« Global economic boom fueled by tax cuts | Main | Ducks... In... Space!!!! »

Democrats Kill the John Doe Provision

keepyourmouthshut.jpg
Photoshop from Right on the Right

This is an update for this post.

The Senate Democrats have successfully killed the John Doe provision - at least for now - and have sided with potential terrorists against their own citizens. Here's the roll on Republican Susan Collins' motion to include the provision in an education bill:

johndoeroll1.jpg

Even though the provision got 57 "Yeas," the Democrats stacked the deck by requiring a 60 vote super majority. See the names listed under "Nays." They are all Democrats and one Independent. Not one Republican voted against this provision. What is going on inside the Democratic party that its members are so united against protecting the American people from another terrorist attack? And as I noted in an earlier post, they are completely committed to this even after an intelligence report said that al Qaeda is working harder than ever to get their operatives into this country to commit terrorist acts.

With the Democrats' votes on the John Doe provision, never has the label "the hate America crowd" been more true than right now.

Update: Andy McCarthy offers more on the Death Wish Democrats:

Democrats killed the amendment in a very sneaky, technical, under-the-radar way in the House -- so they can tell their insane fringe backers they pulled it off, yet no one's fingerprints are on it. As far as I'm concerned, that just means we should blame "THE DEMOCRATS." Period. If they don't want personal accountability, we should see it this way: When it comes to national security, this is who they are.

In the senate, the measure fell short by three votes of the 60 needed. By the way: Barack Obama and Sam Brownback, showing real leadership as they run for the White House, did not bother to vote. Nor did Dianne Feinstein, though she is a member of the Judiciary Committee and frequently has lots to say on national security issues. Three votes were needed on an issue that pitted the American people against the netroots, and those three were nowhere to be found. Profiles in courage all.

All Republicans in the Senate except Brownback voted for the measure. Hillary Clinton, who is running for president and obviously is not suicidal, broke with her party and voted with the Republicans. So did Senators Bayh, Conrad, Dorgan, Landrieu, Lieberman, Nelson (of Nebraska), and Schumer. The remaining 39 Democrats were all nays. Call them the "Death Wish Caucus," doing the bidding of CAIR, which is backing the Flying Imams and their alleged right to sue Americans for reporting potential terrorist activity.

Read all of Andy's post.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22733.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats Kill the John Doe Provision:

» Pierre Legrand's Pink Flamingo Bar linked with Democrats would like to Sue him…

» The Cassandra Page linked with Bob Casey votes to deny protection to anti-terror

Comments (21)

Paul: "One if by land, two ... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

Paul: "One if by land, two if by sea"
John: "Wait Paul, they should get two lawyers in any case"
Paul: "I was talking about the British, they are coming"
John: "Of course they are coming and it is our duty to be ready. Let's make tea."
Paul: "I was just getting ready to raise the alarm"
John: "You do that and the ACLU will sue you for a public disturbance"
Paul: "But the British are coming!"
John: "See, there you go again - we can't discriminate against any group you know."
Paul: "But the British are coming!"
John: "I know Paul, keep your voice down you'll wake the dead"
Paul: "But we have to alert the militia, organize!
John: "The militia will surrender on schedule Paul."
Paul: "Surrender?"
John: "What, like the British are some big threat? They are only here because of that Jefferson guy anyway."
Paul: "They are going to kill us and confiscate our property."
John: "No Paul, you've been reading too much of that Franklin guy. They are just going to grab some smokes and beat it back to England."
Paul: "No threat?"
John: "Perish the thought. Tea?"

Robert, that is a great exa... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Robert, that is a great example. Thanks.

I have been around the block quite a few times but the liberals continue to amaze me. This would have harmed no one. If there was personal malice involved and can be proved, of course it could have been put in the bill. The liberals did this because CAIR and the ACLU fund their party. Again playing politics with our troops and our personal safety. Disgusting group they are. ww

The Democrats are, CLEARLY,... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The Democrats are, CLEARLY, against national security. This is the single most basic aspect of national security --- we don't have MILLIONS of federal agents to watch out for suspicious activity and now ordinary citizens won't say a word because it's not worth the risk.

So, Dems, who has bought you? Good job conservatives who felt this bunch couldn't be worse than the Republicans. They've proven you wrong repeatedly.
-=Mike

I heard that the Senate lea... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

I heard that the Senate leadership has installed a provision ending all future arrests of Muslims no matter what the crime, in fear that 1. it might lead to profiling and 2. their heads might get cut off.

Don't think of it as the De... (Below threshold)
Mark L:

Don't think of it as the Dems being pro-terrorist. Rather, it that they are so reflexively pro-lawyer that given a law that restricts the opportunity for contigency fees, they have to vote against it, because the opportunity to allow lawyers to pursue contingency fees is more important than national security.

You would no more expect a Democrat to restrict lawsuit abuse than you would expect a devout priest to foreswear the catechism of his religion. That terrorists benefit is just a side result.

It is interesting to see th... (Below threshold)
moseby:

It is interesting to see that obama did not vote. Maybe he was late? heh heh

Um... how do you spell doub... (Below threshold)
Terp Mole:

Um... how do you spell double jeopardy?

Misprision of Felony

"Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
[United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter I, Section 4 ]Sued if you do... imprisoned if you don't.

Hillary,Obama there little ... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Hillary,Obama there little chaoice between the WICKED WITCH and THE EVIL WIZARD is there?

I'm going to say something ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I'm going to say something if I see something anyway. Screw them. Rather be sued than dead.

This was a no-brainer for t... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

This was a no-brainer for the Dems. They hold the right to make lawyers richer second only to their blessed sacrament, the right to kill the unborn.

The fact that they are also aiding their islamofascist allies was just a bonus.

Shocking that Clinton voted "yes" though. Well, not really. They've always put politics above principals and a "no" vote will turn a lot of the swing voters (informationally retarded people) against her.

Gasp! Those horrible Democr... (Below threshold)
jim:

Gasp! Those horrible Democrats stood up for the rule of law and the principles of the founding fathers of our country!

Whereby someone who is wrongly accused, can actually demand some redress against their wrongful accusers, and the justice of their case will be tried in a court of law.

What happens now?? Does that mean we won't be able to throw passengers off planes because they look all Muslim-y?

terp mole, here's the point... (Below threshold)
jim:

terp mole, here's the point:

having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States,

***of the actual commission**** of a felony. Of actual commission of a crime. Not "that guy looks like the kind of person who will commit a crime", or "I think that stranger might commit a crime, but I don't have any evidence, just a gut instinct".

And you won't be sued if you report it - you'll just be sued if you report someone or treat someone like a criminal with absolutely no evidence.

You know, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing that our founding fathers made the bedrock of this nation.

No big deal. Don't worry about it. Let's all just be ruled by our fear instead.

If they SMELL muslim-y they... (Below threshold)
moseby:

If they SMELL muslim-y they SHOULD be tossed. Think of the children, dammit!

JimWhat h... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Jim

What happens now?? Does that mean we won't be able to throw passengers off planes because they look all Muslim-y?

No, it means when a bunch of Muslim Imams deliberately act the way a terrorist would, no one will say anything for fear of being sued or offending someone. Then when a real terrorist gets on a plane the same thing will happen, no one will say anyting...just bury their faces in thier magazines, and some people might die. Maybe you. It's pretty nice, it conditions the American public to allow people who would harm them to do so.

But as long as no one is offended because they acted like they were going to blow shit up, it's all good right Jim?

Make sure if you see a suspicious Muslim-y type guy, you don't say anything.

Jim,No bi... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Jim,

No big deal. Don't worry about it. Let's all just be ruled by our fear instead.

The ever convenient fall back. If you're vigilant, you're ruled by fear.

shhhh, no one say anything, everything will work out for the best...I'm sure of it.

It think it is interesting ... (Below threshold)
kim:

It think it is interesting that Schumer and Clinton, Senators from New York, which is the highest profile target in the world, voted with the Republicans.

Particularly in New York, sensitive still about its denizens' concerns for their fellows, this vote could be very damaging after any, I repeat ANY, future attack. But why don't the Democrats follow these two very high, I repeat VERY HIGH, profile leaders? Good question.
====================================

The ever convenient fall... (Below threshold)
jim:

The ever convenient fall back. If you're vigilant, you're ruled by fear.

"Vigilant" means keeping an eye on people, and making sure they don't do anything that could cause harm.

"Ruled by fear" means freaking out because some people whose appearance scares you, are talking to each other. And acting without all logic through sheer xenophobia.

...it means when a bunch of Muslim Imams deliberately act the way a terrorist would, no one will say anything for fear of being sued or offending someone.

Deliberately act **what way** ??

These were some Muslims who looked like Muslims, who sat on a plane and talked to each other. Probably a bit nervously, 'cause of all the heroic Americans who were starting at them and trying not to pee in their pants.

They coulda just searched the musicians, found nothing but some instruments and a coupla Korans, and sat them back on the plane. No lawsuit there. Suspicion, routine check, no suspicion, flight goes on ahead.

Instead these freaked out people forced these innocent civilians - let me repeat that: **innocent civilians** off the flight which they legitimately purchased tickets for, in all good faith.

Even though the Muslim musicians submitted to searches, and were searched thoroughly and found completely innocent of any intent or ***possibility*** to cause harm, the musicians were still treated as if they were criminals and killers. They were unable to buy tickets on any subsequent planes.

So, suspicion and searching is fine; holding onto your suspicion past all logic and proof of innocence until it derails innocent's lives, is lawsuit-worthy.

What's the problem?

Clarification: this isn't t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Clarification: this isn't the only time in recent years we've seen a freakout like this. I lumped the 2 events together.

The group that's suing now is 6 Muslim clerics, who were heading to a convention; the previous airplane freak-out I was thinking of was the 14 innocent Syrian musicians, automatically labelled as terrorists by the freak-out of Annie Jacobsen on a pants-wetting airplane flight in 2004.

Hard to keep all these freakouts straight.

Jim:Hard to ke... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

Hard to keep all these freakouts straight.

Must be, but one would think you could keep the basic facts straight, they weren't "heading to a convention" they were going home after a three-day North American Imams Federation conference in Bloomington.

jim, this is for you and th... (Below threshold)

jim, this is for you and the intellectually impaired:

Did you even read Jacobsen's entire account including the concerns raised by the flight attendants? Are you aware of the many witnesses to the "Flying Imam" incident? After that, have you ever read this? (the 9th paragraph is the relevant part. Although the entire article is interesting.)

These are all perfect examples of people doing their very best to instigate a situation and then use it to achieve exactly what the Democrats have handed to them on a silver platter - allowing no protection for those who would report suspicious behavior that very well could end up turning into a very serious incident. Looking back, there were numerous alarm bells going off in the months preceeding 9/11. If someone had reported their behavior to the right authorities and the threat had been thwarted, we could always count on you to call them "freak-outs".

And above all else you claim that it's unfair that they can't "face their accuser". Reporting suspicious behavior, as in the three incidents above, is not a direct accusation. The accusation comes from the authorities. And if the authorities over-react and infringe on their rights or treat them unjustly, THEY are the accusers who will be faced.

Jim, you're an idiot, I wou... (Below threshold)
Ran:

Jim, you're an idiot, I would LOVE to be sitting beside you when one of these situations come down. Just to watch you shit your pants!.. What a Dweeb. Oh, and don't worry, I won't expect any backup from you.. just keep that pillow covering your face!




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