House votes to protect "John Doe's"

[mr_genius]

I got an idea. We can just have a seperate, super politically correct, airline for Texsox and anyone else offended. This airline will do no background checks, let anyone on, have no security checks (they are an invasion of privacy) and never profile. Of course, this airline will ignore all suspicious activity. They can fly on that, i'll fly on the other ones (cause i'm a jerk).

 

Of course, this perfect airline company would have to have some sort of remote detination system for when the inevitable, and probably instant, hijacking of these planes occurs. Can't have Politically Correct airline planes flyng into buildings. they just blow up in the sky once hijacked.

Edited April 1, 2007 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

For over two hundred years we have lived without this law, how? What great social problems are we trying to fix?

 

With this law, we are taking away the right of innocent Americans to sue when they are falsely accused, and now protect someone who makes the false accusation. That's progress

 

Get past this example and look at how that can be abused.

[mr_genius]

For over two hundred years we have lived without this law, how? What great social problems are we trying to fix?

 

I don't think there was a problem with planes being hijacked 200 years ago. Laws can be created and changed for a reason. If this new law ends up being abused, then it can be changed. There is no great social problem being fixed, just protecting airline passengers who report suspicious activity from threats and intimidation. It's a good law and it easily passed.

Edited April 2, 2007 by mr_genius

[EvilMonkey]

From Sec. 137 of the bill

(B) Covered Disclosures- The matter referred to in subsection (a) is a possible violation or attempted violation of law or regulation relating--

 

(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.

 

© 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.

 

Both your concerns are addressed here. First, it applies only to transportation, so that limits the scope a bit. John Doe isn't going to call Homeland Security because he doesn't like Abdula praying in his back yard. Or at least he won't be covered by this. Second, section D still leaves the John Doe's open for prosecution if they DO report false claims, so they don't get a free run. This law is needed as a direct response to the Flying Imam's case, as they are trying to bring people into the case that don't belong. You mentioned earlier that it is easier drop people from a case than to add people. Yes, you are correct. It is also easier to get revenge on people if you can narrow the planeload donw to 10 or so, instead of the 200 that were on board. This whole case was extortion on the part of CAIR, and they just got b****-slapped by congress for it.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

For over two hundred years we have lived without this law, how? What great social problems are we trying to fix?

 

With this law, we are taking away the right of innocent Americans to sue when they are falsely accused, and now protect someone who makes the false accusation. That's progress

 

Get past this example and look at how that can be abused.

 

 

For 200 years we've also never had a bunch of people filing lawsuits against other people for reporting suspicious activity. Vigilance used to be regarded as a virtue and praised but in 2007 America it's suddenly a violation of people's supposed rights and we file lawsuits against it.

[Texsox]

For 200 years we've also never had a bunch of people filing lawsuits against other people for reporting suspicious activity. Vigilance used to be regarded as a virtue and praised but in 2007 America it's suddenly a violation of people's supposed rights and we file lawsuits against it.

 

bunch of people? I thought it was one case? I'm not finding any other cases.

 

I am worried when based on one case, we rewrite our laws, taking away the rights of innocent people and giving them to people who may or may not be making an innocent mistake.

 

I can't believe I am the only person standing up for the rights of innocent people to seek justice in our legal system. I would be willing to consider it as soon as someone is actually required to pay damages for falsely accusing someone. But so far, that hasn't happened.

[whitesoxfan101]

One day, people will realize that, even though "OMG THERE HAVE NO ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 9/11", the terrorists are winning this war more than ever in our country. Silly laws taking away our freedoms in order to "be safer" are damn well more likely to bring down this democracy than a crazy dude with a bomb strapped to him is.

[SuperSteve]

bunch of people? I thought it was one case? I'm not finding any other cases.

 

I am worried when based on one case, we rewrite our laws, taking away the rights of innocent people and giving them to people who may or may not be making an innocent mistake.

 

I can't believe I am the only person standing up for the rights of innocent people to seek justice in our legal system. I would be willing to consider it as soon as someone is actually required to pay damages for falsely accusing someone. But so far, that hasn't happened.

I'll stand up for peoples rights, but if you get on a plane in these days, with the tension and issues which come with flying, you have to know, regardless of intent, you need to be 'well behaved' (in an American sense, I dunno if I can explain what I mean there, but in the American conscience, it's a given set of standards). I live in the multinational dorm at MSU, and I have plenty of Asian, Middle Eastern, and African friends, and I know I wouldn't like them being unfairly targeted, but they also wouldn't make scenes of themseleves on planes. I know they already go through enough at airports. People are goina be suspious for now on, and bringing attention to yourself is not a smart idea in any sense.

[southsider2k5]

For over two hundred years we have lived without this law, how? What great social problems are we trying to fix?

 

With this law, we are taking away the right of innocent Americans to sue when they are falsely accused, and now protect someone who makes the false accusation. That's progress

 

Get past this example and look at how that can be abused.

 

So wait, are you saying that laws shouldn't change, or that we shouldn't have any new laws?

 

I agree that the victims deserve more protection that they get in most cases. Besides, our great legal system actually has protections against the false accusations that Tex is more worried about than the potential dead people that everyone else is more worried about. There are statutes already against false accusing, perjury etc. There is no real protection for potential victims, only people who are already victims. And I don't know about you, but I have no desire to be the target of a fatwa. I have got to be honest here, I would actually be leary of reporting any strange activity of a person who looked to be a Muslim, because I would fear for my families lives if I did. I almost literally would have to see them placing a bomb or something before I would say something in this day and age.

[NorthSideSox72]

One day, people will realize that, even though "OMG THERE HAVE NO ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 9/11", the terrorists are winning this war more than ever in our country. Silly laws taking away our freedoms in order to "be safer" are damn well more likely to bring down this democracy than a crazy dude with a bomb strapped to him is.

I agree completely.

[Texsox]

So wait, are you saying that laws shouldn't change, or that we shouldn't have any new laws?

 

I agree that the victims deserve more protection that they get in most cases. Besides, our great legal system actually has protections against the false accusations that Tex is more worried about than the potential dead people that everyone else is more worried about. There are statutes already against false accusing, perjury etc. There is no real protection for potential victims, only people who are already victims. And I don't know about you, but I have no desire to be the target of a fatwa. I have got to be honest here, I would actually be leary of reporting any strange activity of a person who looked to be a Muslim, because I would fear for my families lives if I did. I almost literally would have to see them placing a bomb or something before I would say something in this day and age.

 

As soon as someone links to an attack that could have been prevented if someone wasn't afraid to speak up, your point about potential bombing victims makes sense. Funny it takes a lawsuit by an unpopular group to spark this. I wonder if it was a group of Methodist Pastors who were turned in by a group of Muslims if the same legislation would be enacted? (No need to answer this)

 

Besides, our great legal system actually has protections against the false accusations

 

Or at least we did before this legislation.

[southsider2k5]

As soon as someone links to an attack that could have been prevented if someone wasn't afraid to speak up, your point about potential bombing victims makes sense. Funny it takes a lawsuit by an unpopular group to spark this. I wonder if it was a group of Methodist Pastors who were turned in by a group of Muslims if the same legislation would be enacted? (No need to answer this)

Or at least we did before this legislation.

 

First of all, who do you think would actually come forward and say, "I could have prevented 9-11, but I was afraid to say something, because I didn't want to be accused of being a racist for thinking a Muslim would be a terrorist" or "I didn't report [thenext9-11] because I heard about fatwas being issued to kill people"? I know I wouldn't be running to the media if I had 2874 lives on my conscious.

 

I know many won't say it, but I will. I will not report an incident unless I know with near 100% certianty what is going on, because I am more worried about the potential reprecussions of being wrong. I would pretty much have to hear someone say "I have a bomb" before I would think about reporting it. And even then, I would have to stop and consider whether or not it seemed like an idiot joking or not. To me, the odds are much more in favor of it being a misunderstand, and potentially ruining my life and the life of my family over a misunderstanding is not worth it.

 

Plus I think the big issue here is that you are totally misunderstanding this law. There is no protection for malice.

[Texsox]

We'll have to see the final language. The wording so far is so vague. "Good faith" is rather a messy term. But regardless of the language, the intent of the law is stopping innocent people from seeking redress in a court of law. I think we ought to be very cautious.

 

The saving lives argument is a strong one. I just don't see this law as helping in that area. How many people would rather die than face a potential lawsuit?

 

For this law to actually work the following scenario has to happen.

 

A passenger sees something that looks suspicious to them. They decide that the risk of being in a lawsuit is greater than potentially dying, so they keep quiet. The person is actually a terrorist and blows up the plane.

 

I just don't see that happening. I think the terrorists will be better trained as to not seem suspicious. I place more faith in metal detectors, screenings, and other security techniques, than someone being silenced because they fear a law suit.

[Texsox]

Final thought and I will probably shut up.

 

Using the situations this law seeks to address; the current system, where a judge or jury decided the merits of a case, using the facts of that exact case, is fairer than a system that presupposes years in advance, all the facts of a case and that all cases are without merit.

 

I just do not like cutting off access to our legal system to any innocent person.

[southsider2k5]

Working in the city, I can tell you this is more than just on planes. For example, I walk past the Sears Tower every day. I see people taking pictures of it all of the time. Now if I saw three middle eastern looking guys acting nervous, holding maps, and taking pictures, I would stop for second, because of the alerts that have been issued to us. With no protection under the law, I wouldn't report it though. The odds are it is just a jittery tourist, but what if it isn't? To me its not worth being labeled a racist, or much worse, when the odds are that it is nothing. If there is a risk of my family being ruined or indanger, I am staying silent unless it is 100% obvious.

 

Plus the law isn't just to stop innocent people from seeking redress. Its to stop innocent people who make a good faith effort from having their lives ruined for doing the right thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

I guess I wouldn't find anyone, Middle Eastern or not, taking pictures and looking at maps at the Tower, to be worthy of notice. This is exactly what 101 was saying earlier - this kind of reaction means we already lost.

 

I think much of our society has become far too paranoid about these things. Living in fear is miserable. Better we act on REAL evidence, like intelligence gathered, than be constantly suspicious of people who are doing nothing wrong.

[southsider2k5]

I guess I wouldn't find anyone, Middle Eastern or not, taking pictures and looking at maps at the Tower, to be worthy of notice. This is exactly what 101 was saying earlier - this kind of reaction means we already lost.

 

I think much of our society has become far too paranoid about these things. Living in fear is miserable. Better we act on REAL evidence, like intelligence gathered, than be constantly suspicious of people who are doing nothing wrong.

 

Well whatever, pick a strange situation. The point is, its not worth it to say anything if you can have your life ruined for being wrong.

[Jenksismyhero]

I guess I wouldn't find anyone, Middle Eastern or not, taking pictures and looking at maps at the Tower, to be worthy of notice. This is exactly what 101 was saying earlier - this kind of reaction means we already lost.

 

I think much of our society has become far too paranoid about these things. Living in fear is miserable. Better we act on REAL evidence, like intelligence gathered, than be constantly suspicious of people who are doing nothing wrong.

 

I guess I wouldn't find anyone, Middle Eastern or not, taking pictures and looking at maps at the Tower, to be worthy of notice. This is exactly what 101 was saying earlier - this kind of reaction means we already lost.

 

I think much of our society has become far too paranoid about these things. Living in fear is miserable. Better we act on REAL evidence, like intelligence gathered, than be constantly suspicious of people who are doing nothing wrong.

 

Far too paranoid? No offense, but I think this is complete crap. My life hasn't changed since 9/11. 99% of the country hasn't changed either. It's a fallacy to think we all live in serious fear of being attacked again. We all have a fear of getting in a serious car accident, but it doesn't stop us from driving. I think you mistake 'fear' for an understanding that it's possible (or even probable) that we'll be attacked again. So we're forced to alter how we travel, how we have to check baggage, how we pack our suitcases; that doesn't mean we're all consumed by fear and act irrationally because of it.

 

And what REAL evidence do you want? You have six guys on a plane that fit the description of hijackers (and save me the profiling argument...99% of the hijackers in the world have been middle-eastern). They acted out of the norm compared to the millions of other airline passengers that fly on a daily basis. They're seen praying non-stop before the flight and while on the plane. Their seats are spread out all over the plane. Is that enough evidence that something fishy MIGHT be going on?

 

Give me a break people. What was the biggest thing that the 9/11 Commission said? We need to think differently. We need to be conscious of the possibilities. We need to understand that we aren't in a protective bubble situated between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and that people want to harm us.

 

And really, how is this law different than any other law in the country? You have a small number of situations in which the law is needed but the entire society is forced to 'give up' their 'rights.' Hmm, I want to smoke pot when I get home from work: too bad. At some point, some where, someone has died, so no one can enjoy it. What's that? Like to look at naked women? Nope, sorry, we have moral police here. Want to gamble? Too bad. Or the better ones: You have a stupid kid that imitated a character on tv? Oh, well then by all means lets change what’s on tv! Let’s decide what’s acceptable to put on radio/tv/the internet. Let’s take away CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to protect the few.

 

Public policy plays a huge role in deciding how important 'rights' actually are. In this case, when it comes down to the safety of hundreds of individuals versus the inconvenience to a few, the majority should win.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.43eb5c4.html

 

Another case where Muslims are engaging in suspicious behavior, and then act like Alfred E. Neuman, "What, me"?". One of them admits to being a trained sniper, and then has the balls to say that they are not a dangerous person?

 

Women at airport 'acting suspiciously'

 

Dallas: Police have no evidence Muslims have ties to terrorists

 

 

12:00 AM CDT on Friday, April 6, 2007

By JASON TRAHAN / The Dallas Morning News

[email protected]

 

Dallas police and federal terrorism officials are investigating two women, both dressed in camouflage pants under their traditional Muslim robes and scarves, who were seen conducting what appeared to be surveillance and acting suspiciously at Dallas Love Field.

 

One of the women, Kimberly "Asma" Al-Homsi, 42, of Arlington, who is on probation for a 2005 Garland road rage incident involving a fake grenade, is said to have long-range assault rifle and explosives training, according to a Dallas police intelligence bulletin issued March 5.

 

"I'm a trained sniper and proud of it," Ms. Al-Homsi said in an interview Thursday after first refusing to comment on whether she has any terrorism ties. She then said no.

 

Police officials said they have no direct evidence the women have ties to terrorism.

 

"I am not a dangerous individual," said Ms. Al-Homsi, who said she is an accountant who has dual Syrian-U.S. citizenship.

 

On the afternoon of Feb. 25, Ms. Al-Homsi and a friend who could not be reached for comment, Aisha Abdul-Rahman Hamad, 50, of Irving, were spotted at Love Field wearing Muslim robes and camouflage pants and "acting suspiciously," the bulletin states. The surveillance video shows one of the women walking back and forth, apparently pacing off distances.

 

When confronted, the women told officials they were looking for the Frontiers of Flight museum. They left in a red Honda. Descriptions of the incident and the car were circulated at the airport.

 

Two days later, the museum executive director was leaving for the evening when he noticed the Honda parked facing the runway. A woman, later identified as Ms. Al-Homsi, was sitting on the hood, looking through binoculars at the airplanes. He told the women the museum was closing, and they left.

 

Dallas officers stopped the car nearby, but the women refused to let police search their car, , according to a police report. The women had digital camera memory cards, binoculars, a flashlight and several lighters on them.

 

Police issued one of them a citation for having no front license plate and failing to change her address on a driver's license. They were released.

 

"We were watching the airplanes," Ms. Al-Homsi said. "That's not a crime, unless you're Muslim."

 

On Dec. 20, 2005, Ms. Al-Homsi was arrested after a report that she waved a grenade at a motorist on Central Expressway near LBJ Freeway. Richardson police stopped her car and arrested her. The Garland bomb squad determined the grenade was a fake. She was released the next day, after officials charged her with making a bomb hoax. She was placed on probation.

 

Law enforcement sources acknowledge that activities of both women have garnered substantial attention.

 

"We are aware of the activities that occurred at Love Field in February and are giving it appropriate consideration," said Lori Bailey, spokeswoman for the Dallas FBI.

 

Ms. Al-Homsi said that she has been questioned by local authorities "maybe a dozen times."

 

She said that she practices her rifle skills at the Alpine Shooting Range in Fort Worth. An employee confirmed that she's been going there for years.

 

"In all the Muslim garb, shooting an assault weapon, it seemed at first like she was trying to draw attention," said Dave Rodgers. "But then she came out so much, it became normal."

 

He said federal agents have talked to range employees about Ms. Al-Homsi, which is not uncommon of their clientele. He recalls seeing the fake grenade hanging from Ms. Al-Homsi's rearview mirror before she was arrested.

 

"We get weirder people than her out here," Mr. Rodgers said. "We have people who make up stories. ... She was always pretty quiet, though."

Any bets as to when CAIR steps in and claims that this is more Islamophobia in action? Hell, In 1983 when I was taking up photography, I used to go out to the Lansing Airport and take pictures of the planes as they landed. Even back then, I had cops stop me, ask me what I was doing, search my car, etc. Just what did they THINK would happen?

[Texsox]

Of course the best response to above is to write a new law. Each time something happens, we will write a new law. Laws for everyone

[mr_genius]

One day, people will realize that, even though "OMG THERE HAVE NO ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 9/11", the terrorists are winning this war more than ever in our country. Silly laws taking away our freedoms in order to "be safer" are damn well more likely to bring down this democracy than a crazy dude with a bomb strapped to him is.

 

 

 

overreact much?

 

Kind of reminds me of when the far right wing was accusing Bill Clinton of turning the United States in the a Communist Dictatorship.

 

Or at least we did before this legislation.

 

Ok, now I'm convinced you haven't even read what this law does.

Edited April 8, 2007 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

Ok, now I'm convinced you haven't even read what this law does.

 

The law stops people who report suspicious activities from being sued. These lawsuits would be brought by INNOCENT people who are the subject of those reports. So this law stops innocent Americans from their day in court. Instead of a Judge or jury determining if that specific situation has merit, these lawmakers have decided in advance that there are no grounds ever for someone being sued. Clearing the way for people to report anyone for any reason. Someone wearing a black, oversizes, hooded sweat suit, damn, that's suspicious, better report it.

 

I believe that innocent Americans always deserve their day in court. This law takes the rights of innocent Americans to seek compensation in a court of law. So we take away their rights and give it to people who may or may not have committed slander.

[EvilMonkey]

No,Tex just chooses to ignore what refutes his argument.

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1380223

I listed the section of the bill that specifically refers to what Tex claims, and it makes provisions to take care of people who knowingly submit false reports.

(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.

 

Oh, and if they are wearing that black, oversized hooded sweatsuit when it is 90 degrees out, I am gonna report it.

Edited April 8, 2007 by Alpha Dog

[Texsox]

No,Tex just chooses to ignore what refutes his argument.

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1380223

I listed the section of the bill that specifically refers to what Tex claims, and it makes provisions to take care of people who knowingly submit false reports.

 

 

Oh, and if they are wearing that black, oversized hooded sweatsuit when it is 90 degrees out, I am gonna report it.

 

The problem becomes proving it was a false claim. Think OJ. His only punishment was in civil not criminal court. I am not ignoring it, but it is a very weak provision. Anyway you slice it, this takes away the innocent person's day in court. That is who is being punished by this law, that is who's rights are being tossed aside.

 

Second part, report it. But remember, down here we see people getting off planes with big heavy jackets and it's 80 degrees here. It's an airport, you have to know where they are going to where they came from.

[southsider2k5]

Oh, and if they are wearing that black, oversized hooded sweatsuit when it is 90 degrees out, I am gonna report it.

 

I'm not. If there is a possibility my life or the life of my family could be ruined, there isn't a chance.