No protection from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior

[rev214]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...M5ZGM4NDMwODE=

Flying Imams, CAIR and Democrats Defeat Common Sense National Security

by Andy McCarthy


At least for now, the Democrats have killed Rep. Pete King's amendment which would have provided protection from being sued for people who report suspicious behavior — like the Flying Imams' simulated hijacking — in national security cases. Michelle Malkin has the details.

Maybe it's me, but I just find this stunning. Asking whether, in this era (or, frankly, any era), you should be able to tell the police you saw something troubling without having to worry about it is like asking whether you should be able to breathe. It is common sense — if such a thing exists anymore in Reid/Pelosi America.

The Democrats' maneuver here is also an obnoxious assertion of state power over the individual: If the state subpoenas you for information, you are compelled to provide it to the authorities whether you want to or not; but if you want to provide it voluntarily in order to protect your community, the Democrats say, "prepare to be sued."

What possible good reason is there to silence people who want to tell the police they saw suspicious behavior? Under circumstances where we are under threat from covert terror networks which secretly embed themselves in our society to prepare and carry out WMD attacks? Planet earth to the Democrats: To execute such attacks, terrorists have to act suspiciously at some point. There are only a few thousand federal agents in the country. There are many more local police, but even they are relatively sparse in a country of 300 million. If we are going to stop the people trying to kill us, we need ordinary citizens on their toes. Again, this is just common sense.

Profiling? Our war is against ISLAMIC radicals. They think the KORAN is commanding them to murder us. The guy who tried to bomb the airport in Glasgow a couple of weeks ago was yelling ALLAH! as he fought with the police. We're supposed to ignore that?

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.

[NineseveN]

Sounds like a lot of Rehtoric as usual, anyone have a source for the text of this amendment? These things rarely say what the media or the politicos say they do.

[rev214]

S9630

SEC. __. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTS OF SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR AND RESPONSE. (a) Immunity for Reports of Suspicious Behavior.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under Federal, State, and local law for such report.

(2) FALSE REPORTS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any report that the person knew to be false at the time that person made that report.
(b) Immunity for Response.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Any authorized official who observes, or receives a report of, covered activity and takes reasonable action to respond to such activity shall be immune from civil liability under Federal, State, and local law for such action.

(2) SAVINGS CLAUSE.--Nothing in this subsection shall affect the ability of any authorized official to assert any defense, privilege, or immunity that would otherwise be available, and this subsection shall not be construed as affecting any such defense, privilege, or immunity.
(c) Attorney Fees and Costs.--Any person or authorized official found to be immune from civil liability under this section shall be entitled to recover from the plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney fees.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL.--The term ``authorized official'' means--
(A) any employee or agent of a mass transportation system;
(B) any officer, employee, or agent of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Justice;
(C) any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
(D) any transportation security officer.
(2) COVERED ACTIVITY.--The term ``covered activity'' means any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence indicating that an individual may be engaging, or preparing to engage, in--
(A) a violent act or act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be such a violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State; or
(B) an act of terrorism (as that term is defined in section 3077 of title 18, United States Code) that involves, or is directed against, a mass transportation system or vehicle or its passengers.
(3) MASS TRANSPORTATION.--The term ``mass transportation''--
(A) has the meaning given to that term in section 5302(a)(7) of title 49, United States Code; and
(B) includes--
(i) school bus, charter, or intercity bus transportation;
(ii) intercity passenger rail transportation;
(iii) sightseeing transportation;
(iv) a passenger vessel as that term is defined in section 2101(22) of title 46, United States Code;
(v) other regularly scheduled waterborne transportation service of passengers by vessel of at least 20 gross tons; and
(vi) air transportation as that term is defined in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code.
(4) MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.--The term ``mass transportation system'' means an entity or entities organized to provide mass transportation using vehicles, including the infrastructure used to provide such transportation.
(5) VEHICLE.--The term ``vehicle'' has the meaning given to that term in section 1992(16) of title 18, United States Code.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on November 20, 2006, and shall apply to all activities and claims occurring on or after such date.

[NineseveN]

Awesome, thanks for not making me track it down...seems kinda odd that someone would be so against this amendment...

[rev214]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

...seems kinda odd that someone would be so against this amendment...

i agree...

the amendment i listed is from the senate, with Susan Collins trying to get it inserted after King (on the house side) failed to get it in the homeland security legislation...

While the conference is not likely to meet again, Mr. King noted the conference report has not been written and says he will continue discussions with Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, to insert the “John Doe” language.
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and ranking member of the committee, announced afterward she will attempt to attach a similar bill to an education measure currently under debate on the Senate floor.

again, the senate amendment failed as well...

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

seems kinda odd that someone would be so against this amendment...

i can understand why someone might be against this...frankly, i'm against it.

while the intentions are good, this is ripe for abuse.

for example, your anti-gun neighbors could report you for carrying guns to and from your car every time you go to the range, and you would potentially have no recourse...

throw in some anti-LEOs who follow-up and harass you every time that one of your idiot neighbors calls...and an anti- judge who rules that your neighbors are being objectively reasonable in suspecting that you are "preparing to engage in illegal violent activity" by "loading an arsenal of assault weapons into your car"...

and you are doomed to constant harassment without any legal recourse.

imho, when evaluating proposed laws like this (or anything that expands the power of the government or increases the use of citizens to spy on each other), you have to ask yourself "how could an anti-freedom socialist use this propsed law to further quash the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

personally, i could easily see this being used for that purpose.

btw, how big is the problem this is supposed to address? how many actual terrorists have successfully sued anyone for reporting their suspicious activities? i've never heard of such a thing personally. i'm not a big fan of solutions that are worse than the problems they are trying to solve.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i can understand why someone might be against this...frankly, i'm against it.

while the intentions are good, this is ripe for abuse.

for example, your anti-gun neighbors could report you for carrying guns to and from your car every time you go to the range, and you would potentially have no recourse...

throw in some anti-LEOs who follow-up and harass you every time that one of your idiot neighbors calls...and an anti- judge who rules that your neighbors are being objectively reasonable in suspecting that you are "preparing to engage in illegal violent activity" by "loading an arsenal of assault weapons into your car"...

and you are doomed to constant harassment without any legal recourse.

imho, when evaluating proposed laws like this (or anything that expands the power of the government or increases the use of citizens to spy on each other), you have to ask yourself "how could an anti-freedom socialist use this propsed law to further quash the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

personally, i could easily see this being used for that purpose.

btw, how big is the problem this is supposed to address? how many actual terrorists have successfully sued anyone for reporting their suspicious activities? i've never heard of such a thing personally. i'm not a big fan of solutions that are worse than the problems they are trying to solve.

Thank you...I get tired of being the first willy-nilly to what-if things to death around here.

But I'm not sure how easily this could be abused considering the laws against filing false reports (after the first time your neighbor calls the cops, they know you taking your guns to your car is legal and no reasons for calling the police f the LEO's do their job) and Official Oppression (the cops responding to your neighbor's call every time to harass you repeatedly for an obviously legal activity that has been resolved on prior occasions), I just don't see it.

But, I agree 100%, what problem does this actually solve? Racial profiling? People are going to do that anyway, and I don't think Joe Citizen would know or even care whether or not they could be sued for calling attention to suspicious activity, they'll do it anyway (like they have been all along without this amendment).

[rev214]

...how many actual terrorists have successfully sued anyone for reporting their suspicious activities?

i feel CAIR (the council on american-islamic relations) and the likes would be more of a concern for lawsuits and litigation...

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

But I'm not sure how easily this could be abused considering the laws against filing false reports (after the first time your neighbor calls the cops, they know you taking your guns to your car is legal and no reasons for calling the police f the LEO's do their job) and Official Oppression (the cops responding to your neighbor's call every time to harass you repeatedly for an obviously legal activity that has been resolved on prior occasions), I just don't see it.

you have much more faith in the court system to rule justly (rather than twisting laws...or just ignoring them...to suit particular agendas) than i do.

i think the scenario i outlined could happen...repeatedly...in, say, philadelphia.

maybe i'm just overly cynical. of course, watching the court system fail time and time again to protect individual rights is what made me that way

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

you have much more faith in the court system to rule justly (rather than twisting laws...or just ignoring them...to suit particular agendas) than i do.

i think the scenario i outlined could happen...repeatedly...in, say, philadelphia.

maybe i'm just overly cynical. of course, watching the court system fail time and time again to protect individual rights is what made me that way

I think I just got stuck on the "no recourse" portion of your argument. I don't like opening that can of worms either, but there's still an avenue of pursuit to rectify the issue.