Democrats Cut 'John Doe' Provisions

SW85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
528
Location
Maryland
LINK: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NATION/70719001/1001

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.

As I understand it, the amendment was in the original bill which was passed by Congress with broad bipartisan support. It was then stripped in conference committee, where no one Democrat could be blamed for it because of the committee's secretive nature. An attempt to reinclude the amendment to the committee's final report was then defeated by both the Senate and House at large.

Congress has thus pulled the teeth out of the most fundamental concept of national security -- that a vigilant citizenry is the last defense against terrorist violence. As of now, you have the choice of either shutting up in the face of possible terrorist activity (and thereby imperiling American lives) or speaking out and risk being sued into oblivion by the ethically-challenged racial grievance mongers at the deplorable Hamas front group CAIR.

Ostensibly the amendment was removed on the grounds that it was not germane to the underlying bill -- although no one objected when the amendment was first passed, and although the parliamentarians of both chambers ruled it was, in fact, germane. Here is a list of those Senators who voted for and against it. You'll notice no Republicans voted against it, although the increasingly worthless Sam Brownback couldn't be bothered to show up for the vote, nor could Obama. At least Tim Johnson has an excuse. For those of you whose Senators voted against the bill (as both mine did), you should write to express your outrage.

I feel awful for those poor people in Minneapolis who reported the bizarre behavior of the "Flying Imams" in good faith and will now be litigated to death by CAIR.
 
Werbung:
I agree. If people are behaving in a suspicious manner, one should be able to report it without fear of being sued. The responsibility for whatever happens afterwards lies with those who take action.
 
LINK: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NATION/70719001/1001



As I understand it, the amendment was in the original bill which was passed by Congress with broad bipartisan support. It was then stripped in conference committee, where no one Democrat could be blamed for it because of the committee's secretive nature. An attempt to reinclude the amendment to the committee's final report was then defeated by both the Senate and House at large.

Congress has thus pulled the teeth out of the most fundamental concept of national security -- that a vigilant citizenry is the last defense against terrorist violence. As of now, you have the choice of either shutting up in the face of possible terrorist activity (and thereby imperiling American lives) or speaking out and risk being sued into oblivion by the ethically-challenged racial grievance mongers at the deplorable Hamas front group CAIR.

Ostensibly the amendment was removed on the grounds that it was not germane to the underlying bill -- although no one objected when the amendment was first passed, and although the parliamentarians of both chambers ruled it was, in fact, germane. Here is a list of those Senators who voted for and against it. You'll notice no Republicans voted against it, although the increasingly worthless Sam Brownback couldn't be bothered to show up for the vote, nor could Obama. At least Tim Johnson has an excuse. For those of you whose Senators voted against the bill (as both mine did), you should write to express your outrage.

I feel awful for those poor people in Minneapolis who reported the bizarre behavior of the "Flying Imams" in good faith and will now be litigated to death by CAIR.

I think I am actually more outraged about this than I was about the amnesty bill last month. Yep, calls and e-mails will be flying from here, you betcha!

I can understand the rejection of Sen. Susan Collins' attempt to attach ti to another, unrelated bill, (although the methodology is not in the slightest unprecedented!) but GOLLY! If something that is such a foundational protection for citizens in this day and age can't pass in a Homeland Security Bill, where the heck DOES it belong?

These idiots are going to play politics right into our graves.
 
Werbung:
The more I hear, the less I like.

My account above was more or less true. The measure was passed in public by a wide margin of more than 3-1. It was stripped secretly in conference committee on a byzantine technicality that didn't apply in this case, anyway.

Obviously the Democrats responsible for stripping it knew the amendment was popular and didn't want to be seen as voting against national security. So its passage went through quietly and then stripped it in secret in conference committee, where no one Democrat could be blamed for its removal. Now I have to wonder which race-baiting jackass was responsible for this.
 
Back
Top