Protection for John Does; a necessity at this time in this war
People occasionally ask what the average American can do in this war. Obviously, we're not the ones on the battlefield, or within the government seeking to end the reign of terror our enemies are conducting around the globe. So, what can we do?
The Left would have Americans believe that we have no role in this war. Whether it's through their feeble, straw-man "chicken-hawk" arguments, or the argument that there is no real danger from the jihadis, they don't want us doing anything. The same goes for organizations like CAIR. They really don't want us doing anything. As Frank Gaffney observed recently, CAIR is truly trying to portray Muslims as victims in America when iot's the furthest thing from the truth:
... CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, declared: “There were 196 cases reported by the Justice Department for Muslims in civil rights cases. There were over 1008 cases reported by the Jewish faith. We need to do a much better job not only in recognizing our civil rights but also in reporting it to the government. [It] is very critical and very important….We really feel our community is more targeted. 54% – this is one of CAIR’s surveys – 54% of all Muslims surveyed said they had been subject to discrimination. 54%, which if you put numbers down, we’re talking about tens of thousands of cases, not dozens, as is reported in the Justice Department’s annual report.”
In other words, it serves CAIR’s purposes to portray Muslims as victims. Imams who behave suspiciously are victims. And other Muslims who fail to report their victimhood are undermining the efforts CAIR and its ilk are making to secure not just equal treatment under the law but special rights (e.g., designated prayer rooms, cleansing facilities, Muslim-only hours for school gyms, etc.) In the process, they are inuring this democracy to the encroachment of a religious code known as shari’a law and the parallel society the Islamists seek to establish here, as elsewhere, enroute to the creation of Islamic states.
But CAIR wants Americans to quit looking at Muslims as though they're all terrorists, and they portray that to the government as if it's a fact: All Americans think we're all terrorists. That's simply not true. While the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim, not all Mulsims are terrorists. We know that, and we recognize that. But back to what we're supposed to do in this war, the answer is dirt simple, folks.
We remain vigilant. We watch. We observe. We're not dummies out here, and we know how to recognize suspicious behavior. Now, if you take the case of the six imams thrown off the plane not too long ago, CAIR can claim that passengers jumped to conclusions. What we've discovered from that case is those imams acted suspiciously on purpose to drive CAIR's victimhood agenda. And the few passengers on the plane that brought the behavior of the imams to the flight crew's attention did the right thing. Imagine if they hadn't acted at all, and what sort of disruption would have been caused in the air.
Those people did the right thing. The clerk from the Circuit City who tipped off authorities to the "Dix Six" also did the right thing, and had far more justification to act than possibly those plane passengers. While the passengers were unnerved by the behavior of six imams, that employee knew what they saw on the tape they were converting to a DVD, and acted appropriately. Unfortunately, there are some, CAIR amongst them, that want to sue to silence these John Does.
Think about it ... If you faced the threat of a lawsuit over opening your mouth about suspicious activity, would you be more willing or less willing to contact authorities?
So, what is needed is a piece of legislation to protect those people. Today, Audrey Hudson discusses this in the Washington Times:
The New Jersey store clerk whose tip led to the arrest of six terror suspects needs legislative protection from being sued as a "John Doe" or whistleblower, lawmakers said yesterday.
"The events in Fort Dix are just another reminder of the need for this legislation," said Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican and author of legislation to protect "John Doe" passengers being sued by a group of Muslim imams for reporting their suspicious behavior that got the imams removed from an airline flight.
"We owe a debt of gratitude to this individual for alerting authorities to this potential terrorist attack and thwarting what could have been a terrible disaster. I can only imagine how grateful the men and women at Fort Dix and their families are for the courage of this person to take action when he saw something suspicious," Mr. Pearce said.
U.S. authorities arrested six foreign-born Muslims suspected of plotting to attack the New Jersey fort and kill "as many American soldiers as possible ... in the name of Allah." The FBI was alerted to the group by a clerk at the Circuit City store who had been asked to copy to a video disc images of the men test-firing weapons in the mountains and calling for jihad.
"If we didn't get that tip," said U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie in New Jersey, "I couldn't be sure what would happen."
M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, agrees that the FBI's arrests show the need to protect the principle of "see something, say something."
"What if this 'John Doe' had contrarily chosen to be silent due to a fear of litigation?" Dr. Jasser said.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, and Rep. Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, used a procedural tactic to add the Pearce language to a rail and transportation security bill in March. The amendment was passed, with unanimous approval of Republicans and support from 105 Democrats.
"A courageous act such as this one should not only be commended, it should be touted as a positive example of what citizens can do help prevent acts of terrorism here at home," Mr. Boehner said.
"It's critical that Democrats leave the Pearce language intact during conference negotiations so this kind of citizen participation is fostered and protected, not discouraged and litigated," Mr. Boehner said.
Drew Hammill, spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said, "This is an issue for the conferees."
A little bit of digging, and I found the bill. I'd provide a link, but the link will go dead. So, go to "Thomas.loc.gov" and type in a search for "Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007." I'm citing the thing in it's entirety below, but I don't want readers thinking I just made this up. It's primary sponsor in the House is Rep. Stevan Pearce:
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1640
To provide liability protection for individuals who report suspicious behavior to law enforcement agencies.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 22, 2007
Mr. PEARCE (for himself, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. WOLF, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. MCCOTTER, and Mr. MCKEON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide liability protection for individuals who report suspicious behavior to law enforcement agencies.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO REPORT SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR.
(a) In General- An individual shall not be liable for any injury or damages relating to such individual's qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior. A civil action for damages related to such disclosure may not be brought in any State or Federal court.
(b) Qualified Disclosure of Suspicious Behavior- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior' means any disclosure of the allegedly suspicious behavior of another individual or individuals to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or other security personnel that is made in good faith and with the reasonable belief that such behavior is suspicious.
This is exactly what we in this nation need. We shouldn't be cowed into submission by the likes of CAIR. They could honestly care less about our protection because all in all, they're helping the jihadis. Their complaints have little to do with civil rights, and their comments show that. Go back up and reread that part I cited from Frank Gaffney's piece. The amount of complaints regarding their civil rights are too low for their taste. They want more complaints. They're willing to file more lawsuits. They want to file more suits in the hope that they can silence us.
No. Frell them. I am a John Doe., You are a John Doe. The autrhorities can't be everywhere watching everyone. It falls to us to be the watchers on the frontier. If you believe as we do -- as those like Michell eMalkin, Frank Gaffney, Hugh Hewitt, Ed Morrissey, etc. do -- then get on the phone. I mean it. Congress has to hear from us and understand that we need this sort of protection. Call them today, call them tomorrow, and the next day and the next. 202-225-3121 is the Congressional switchboard number. Call your reps and senators, and call Rep. Pearce and tell him you support his bill.
If we don't obtain these protections, then eventually the jihadis will win. Their supporters, enablers, and apologists here in America will sue us into silence. We'll be lambs to the slaughter because we'll be afraid of losing all we have in the name of political correctness and not wanting to offend the jihadis trying to kill us.
That, folks, can't be allowed to happen. While our soldiers are in the field fighting to protect this nation, we must maintain the fight here at home. People ask what we can do, and I give you the answer. We watch. We observe. And we report anything we feel is suspicious to authorities. But we can't do that if we face the death of a thousand lawsuits everytime CAIR feels we're being insensitive. We're not. Don't believe that for a second. We're merely doing what it takes to protect our nation.
Publius II
The Left would have Americans believe that we have no role in this war. Whether it's through their feeble, straw-man "chicken-hawk" arguments, or the argument that there is no real danger from the jihadis, they don't want us doing anything. The same goes for organizations like CAIR. They really don't want us doing anything. As Frank Gaffney observed recently, CAIR is truly trying to portray Muslims as victims in America when iot's the furthest thing from the truth:
... CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, declared: “There were 196 cases reported by the Justice Department for Muslims in civil rights cases. There were over 1008 cases reported by the Jewish faith. We need to do a much better job not only in recognizing our civil rights but also in reporting it to the government. [It] is very critical and very important….We really feel our community is more targeted. 54% – this is one of CAIR’s surveys – 54% of all Muslims surveyed said they had been subject to discrimination. 54%, which if you put numbers down, we’re talking about tens of thousands of cases, not dozens, as is reported in the Justice Department’s annual report.”
In other words, it serves CAIR’s purposes to portray Muslims as victims. Imams who behave suspiciously are victims. And other Muslims who fail to report their victimhood are undermining the efforts CAIR and its ilk are making to secure not just equal treatment under the law but special rights (e.g., designated prayer rooms, cleansing facilities, Muslim-only hours for school gyms, etc.) In the process, they are inuring this democracy to the encroachment of a religious code known as shari’a law and the parallel society the Islamists seek to establish here, as elsewhere, enroute to the creation of Islamic states.
But CAIR wants Americans to quit looking at Muslims as though they're all terrorists, and they portray that to the government as if it's a fact: All Americans think we're all terrorists. That's simply not true. While the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim, not all Mulsims are terrorists. We know that, and we recognize that. But back to what we're supposed to do in this war, the answer is dirt simple, folks.
We remain vigilant. We watch. We observe. We're not dummies out here, and we know how to recognize suspicious behavior. Now, if you take the case of the six imams thrown off the plane not too long ago, CAIR can claim that passengers jumped to conclusions. What we've discovered from that case is those imams acted suspiciously on purpose to drive CAIR's victimhood agenda. And the few passengers on the plane that brought the behavior of the imams to the flight crew's attention did the right thing. Imagine if they hadn't acted at all, and what sort of disruption would have been caused in the air.
Those people did the right thing. The clerk from the Circuit City who tipped off authorities to the "Dix Six" also did the right thing, and had far more justification to act than possibly those plane passengers. While the passengers were unnerved by the behavior of six imams, that employee knew what they saw on the tape they were converting to a DVD, and acted appropriately. Unfortunately, there are some, CAIR amongst them, that want to sue to silence these John Does.
Think about it ... If you faced the threat of a lawsuit over opening your mouth about suspicious activity, would you be more willing or less willing to contact authorities?
So, what is needed is a piece of legislation to protect those people. Today, Audrey Hudson discusses this in the Washington Times:
The New Jersey store clerk whose tip led to the arrest of six terror suspects needs legislative protection from being sued as a "John Doe" or whistleblower, lawmakers said yesterday.
"The events in Fort Dix are just another reminder of the need for this legislation," said Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican and author of legislation to protect "John Doe" passengers being sued by a group of Muslim imams for reporting their suspicious behavior that got the imams removed from an airline flight.
"We owe a debt of gratitude to this individual for alerting authorities to this potential terrorist attack and thwarting what could have been a terrible disaster. I can only imagine how grateful the men and women at Fort Dix and their families are for the courage of this person to take action when he saw something suspicious," Mr. Pearce said.
U.S. authorities arrested six foreign-born Muslims suspected of plotting to attack the New Jersey fort and kill "as many American soldiers as possible ... in the name of Allah." The FBI was alerted to the group by a clerk at the Circuit City store who had been asked to copy to a video disc images of the men test-firing weapons in the mountains and calling for jihad.
"If we didn't get that tip," said U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie in New Jersey, "I couldn't be sure what would happen."
M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, agrees that the FBI's arrests show the need to protect the principle of "see something, say something."
"What if this 'John Doe' had contrarily chosen to be silent due to a fear of litigation?" Dr. Jasser said.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, and Rep. Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, used a procedural tactic to add the Pearce language to a rail and transportation security bill in March. The amendment was passed, with unanimous approval of Republicans and support from 105 Democrats.
"A courageous act such as this one should not only be commended, it should be touted as a positive example of what citizens can do help prevent acts of terrorism here at home," Mr. Boehner said.
"It's critical that Democrats leave the Pearce language intact during conference negotiations so this kind of citizen participation is fostered and protected, not discouraged and litigated," Mr. Boehner said.
Drew Hammill, spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said, "This is an issue for the conferees."
A little bit of digging, and I found the bill. I'd provide a link, but the link will go dead. So, go to "Thomas.loc.gov" and type in a search for "Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007." I'm citing the thing in it's entirety below, but I don't want readers thinking I just made this up. It's primary sponsor in the House is Rep. Stevan Pearce:
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1640
To provide liability protection for individuals who report suspicious behavior to law enforcement agencies.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 22, 2007
Mr. PEARCE (for himself, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. WOLF, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. MCCOTTER, and Mr. MCKEON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide liability protection for individuals who report suspicious behavior to law enforcement agencies.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO REPORT SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR.
(a) In General- An individual shall not be liable for any injury or damages relating to such individual's qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior. A civil action for damages related to such disclosure may not be brought in any State or Federal court.
(b) Qualified Disclosure of Suspicious Behavior- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior' means any disclosure of the allegedly suspicious behavior of another individual or individuals to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or other security personnel that is made in good faith and with the reasonable belief that such behavior is suspicious.
This is exactly what we in this nation need. We shouldn't be cowed into submission by the likes of CAIR. They could honestly care less about our protection because all in all, they're helping the jihadis. Their complaints have little to do with civil rights, and their comments show that. Go back up and reread that part I cited from Frank Gaffney's piece. The amount of complaints regarding their civil rights are too low for their taste. They want more complaints. They're willing to file more lawsuits. They want to file more suits in the hope that they can silence us.
No. Frell them. I am a John Doe., You are a John Doe. The autrhorities can't be everywhere watching everyone. It falls to us to be the watchers on the frontier. If you believe as we do -- as those like Michell eMalkin, Frank Gaffney, Hugh Hewitt, Ed Morrissey, etc. do -- then get on the phone. I mean it. Congress has to hear from us and understand that we need this sort of protection. Call them today, call them tomorrow, and the next day and the next. 202-225-3121 is the Congressional switchboard number. Call your reps and senators, and call Rep. Pearce and tell him you support his bill.
If we don't obtain these protections, then eventually the jihadis will win. Their supporters, enablers, and apologists here in America will sue us into silence. We'll be lambs to the slaughter because we'll be afraid of losing all we have in the name of political correctness and not wanting to offend the jihadis trying to kill us.
That, folks, can't be allowed to happen. While our soldiers are in the field fighting to protect this nation, we must maintain the fight here at home. People ask what we can do, and I give you the answer. We watch. We observe. And we report anything we feel is suspicious to authorities. But we can't do that if we face the death of a thousand lawsuits everytime CAIR feels we're being insensitive. We're not. Don't believe that for a second. We're merely doing what it takes to protect our nation.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home