« Bush to Reject SCHIP Expansion | Main | Undersecretary of Defense to Hillary Clinton: Stop Helping the Enemy »

Democrats Dump John Doe Provision from Homeland Security Bill

The Democrats prove once more that because they have no clue that there is a threat of terrorism, they need to be dumped from majority status. The Democrats actually spiked the John Doe provision from the Homeland Security Bill, which would protect Americans from lawsuits when they in good faith report suspicious activity that could lead to a terrorist act. I can't believe they're doing this at all let alone after the release of a report that said al Qaeda is ramping up its efforts to get their operatives into this country to commit terrorist acts:

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.

"This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists," said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Republicans wanted the provision included in final legislation, crafted yesterday during a House and Senate conference committee, that will implement final recommendations from the September 11 commission.

Mr. King and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the provision after a group of Muslim imams filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against US Airways and unknown "John Doe" passengers. The imams were removed from US Airways Flight 300 on Nov. 20 after fellow passengers on the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight complained about the imams' suspicious behavior.

On March 27, the House approved the "John Doe" amendment on a 304-121 vote.

"Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement," Mr. King said. "I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity."

Bryan at Hot Air puts this into the correct perspective:

The story notes that Democrats like Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson opposed the "John Doe" protection out of fears it would lead to racial profiling. Because, of course, racial profiling is so much worse than losing a city full of innocent people.

Are the Democrats for real here? Arguing that the fear of racial profiling is sufficient enough to pull a provision that encourages Americans to report suspicious activity is so outrageous, I feel like I'm reading satire, not an actual news report.

Michelle Malkin lists key phone numbers to call to express your outrage about this dangerous decision.

Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121

Nancy Pelosi's office: 202-225-4965

Call now!


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22721.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats Dump John Doe Provision from Homeland Security Bill:

» Bill's Bites linked with 2007.07.19 Long War // Dhimm Perfidy Roundup

Comments (23)

So you think it's good that... (Below threshold)
jim:

So you think it's good that people could be slandered, defamed and libeled by other people to the authorities, and not have any legal redress?

Do you really trust strangers that much?

The current laws don't prevent people from ratting out mobsters, drug dealers, or child abusers. It just means they have to actually have evidence to do it.

And most finally, this change in current laws which the Democrats stripped out, wouldn't prevent 9/11 or any other terrorism that's ever occurred. In almost all cases, it's not the lack of leads that's been the problem - it's been getting the government to pay attention to the leads they're already receiving.

Add this to the dozen or so... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

Add this to the dozen or so Intel projects to identify terrorist and prevent terrorists attacks that have been 'killed' by the democrats and then tell me the democrat party isn't assisting the terrorists with another attack. I'd just like to know how much money they have sent to terrorists organizations. We know they helped the crazies at code pink deliver almost a million dollars directly to terrorists in Iraq that were killing American soldiers.
Democrats are only interested in their own power and will maintain it with the dead bodies of American citizens overseas and at home. Hide and watch them get hundreds of thousands killed.
Great news today. Someone at the pentagon finally had enough of Shrillary's traitorous actions and told her to stop helping the terrorists. Maybe they finally have enough to indict her and several others as traitors. I can't see them making the comment to her unless federal marshalls with an indictment are on the way. LMAO

Hello,am I too late?... (Below threshold)

Hello,am I too late?
Oh good, I just wanted to make sure I get a spot in line for the headsman before he leaves.
Sorry. Every time it seems that it has all been done, the dems put one more round in their six-gun and raise the barrel to our heads.

I wonder,who is it they fight harder to protect the interests of,terrorists or child molesters? And John McCain joins these slime buckets with things like the al kkkeda bill of rights. Can he possibly not know why his numbers are sliding faster than mike moore on a greased tuboggin down a 50% grade hill?

Can a muslim report the "suspicious behavior" of anglos (Remember,another Tim McVay is only "one Limbaugh suggestion" away.) with impunity? I wonder...

Jim, if you really believe ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Jim, if you really believe what you just wrote you got to be one naive, out of touch, head in the sand leftwing nut. It is unbelieveable that anyone could be so dumb as to be against something such as this when anyone that has any smarts at all knows where the danger is coming from. Heaven help us if people with your beliefs get in power. Sheeeze

"Heaven help us if people w... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"Heaven help us if people with your beliefs get in power. Sheeeze"

Too Late. That's the point of the post.

... sometimes I think it'd ... (Below threshold)
yo:

... sometimes I think it'd just be easier to sit in the garage with the engine running.

Jim:So you thi... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

So you think it's good that people could be slandered, defamed and libeled by other people to the authorities, and not have any legal redress?

So, can we assume you would support all whistle blower laws be stricken from the books.

Jim, a slightly off topic s... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim, a slightly off topic scenario, but I'd really like to know just for the mental exercise involved....

Say you Jim were mugged on the streets of pollyannaville. In addition to the the serious lump on your forehead you suffered the loss of $500 bucks and all your credit cards.

Your description of the perp given to the police included the following: 7 foot tall, green complexion, a single eye and he was wearing a silver metallic jumpsuit.

The police All Points Bulletin went out this way:

"Wanted in a mugging, tall individual, dark skin, appeared to be partially blind, wearing light colored jumpsuit."

What are the odds your attacker would be caught?

How would those odds improve if "racial profiling" (i.e. UFO pilot in this case) didn't take precedence in the APB put out by the police?

Jim, you are plain nuts. ww... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim, you are plain nuts. ww

Jim, you are nutty actually... (Below threshold)

Jim, you are nutty actually. You've stated that it is the responsibility of the reporting person to substantiate a suspicion before reporting it to authorities. You've got the roles exactly backward.

This all started because some muslim imams deliberately created a stunt to frighten passengers and provoke responses in a theatre of victimhood. Idiocy like Jim and the rest of the Democrats encourage the muslim community to pretend victimhood even as they support terrorism.

New bumper sticker for '08:
Report a Terrorist, Be Sued by Democrats

I know Jim makes for such a... (Below threshold)

I know Jim makes for such an attractive punching bag, but I would ask that frequent commenters please ignore him.
He has no credibility. He is not honest. He has proven repeatedly that he cannot offer up a defensible point. He is here as a distraction only. That is his only purpose here.
He is stealing O2 here.

I agree HughS, (and admitte... (Below threshold)
marc:

I agree HughS, (and admittedly feel much dumber for reading his tripe) however I would still like to see him give an answer to my scenario.

But alas, for the dozens of times I've posed the same scenario to various racial profile whiners they've either ignored the point entirely or changed the subject.

Jim gets chalked up on the "ignored" side of the ledger.

I don't like the idea of ho... (Below threshold)

I don't like the idea of honest citizens getting sued by the ACLU for reporting suspicious activity. How does the media put it? It would have a "chilling effect".

However, I also don't like having no recourse against someone who maliciously, falsely accuses me of being a terrorist. I have to admit I haven't read the bill - this is, in fact, what it would do. Correct?

Not sure where I stand on this one.

I will take mt chances on t... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

I will take mt chances on this one. Odds are to much in my favor.

Democrats are either suppor... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Democrats are either supporting the Trial Lawyers or CAIR. No matter which, they endanger our nation. Hopefully the public will recognize the danger Democrats pose when they have power. The answer is remove them. I wrote to N. Pelosi and congratulated her for weakening our country.

So if you report suspicious... (Below threshold)
Jack:

So if you report suspicious activity you could end up being sued by CAIR and their unlimited Saudi funds as well as the ACLU (if the suspicious people end up being Muslims). The cost of defense alone would bankrupt most people. I would think twice before reporting such activity.

Jim, you won't have to worr... (Below threshold)

Jim, you won't have to worry about it now. While you wring your hands, agonizing over getting sued for reporting the guy who suspiciously placed a briefcase next to the bank teller window and walked away, someone with common sense will say something.

This Dem travesty is a defacto admission that they side with CAIR on the flying Imams episode.

"So you think it's good that people could be slandered, defamed and libeled by other people to the authorities, and not have any legal redress?"

Way to go. Take it all the way to the extreme, jim. Slander, defamation and libel is something the press does. Not a citizen who who sees and reports suspicious behavior to an authority.

They do have redress. If the authorities go too far and infringe on anyone's rights, they can take them to court. If the press slanders, defames or libels them in reporting the issue, they can take them to court too.

So, can we assume you wo... (Below threshold)
jim:

So, can we assume you would support all whistle blower laws be stricken from the books.

I don't know how you can assume that. I don't believe the whistle blower laws prevent a whistle blower from being sued, if the whistle blower has no evidence for their allegations.

Jim, a slightly off topi... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, a slightly off topic scenario, but I'd really like to know just for the mental exercise involved....

Ok, fair enough. I may have one for you afterwards, too.

Say you Jim were mugged on the streets of pollyannaville.

I think that's right next to Crawford, Texas?

In addition to the the serious lump on your forehead you suffered the loss of $500 bucks and all your credit cards.

What are the odds your attacker would be caught?

How would those odds improve if "racial profiling" (i.e. UFO pilot in this case) didn't take precedence in the APB put out by the police?

Of course the odds of the criminal being caught, would improve if the description was more accurate - and it would be fair to give this accurate description, because ***this was someone who was observed committing a crime****.

It is not a crime - yet, anyway - to get on a plane while being a Muslim.

The difference with the example of the Muslim musicians on a plane, is that they had committed no crimes, and were only suspected of being criminals because a bunch of freaked-ou passengers thought they looked all Muslim-y. For which horrible crime they almost went to jail, in what is supposed to be the Land of the Free.

That's the problem with trying to run a Democratic society on principles of "I know a criminal when I see one." And that's why people who turn out to be Muslim, should have a right to redress wrongs committed against them. in court.

I mean I am shocked, really. Do you guys stand for liberty and freedom, or not? Do you guys think it's right for people who haven't committed any crimes, to have no redress against their accusers?

If the lawsuits are bunk, they'll be dealt with by the courts! That's what the courts are for. Why this fear of the court system?

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up so precious a thing as liberty for security deserve neither, and will soon lose both."

Oh, Hugh, Hugh, Hugh.... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, Hugh, Hugh, Hugh.

He has no credibility. He is not honest. He has proven repeatedly that he cannot offer up a defensible point.

Hugh, I of course would beg to differ.

But since you think I'm dishonest, without credibility and can't offer up a defensible point, you out to be able to make quick mincemeat out of my arguments, right?

The John Doe provision is a... (Below threshold)
JayDScott:

The John Doe provision is a sanction by the far-right lunatic fringe for the far-right lunatic fringe. It's unconstitutional racial profiling, and paves way for religious wingnuts to broaden the definition of domestic terrorism. I'm sure many of you would like to deem all religions and ideologies that doesn't coincide with elitist Anarcho-Capitalism as terrorism. Be honest. When Dems are in power and have the majority in all levels of government, the provision will be struck. Promise.

Jim scribbles: "I mean I am... (Below threshold)

Jim scribbles: "I mean I am shocked, really. Do you guys stand for liberty and freedom, or not? Do you guys think it's right for people who haven't committed any crimes, to have no redress against their accusers?"

If you are saying that anyone who is innocent should be able to sue witnesses against them, then you have invented a new right of suit never before seen in America. Because this has never been true. And it is completely looney.

"If the lawsuits are bunk, they'll be dealt with by the courts! That's what the courts are for. Why this fear of the court system?"

Because it is prohibitively expensive for the average person to defend themselves against a lawsuit. Ordinary negligence cases can cost tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees. The kind of claim involved is not insurable. The fear is that the kind of bogus suits being engaged upon by CAIR and the imams are intended to scare people into not reporting suspicious behavior by people who want to be provocative.

See how easy it was to make you look silly?

I would suggest you view th... (Below threshold)
TopAssistant Author Profile Page:

I would suggest you view the video program on C-SPAN Book TV titled, Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America featuring Brigitte Gabriel. I would also suggest you visit her website, American Congress for Truth. Radical Muslim terrorist have already infiltrated the U.S and is waiting to unleash their terror on America. When the body bombs start in Wal-Mart, then America will wake up. Congressional Democrats 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. THINK AMERICA!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy