House votes to protect "John Doe's"

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...65522-5346r.htm

House votes to protect 'John Does' on flights

By Audrey Hudson

March 27, 2007

 

 

House Republicans tonight surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity -- the first step by lawmakers to protect "John Doe" airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.

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.

Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and "John Does," passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a "chilling effect" on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.

Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, offered the motion saying all Americans -- airline passengers included -- must be protected from lawsuits if they report suspicious behavior that may foreshadow a terrorist attack.

"All of our lives changed after September 11, and one of the most important things we have done is ask local citizens to do what they can to avoid another terrorist attack, if you see something, say something," said Mr. King.

"We have to stand by our people and report suspicious activity," he said. "I cannot imagine anyone would be opposed to this."

Mr. King called it a "disgrace" that the suit seeks to identify "people who acted out of good faith and reported what they thought was suspicious activity."

Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, opposed the motion over loud objections from colleagues on the House floor, forcing several calls to order from the chair.

"Absolutely they should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law," said Mr. Thompson, who suggested that protecting passengers from a lawsuit would encourage racial profiling.

"This might be well-intended, but it has unintended consequences," Mr. Thompson said, before he accepted the motion to recommit.

The motion to recommit was based on a bill introduced last week by Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, to protect "John Does" or passengers targeted in a lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams earlier this month in Minneapolis.

Mr. Pearce said the imams are "using courts to terrorize Americans."

"If we allow this lawsuit to go forward it will have a chilling effect," Mr. Pearce said.

A Republican memo issued prior to the vote cites the November incident when the men were removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix for suspicious behavior, the details of which were first reported by The Washington Times.

The men prayed loudly before boarding, did not take their assigned seats and formed patterns officials said mirrored the September 11 hijackers, asked for seat-belt extenders not needed, and criticized President Bush and the war in Iraq.

"Earlier this month, the six imams filed suit against the airlines. Shockingly, the imams also filed suit against the passengers who reported the suspicious behavior," the memo said.

"The Republican motion to recommit will ensure that any person that voluntarily reports suspicious activity -- anything that could be a threat to transportation security -- will be granted immunity from civil liability for the disclosure," the memo said.

The amendment is retroactive to activities that took place on or after Nov. 20, 2006 -- the date of the Minneapolis incident, and authorizes courts to award attorneys' fees to defendants with immunity.

"By passing a specific grant of immunity that covers passengers reporting suspicious activity in good faith, we will prevent special-interest lawyers from using 'creative' legal theories to attack the well-meaning passengers who make reports," the memo said.

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in an open letter yesterday to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that "the only individuals against whom suit may be raised in this litigation are those who may have knowingly made false reports against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them."

The Becket Fund criticized the lawsuit last week and in a letter to Mr. Awad asked that the "John Does" be removed from the lawsuit, however CAIR is standing by the decision.

"The imams will not sue any passengers who reported suspicious activity in good faith, even when the 'suspicious' behavior included the imams' constitutionally protected right to practice their religion without fear or intimidation," Mr. Awad said.

However, Mr. Awad said that "when a person makes a false report with the intent to discriminate, he or she is not acting in good faith."

 

Here's the voting breakdown

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll200.xml

interesting how all the no votes were democrats. I'm sure we will all hear why the noes were a good thing very soon.

[Texsox]

In almost any other area you can be held liable if you accuse someone "knowing it is false". There was a recent article on I believe it was CNN where a neighbor kept reporting their neighbor for anything and everything, trying to get them to move. Every claim was proven false, from child endangerment because the kids were outside "naked" while dad washed the car to minor code violations. If there was no recourse, people could just keep harassing someone for looking a certain way.

 

I'm for protecting someone who makes a report in good faith, but there should be some protections from racists who will report every middle Eastern on the plane every time they fly. Or, "hey look at those idiots in Iowa Hawkeye jerseys, f*** them, let's claim they were making terrorist threats, we can't be charged and they will get kicked off the plane."

 

Like anything, there are always unintended side effects that have to be thought through.

[NorthSideSox72]

Assinine. That's what this is.

 

1. If you are considering reporting suspicious activity on a plane because you think someone is up to something dangerous, you aren't going to give a flying f*** about maybe getting sued IF you make it back to the ground. So there is absolutely no such thing as this "chilling effect".

 

2. If people report suspicious activity to a responsible person (stewardess or pilot or cop or whomever), and that is the end of their involvement, no lawsuit will EVER be successful against them anyway unless it can be proven they KNEW it was a false report. That is just like any other type of false reporting, 911 calls, etc. So there is nothing to protect against here - this law accomplishes nothing.

 

3. It saddens me that the security "hawks" who want to turn this country into something out of a sci fi dystopia of paranoia, fail to see that the more we do pointless, fear-driven things like this, the more we give up ground and LOSE to the terrorists. Not to mention we look like cowards on the world stage.

 

This makes me ill.

[EvilMonkey]

In almost any other area you can be held liable if you accuse someone "knowing it is false". There was a recent article on I believe it was CNN where a neighbor kept reporting their neighbor for anything and everything, trying to get them to move. Every claim was proven false, from child endangerment because the kids were outside "naked" while dad washed the car to minor code violations. If there was no recourse, people could just keep harassing someone for looking a certain way.

 

I'm for protecting someone who makes a report in good faith, but there should be some protections from racists who will report every middle Eastern on the plane every time they fly. Or, "hey look at those idiots in Iowa Hawkeye jerseys, f*** them, let's claim they were making terrorist threats, we can't be charged and they will get kicked off the plane."

 

Like anything, there are always unintended side effects that have to be thought through.

Kinda like campaign finance reform? That's still a pretty weak reason.

[Texsox]

Kinda like campaign finance reform? That's still a pretty weak reason.

 

In the history of our society we have never needed this law, doesn't that make you stop and wonder why we need it now?

[Jenksismyhero]

Assinine. That's what this is.

 

1. If you are considering reporting suspicious activity on a plane because you think someone is up to something dangerous, you aren't going to give a flying f*** about maybe getting sued IF you make it back to the ground. So there is absolutely no such thing as this "chilling effect".

 

2. If people report suspicious activity to a responsible person (stewardess or pilot or cop or whomever), and that is the end of their involvement, no lawsuit will EVER be successful against them anyway unless it can be proven they KNEW it was a false report. That is just like any other type of false reporting, 911 calls, etc. So there is nothing to protect against here - this law accomplishes nothing.

 

3. It saddens me that the security "hawks" who want to turn this country into something out of a sci fi dystopia of paranoia, fail to see that the more we do pointless, fear-driven things like this, the more we give up ground and LOSE to the terrorists. Not to mention we look like cowards on the world stage.

 

This makes me ill.

 

 

The language includes protecting speech that is made 'in good faith.' I don't see what the problem is. It shouldn't create the problems you guys suggest. If it does, they'll be sued as if the law had not been in place to begin with. So again, I don't see the problem. Putting something like this on the books just allows the process to work a little faster by letting the judge dismiss the claim at the outset.

[NorthSideSox72]

The language includes protecting speech that is made 'in good faith.' I don't see what the problem is. It shouldn't create the problems you guys suggest. If it does, they'll be sued as if the law had not been in place to begin with. So again, I don't see the problem. Putting something like this on the books just allows the process to work a little faster by letting the judge dismiss the claim at the outset.

That's just it - the move is 100% posturing and 0% substance, because those protections already exist under the law as I understand it. Its not that I think this causes some new problems - its that the whole premise is nothing more than fear-mongering.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's just it - the move is 100% posturing and 0% substance, because those protections already exist under the law as I understand it. Its not that I think this causes some new problems - its that the whole premise is nothing more than fear-mongering.

 

Eh, I think you're reading too much into it. Yeah politics is involved, but I think its more to protect people who want to speak out but feel they can't because they don't want to be sued for it. I'm not sure current laws protect those people without having to drag them through the muck of a lawsuit. This will let claims to be dismissed right away. I guess I can see that it's got no substance though. This has happened once out of how many flights? 500k? A million? It's a non-issue really.

 

So...in the end I agree with you but for different reasons. Ha! I love logic in the morning.

[Rex Kickass]

So if it's a nonissue, why is the law necessary?

[EvilMonkey]

You have people, who for the moment, are not named who spoke out against Muslims for what they called suspicious activity. Yes, a suit against them would probably not succeed, but it would do two things: make them spend time and money needlessly defending themselves, and make their identities known. With the violence associated lately with Muslims, right or wrong, there is a serious fear among people that violence would befall them if they are named. I have no desire to be beheaded, do you? And I am not saying that these Imams would do that, but surely they have followers, and the track record isn't too good lately. Is the timing political in nature? yes, it is. And so what.

[kapkomet]

That's just it - the move is 100% posturing and 0% substance,

 

That could be said for damn near every law passed in Congress today.

[Texsox]

Great point Alpha. On the flip side, how do you protect innocent Americans who are accused of being middle eastern by every bigot on a plane? We are taking away protections from INNOCENT people who are being falsely accused and giving it to people who may or may not being truthful.

[southsider2k5]

Is the identity protection a part of the law today?

[Jenksismyhero]

So if it's a nonissue, why is the law necessary?

 

 

That could be said for damn near every law passed in Congress today.

 

Same reason.

[Jenksismyhero]

Ha, so I didn't think the 'john does' could actually be sued and I was right. Even though they are named as defendants, the complaint doesn't even mention them as violating any statutes. It's all about the pilots/flight attendants/gate workers and airport employees in their capacity as agents of US Airways and the Airport, violating the Imams civil rights.

 

Here's a copy of the complaint. It'll be interested to see what the Judge says about the John Doe's. My guess is he/she will force the Imams to remove them from the entire lawsuit for lack of violating a law.

 

http://www.cair.com/pdf/usairwayscomplaint.pdf

[Texsox]

When we expand someone's rights, we also take away others. There is never gain without pain. We should always be vigilent on what we are giving up.

[EvilMonkey]

Ha, so I didn't think the 'john does' could actually be sued and I was right. Even though they are named as defendants, the complaint doesn't even mention them as violating any statutes. It's all about the pilots/flight attendants/gate workers and airport employees in their capacity as agents of US Airways and the Airport, violating the Imams civil rights.

 

Here's a copy of the complaint. It'll be interested to see what the Judge says about the John Doe's. My guess is he/she will force the Imams to remove them from the entire lawsuit for lack of violating a law.

 

http://www.cair.com/pdf/usairwayscomplaint.pdf

I believe that the Imams and/or CAIR just wanted to get the people's names in the paper or court record so that some people would think twice about saying anything, as an intimidation tactic. 'Say something about one of us, and we'll sue you and force you to spend time and money to defend yourself'. Good thing some lawyers have volunteered their services should they be needed.

[Texsox]

It's pretty standard to name everyone possible and sort it out later. It is almost impossible to add someone later. Been there in a suit. Hated adding some of the names, knowing they probably had nothing to do with it. Then discovered one did. Hated that worse.

[mr_genius]

haha, well the Imams are suing the other passengers

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...=1&catnum=0

 

these imams really are some classic douche bags. i tip my cap to them for their absurdity.

Edited March 31, 2007 by mr_genius

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

haha, well the Imams are suing the other passengers

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...=1&catnum=0

 

these imams really are some classic douche bags. i tip my cap to them for their absurdity.

 

 

I feel this law is totally necessary. If douchebags like this are allowed to bring lawsuits against people for being vigilant against terrorist activity then there needs to be some form of legislation passed to grant people immunity. It's sad, really, that our lawsuit happy society seeks to punish people for doing their part to protect us against terrorists.

 

This whole thing does nothing but reinforce the perception ( one that I find to be true ) that Islamic people are trying to foist their way of life on others. If these Imams had any common sense they would have just got on the damn plane and sat down like everyone else. That was too hard, though, so they go and start their whole routine in front of everybody and get people nervous. In this day and age what the hell did they expect anyway?

[Texsox]

I feel this law is totally necessary. If douchebags like this are allowed to bring lawsuits against people for being vigilant against terrorist activity then there needs to be some form of legislation passed to grant people immunity. It's sad, really, that our lawsuit happy society seeks to punish people for doing their part to protect us against terrorists.

 

This whole thing does nothing but reinforce the perception ( one that I find to be true ) that Islamic people are trying to foist their way of life on others. If these Imams had any common sense they would have just got on the damn plane and sat down like everyone else. That was too hard, though, so they go and start their whole routine in front of everybody and get people nervous. In this day and age what the hell did they expect anyway?

 

How would you protect innocent Americans from being unfairly targeted? What this law allows is for anyone to accuse anyone of being a terrorist for any reason. Getting bumped from a flight? Accuse the dark complected guy of being a terrorist. You are taking away the rights of innocent Americans from being unjustly accused of a crime. Shouldn't innocent Americans be protected from that?

 

How would you feel after being striped searched and questioned for twelve hours because some idiot didn't like you praying? Or you cut him off in the parking lot?

[mr_genius]

How would you protect innocent Americans from being unfairly targeted? What this law allows is for anyone to accuse anyone of being a terrorist for any reason. Getting bumped from a flight? Accuse the dark complected guy of being a terrorist. You are taking away the rights of innocent Americans from being unjustly accused of a crime. Shouldn't innocent Americans be protected from that?

 

How would you feel after being striped searched and questioned for twelve hours because some idiot didn't like you praying? Or you cut him off in the parking lot?

 

You can already report a crime to the police and remain anonymous, you should be able to report suspicious terrorist activity on an airplane with anonymity. If a person files repeat bs terrorist threats they should be held accountable. I don't think people are going to be strip searched for 12 hours because they cut in line at the airport donut shop and someone reported them as a terrorist. You are assuming the majority of people that work for the government to help keep airplanes safe are complete morons that would not recognize an obvious false claim.

Edited April 1, 2007 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

You can already report a crime to the police and remain anonymous, you should be able to report suspicious terrorist activity on an airplane with anonymity. If a person files repeat bs terrorist threats they should be held accountable. I don't think people are going to be strip searched for 12 hours because they cut in line at the airport donut shop and someone reported them as a terrorist. You are assuming the majority of people that work for the government to help keep airplanes safe are complete morons that would not recognize an obvious false claim.

 

If you can already report the crime anonymously why do we need this law?

 

"complete morons that would not recognize an obvious false claim", do you mean those like the Imams?

 

If a person files repeat bs terrorist threats they should be held accountable - this law would prevent it.

 

We are taking away protections from innocent Americans. That's my point. Give away your rights if you will. After all, if we give away all our rights, the terrorists can't take them away from us, and we'll keep the American way of life.

[mr_genius]

If you can already report the crime anonymously why do we need this law?

 

"complete morons that would not recognize an obvious false claim", do you mean those like the Imams?

 

If a person files repeat bs terrorist threats they should be held accountable - this law would prevent it.

 

We are taking away protections from innocent Americans. That's my point. Give away your rights if you will. After all, if we give away all our rights, the terrorists can't take them away from us, and we'll keep the American way of life.

 

The law is an extension of existing laws on anonymity in reporting crime. As far as the imams, yes they are morons and no they were not falsely accused of suspicious behavior. They should have been booted off the plane.

 

Your mellow dramatic speech about "oh, protect the innocent, don't take away my rights" is way off base and sappy. What right is being taken away? your right to cause a major disturbance on an airline? well, that 'right' should be taken away.

 

And exactly where does this law give immunity people who file repeat false claims? I don't think it does, it protects passengers from being sued from reporting a claim.

[EvilMonkey]

How would you protect innocent Americans from being unfairly targeted? What this law allows is for anyone to accuse anyone of being a terrorist for any reason. Getting bumped from a flight? Accuse the dark complected guy of being a terrorist. You are taking away the rights of innocent Americans from being unjustly accused of a crime. Shouldn't innocent Americans be protected from that?

 

How would you feel after being striped searched and questioned for twelve hours because some idiot didn't like you praying? Or you cut him off in the parking lot?

Sounds alot like accused rapists. How would you protect innocent Americans from being unfairly targeted?The accuser gets to remain anonymous, while the accused is assumed guilty from the start. Regret that you had sex with your roomate's best friend? Accuse him of rape! You are taking the rights away from innocent rapists Americans from being unjustly accused of a crime. Shouldn't innocent Americans be protected from that?

 

How would you feel being threatened and questioned for twelve hours because some woman regretted sleeping with you? Or you fell asleep before finishing?