John Doe Bill (HR 1640) passes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[redgtxdi]

Protecting John Doe bill passed

The language for HR1640 was put into Rep. Shuster's bill HR1401. Rep. Pearce's leadership on this issue was central to this language being put into HR1401 which passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 304 to121.

"This is a big victory for all Americans," Shuster said. "No American should ever be sued because they tried to stop a terrorist act. No American should be forced to second guess a decision to alert authorities that could save the lives of others."

The Republican motion to recommit H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, provides that any person who makes a voluntary disclosure regarding suspicious activity that constitutes a possible threat to transportation security to appropriate security and law enforcement authorities shall be immune from civil liability for such disclosure.

The amendment protects any such disclosure relating to threats to transportation systems, passenger safety or security, or possible acts of terrorism.

The amendment also shields transportation systems and employees that take reasonable actions to mitigate perceived threats.

The amendment is retroactive to activities that took place on or after November 20, 2006 - the date of the Minneapolis incident involving six Islamic leaders who were removed from a U.S. Airways flight after they were observed acting suspiciously.

Finally, the motion authorizes courts to award attorneys fees to defendants with immunity. To find out the list of those who voted for the bill and against click HERE!


Hmmm.........apparently the demo's thought it was OK to sacrifice Americans in leiu of protecting the country??? (Makes mental note to 'not' vote demo this year!)

😎

 

[Jeff7]

The Republican motion to recommit H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, provides that any person who makes a voluntary disclosure regarding suspicious activity that constitutes a possible threat to transportation security to appropriate security and law enforcement authorities shall be immune from civil liability for such disclosure.

So, I can just randomly accuse anyone of being a terrorist, and I'll be safe from any legal recourse? Cool.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

The Republican motion to recommit H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, provides that any person who makes a voluntary disclosure regarding suspicious activity that constitutes a possible threat to transportation security to appropriate security and law enforcement authorities shall be immune from civil liability for such disclosure.

So, I can just randomly accuse anyone of being a terrorist, and I'll be safe from any legal recourse? Cool.

Did you even read the part that you quoted? "regarding suspicious activity that constitutes a possible threat"

 

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: JD50

Did you even read the part that you quoted? "regarding suspicious activity that constitutes a possible threat"

(Jeff7 takes himself into the restroom to kick his own ass) 😛

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Its really a sad admission just how warped our legal system is when citizens have to be protected for doing good. At least the courts cannot be used to intimidate people from reporting serious issues.

Now if only we could do so versus the government itself.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
So, I can just randomly accuse anyone of being a terrorist, and I'll be safe from any legal recourse? Cool.

If you do that, and do it enough of times, you'll find yourself charged with filing false report and in jail yourself.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Jeff7So, I can just randomly accuse anyone of being a terrorist, and I'll be safe from any legal recourse? Cool.

Yep, just watch the fun when police, airport personnel, security, politicians, etc. start being anonymously reported for "suspicious activity". Some idiots (like those who reported the imams, or the Jewish students) have very low threshold.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jeff7

The Republican motion to recommit H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, provides that any person who makes a voluntary disclosure regarding suspicious activity that constitutes a possible threat to transportation security to appropriate security and law enforcement authorities shall be immune from civil liability for such disclosure.

So, I can just randomly accuse anyone of being a terrorist, and I'll be safe from any legal recourse? Cool.

Did you even read the part that you quoted? "regarding suspicious activity that constitutes a possible threat"

Who's definition of "suspicious" are we talking about here? Are we to let the courts to decide that little tidbit? Jeff7 has a valid point because once the accusation has been carried out, it may be enough to destroy someone's life, in many ways. I don't think anyone should be immune from prosecution. If anything, it'll make it easier to make false accusations and get away with it.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm not sure why it's necessary to protect the average person like this. It encourages bigoted identification of "suspicious activity" without actually providing any real security. Weird populist mythology aside, the average person is extremely poorly suited to help with airline security, or any other type of security for that matter. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the most common kind of "suspicious activity" reported is that somebody with darker skin "looks like a terrorist". Why exactly do we want to encourage that sort of thing?

And this is a bullshit tradeoff anyways. If someone really WAS doing something suspicious and you reported them, there is no way in hell they'd win in court. The only thing this law does is protect the idiots.

 

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Who's definition of "suspicious" are we talking about here? Are we to let the courts to decide that little tidbit?

It's no different than the current scenario now, so why not??

Jeff7 has a valid point because once the accusation has been carried out, it may be enough to destroy someone's life, in many ways.

"May" be enough? And in "many" ways??? How so??
Wouldn't matter what it is you make a false accusation about. It's either legit or not. In fact.........try screaming "Fire" in a bank this afternoon & see what happens to ya'! 😉 (Hint: There better be a fire!)

I don't think anyone should be immune from prosecution. If anything, it'll make it easier to make false accusations and get away with it.

This doesn't make someone immune from (any) prosecution. It makes them immune from prosecution for having alerted authorities to suspicious activity. And, yes, obviously the ones on the fence will be decided by a court.........just like everything else in the world!

This politically-correct world wouldn't have it any other way! 😛

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. The whole bit about it being retroactive isn't really acceptable- I don't think Congress or the President has the power to pardon in civil matters... which is what it amounts to... nor do I think it will pass judicial review.

Other than that, it's just more "tough on terror" handwaving... warm fuzzies for the faithful...

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. The whole bit about it being retroactive isn't really acceptable- I don't think Congress or the President has the power to pardon in civil matters... which is what it amounts to... nor do I think it will pass judicial review.

Other than that, it's just more "tough on terror" handwaving... warm fuzzies for the faithful...

Things can be made retroactively legal or illegal - it's called ex post facto. The Adam Walsh Bill had this.

 

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Weird populist mythology aside, the average person is extremely poorly suited to help with airline security, or any other type of security for that matter.
And this is a bullshit tradeoff anyways. If someone really WAS doing something suspicious and you reported them, there is no way in hell they'd win in court. The only thing this law does is protect the idiots.

The amendment also shields transportation systems and employees that take reasonable actions to mitigate perceived threats. <----To be included in said idiots??? 😛

 

[mercanucaribe]

Let the witch hunt begin! I'm betting a lot of people will be "reported" for taking pictures of buildings, which used to be a passtime, but is now "suspicious activity".

 

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Let the witch hunt begin! I'm betting a lot of people will be "reported" for taking pictures of buildings, which used to be a passtime

Pre-911

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
but is now "suspicious activity".

Post-911


:moon:

 

[babylon5]

Has there been a lot of lawsuits like this law try to prevent? Only one I heard of is that Imam suing other passengers.

Somehow I doubt people would just start accusing others just for the heck of it. But we do live in Post 9-11 era. That is just life.

 

[JEDIYoda]

pulls up a lawn chair and pours a nice tall glass of beer

 

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
pulls up a lawn chair and pours a nice tall glass of beer

What kind??

(Methinks I'll be doin' the same just as soon as I pull outta' work here!) 😎

 

[Jhhnn]

Ex Post Facto statutes are generally in violation of the Constitution, Xman. Unless they legalize a specific criminal act, or if the courts determine that they don't impose an additional penalty on the perps, as in Smith vs Doe.

Obviously, the statute in question invokes a penalty on the Imams whose attempts to pray at the appointed hour were seen as "suspicious"... It's the whole point of the measure, anyway..

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Originally posted by: Narmer
Who's definition of "suspicious" are we talking about here? Are we to let the courts to decide that little tidbit?

It's no different than the current scenario now, so why not??

Jeff7 has a valid point because once the accusation has been carried out, it may be enough to destroy someone's life, in many ways.

"May" be enough? And in "many" ways??? How so??
Wouldn't matter what it is you make a false accusation about. It's either legit or not. In fact.........try screaming "Fire" in a bank this afternoon & see what happens to ya'! 😉 (Hint: There better be a fire!)

I don't think anyone should be immune from prosecution. If anything, it'll make it easier to make false accusations and get away with it.

This doesn't make someone immune from (any) prosecution. It makes them immune from prosecution for having alerted authorities to suspicious activity. And, yes, obviously the ones on the fence will be decided by a court.........just like everything else in the world!

This politically-correct world wouldn't have it any other way! 😛

If you were standing in front of me with that argument, I'd argue with you. But you are on the internet and I don't know how serious you're willing to argue this so I won't bother wasting my energy. However, I will say that this is a slippery slope that will only lead to frustration for law enforcement and a lot of people having to clear their names in the court of public opinion. Automatically shielding individuals from reporting a protean and phantom threat is a recipe for the return of McCarthyism.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Ex Post Facto statutes are generally in violation of the Constitution, Xman. Unless they legalize a specific criminal act, or if the courts determine that they don't impose an additional penalty on the perps, as in Smith vs Doe.

Obviously, the statute in question invokes a penalty on the Imams whose attempts to pray at the appointed hour were seen as "suspicious"... It's the whole point of the measure, anyway..

The suspicious behavior of the imams wasn't praying, it was splitting up into groups of two, and posting at the front, rear, and middle, of the aircraft, even though their seats were nowhere close.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Ex Post Facto statutes are generally in violation of the Constitution, Xman. Unless they legalize a specific criminal act, or if the courts determine that they don't impose an additional penalty on the perps, as in Smith vs Doe.

Obviously, the statute in question invokes a penalty on the Imams whose attempts to pray at the appointed hour were seen as "suspicious"... It's the whole point of the measure, anyway..

The suspicious behavior of the imams wasn't praying, it was splitting up into groups of two, and posting at the front, rear, and middle, of the aircraft, even though their seats were nowhere close.

Does that constitute as suspicious behaviour now? I thought the terrorists that flew on 9/11 all had first class seats. Is that considered suspicious behaviour if dark-skinned men buy first-class seats? Tell me, what is suspicious behaviour? Is it only OK if non-dark-skinned people do it? Is there a difference between that and racial profiling?

 

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: Narmer
The suspicious behavior of the imams wasn't praying, it was splitting up into groups of two, and posting at the front, rear, and middle, of the aircraft, even though their seats were nowhere close.

Does that constitute as suspicious behaviour now? I thought the terrorists that flew on 9/11 all had first class seats. Is that considered suspicious behaviour if dark-skinned men buy first-class seats? Tell me, what is suspicious behaviour? Is it only OK if non-dark-skinned people do it? Is there a difference between that and racial profiling?
[/quote]


Suspicious behavior is when 150lb (soaking wet) imams ask for seatbelt extenders (that's a chunk of metal on the end of a strap for us layfolk) and then proceed to stow them underneath their seats.

Heard from one of those to be sued today on L.A. radio who explained the entire incident in specific detail. He and his wife, both, decided something was DEFINITELY (note, not a little bit) wrong with the whole scenario.

And post-911?? You bet your candy ass........whether it be white, black, purple or PINK!!!

Don't let temporal thinking twist your ability to logic. McCarthyism, no. Post 911-ism?? YES! :thumbsup:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Let's see...what happened the last time that US citizens were able to just accuse anyone of a "crime" or suspicious activity without any proof?

Oh, that's right....THE FREAKING SALEM WITCH TRIALS!!!!


Erie side note - just flipped to a different channel and the woman on the tube was talking about where to eat in Salem, MA. 😉

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Originally posted by: Narmer
The suspicious behavior of the imams wasn't praying, it was splitting up into groups of two, and posting at the front, rear, and middle, of the aircraft, even though their seats were nowhere close.

Does that constitute as suspicious behaviour now? I thought the terrorists that flew on 9/11 all had first class seats. Is that considered suspicious behaviour if dark-skinned men buy first-class seats? Tell me, what is suspicious behaviour? Is it only OK if non-dark-skinned people do it? Is there a difference between that and racial profiling?

Suspicious behavior is when 150lb (soaking wet) imams ask for seatbelt extenders (that's a chunk of metal on the end of a strap for us layfolk) and then proceed to stow them underneath their seats.

Heard from one of those to be sued today on L.A. radio who explained the entire incident in specific detail. He and his wife, both, decided something was DEFINITELY (note, not a little bit) wrong with the whole scenario.

And post-911?? You bet your candy ass........whether it be white, black, purple or PINK!!!

Don't let temporal thinking twist your ability to logic. McCarthyism, no. Post 911-ism?? YES! :thumbsup:[/quote]

You don't hear much about the seat belt extenders anymore. When this story first broke I thought that if true it was reason enough for them to be removed from the flight, but there were no pictures of them to be had. As I recall, one news release described one of the Inmans as being 6' 6" and over 250 pounds. I thought maybe he might have required one.... but even that might be "stretching it" a little.

Well, when the news that they were suing everyone broke, I saw all six of them on some news cast, and there was one, (1), I say again ONE large enough that he MIGHT have required a seatbelt extender. If, as reported, all or even most of them requested seat belt extenders then they were definitley looking to make a scene and deserved to be removed from the flight.

I still have mixed feelings about a special law for this though. I'm not sure if I'm for or against it??