is probably there because it’s in a transportation security bill, so they wanted to speak specifically to that in (B) where (A) is the broader protection they really want. Just a guess, though.
And you’re right about paper size, in a lot of courts. They don’t care who you are, you’ve got to file on the right size paper.
But then, that makes good sense if you’re responsible for maintaining the files and you find yourself trying to fit a 14″ file in a 12″ drawer. 😉
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2007 @ 4:46 amThe Flying Imams and Their Supporters
Remember the incident a few months back when a group of Muslim Imams were boarding a flight from Minneapolis and Phoenix and proceeded to draw so much attention to themselves that passengers on the flight alerted airline officials and police? Prior to the boarding, the Imams were observed and overheard not only praising Allah, but praising Saddam Hussein while making derogatory remarks about Bush. So far, OK, but once on board, the Imams drew more attention to themselves by constantly changing seats, exchanging furtive glances and asking for seat belt extenders (which they did not need.) Finally, many of the passengers had enough and complained to flight personnel. As a result, the Imams were taken off the plane by police for further investigation. Once the police were satisfied that there was no threat, they were allowed to board a later flight to Phoenix. Now, the Imams, supported by the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR), are bringing a lawsuit against the airline (US Air). In addition, they are subpoening the names of all those passengers who alerted the authorities. They may have some supporters in Congress, believe it or not.
First, of all, the whole episode smells to me like a set-up. By that, I mean that I suspect these individuals purposely orchestrated the event to get themselves thrown off the plane so that they could bring a lawsuit. Wasn’t it unusual that once they finally arrived in Phoenix, they were met by many of their supporters and TV news crews as well?
Not content with their in-your-face behavior at Minneapolis Airport, the “Flying Imams” now are acting to further isolate the American Muslim community as a whole from the rest of the American people by bringing this lawsuit. Even more outrageous, the passengers, who in a post-9-11 world, did what any normal person on an airplane would do in those circumstances, are now faced with subpoenas, harassment and possibly being sued as well. What is the purpose of that? I’ll tell you what the purpose is- to make the American public afraid to report suspicious behavior to the authorities.
To counter that very threat, in the wake of the Imam incident, Congress initiated steps to protect the public from legal repercussions from having reported suspicious behavior that could be a terrorist act in the making. Now, believe it or not, just this week, Democratic members of the House of Representatives, led by Nancy Pelosi, are working to remove that portion from Homeland Security legislation.
Remember, this is the same party that is trying to ensure our defeat in Iraq. OK, you say they are only against the war, like at least half of the American public. Yet, they are also against the wiretapping of suspected Al Quaida members calling numbers in the US. “Wiretapping innocent Americans” they call it. Well, who knows? I guess any of us are liable to get a wrong number call from Osama bin Laden. They also think that captured terrorists should enjoy all the rights of our Federal courts, defense attorneys, evidence suppression hearings and all that good stuff.
So why would some Democrats in Congress want to remove any protection from those who alert the police to suspected terrorist activity? Don’t ask me. Maybe they are just looking out for their friends in the legal profession. Maybe we should write to them and ask.
As for CAIR and the “Flying Imams” themselves, they should think twice about what they are doing. They are only going to further alienate public opinion against Muslims. CAIR is already suspected by many to have terrorist sympathies. They are always trying to tell us that they are moderates and only want to increase understanding between US Muslims and the public at large in America. This lawsuit is not the way to do it. Even if their intentions are pure, and they only want to protect American Muslims from profiling, they have to recognize that Islamic-inspired terrorism is a fact of life in today’s world. If they choose to engage in litigation, they are only sending a message that it is “us vs. them”. Is that what they really want?
gary fouse
fouse, gary c (629ad9) — 7/22/2007 @ 10:23 amfousesquawk
Imams do not show any sign of employment, how can they purchase Airline Tickets.
Bill Gordon L. Stafford (ff8687) — 7/23/2007 @ 4:29 amFor people reading this tread you should know that Democrats were working with Rep. King to amend the Homeland Security Bill in a bi-partisan effort to protect people that report suspicious behavior (this was passed end of July). First the flying imam’s went after the airline, so congress amended a bill so that they couldn’t. So then they went after the passengers and they were once again stopped. Gary was probably right, it probably was a big set up, they wanted publicity.
Jenn (c36902) — 9/15/2007 @ 1:44 ambreckin myer…
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..
breckin myer (eeabee) — 10/30/2007 @ 9:13 am