| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Congressional leaders fail to protect terror tipsters from insane lawsuits |
| 2007-07-20 |
| Disarmed by the Dhimmis Apparently they want to lose on the home front as well. Yesterday, members of Congress met in conference to finalize provisions of the 9/11 security bill, which implements the final recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. But as of press time, the Democratic majority was using a technicality to block the so-called John Doe amendment from being included in the bill. The amendment, which protects citizen whistleblowers who report suspicious activity from being sued, was sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) after six imams who were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in November filed a lawsuit against the passengers who reported their behavior to flight crews. Their lawsuit charges that the imams were victims of an "intentional" and "malicious" . . . "conspiracy to discriminate" and seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the airline and "John Doe" passengers - including an elderly couple who, according to legal papers, "purposely turned around to watch them" in the boarding area and then "made a cellular phone call." The John Doe legislation, called the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act, passed in the House in April with overwhelming bipartisan support, by a vote of 304-121 - including 105 Democrats. Now, King wants to include it in the 9/11 security legislation as a stand-alone measure to assure its passage apart from the larger bill. It is up to the majority leadership, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whether they will allow the provision to be added to the bill. Reached by telephone yesterday, a senior Pelosi staffer refused several times to say whether Pelosi supports the John Doe legislation in principle. Why? What could prevent any member of Congress from supporting no-brainer, bipartisan legislation that protects Good Samaritans from frivolous lawsuits? One possible motive: According to key Democrat leaders, John Doe protection will encourage "racial profiling." Let's put this in perspective. The alleged conspiracy to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix was foiled by a Circuit City store clerk who alerted law enforcement after the suspects brought a video to the store for reformatting on DVD. An FBI spokesman called the 23-year-old tipster an "unsung hero" and acknowledged that the plot would have gone undiscovered if he hadn't stepped forward. The hero clerk later told reporters that after seeing several Middle Eastern-looking men shouting "Allah Akbar" while firing assault rifles and engaging in military-type maneuvers on the video, he discussed overnight with his family whether or not to call authorities. Lucky for us, he made the right decision. But would he have made that call if he thought getting it wrong might require defending himself against a multimillion-dollar lawsuit? Would you? "An overwhelmingly bipartisan majority of Congress supports protecting vigilant citizens who are our first and sometimes last resource in the War on Terror," said Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), co-author of the John Doe bill. "But unfortunately they're not going to get the support of the new majority leadership in Congress." We disarm ourselves when we succumb to political correctness - which encourages us to second guess our common sense and look the other way. It is an outrage that Pelosi and Reid would allow individuals to be punished when they come forward to protect us all. If you see something; say something. Dhimmicrat version: If you see something; shut up. Video: Peter King rips the Democrats for voting against “John Doe” |
| Posted by:GK |
| #4 If I thought some bozo's were going to blow up my plane, I don't think potential lawsuits will be a strong concern for me. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2007-07-20 23:21 |
| #3 People that legitimately report suspected terrorist activity should enjoy the same immunity as good Samaritans who render CPR or first aid to an injured person. The "Flying Imams" case needs to set a precedent regarding what does and does not constitute noticable and potentially terrorist activity. It is not at all ironic—after so many atrocities being immediately preceded by cries of "Allahu Ackbar"—that Islamic religious behavior in public should rightfully generate suspicion. In light of an almost unanimous refusal to diligently identify and expel the radicals amongst them, Muslims have deservingly forfeited all benefit of the doubt over how their conspicuous public worship has become valid grounds for suspicion. Through both their deafening silence and radicalism, Muslims of all stripes have successfully eroded whatever respect their faith might once have enjoyed. The West is neither obliged—nor is it even able—to rehabilitate Islam's thoroughly tainted reputation. Politicians who enact legal protections in order to immunize Muslims from justifiable public suspicion betray all involved. No one benefits when Islam—and anyone who acts upon its tenets—is sheltered from the well-deserved consequences of its violently intolerant doctrine. Terrorism is a direct result of properly interpreting and worshiping the Koran. Pretending otherwise is a disservice to Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Whatever noble intentions that Multiculturalism might once have possessed will wither in its tight embrace of Islam. The heinous nature of Muslim atrocities overwhelms even the most auspicious goals of fostering Multicultural diversity. Any attempt to soft-pedal terrorism will inevitably accrue the implaccable wrath of its far more numerous victims. Using the pretense of mercy or tolerance to shield a violent minority from the consequences of their crimes is to be an accomplice before and after the fact. Politicians who engage in this outrageous moral tresspass shackle themselves to the perpetrators they wittingly or unwittingly abet. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-20 20:30 |
| #2 Of course in any lawsuit filed by the 'victims', their shyster attorneys would profile like hell to get a jury full of moose limb sympathisers. |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2007-07-20 20:01 |
| #1 Hmmmm.....If I was Karl Rove, I might tell GW to veto the bill if it arrives without the John Doe provision... Go ahead George, call the Dems on this. |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins5285 2007-07-20 19:35 |