Posted on 07/19/2007 7:40:49 AM PDT by Verloona Ti
Democrats want 'John Doe' provision cut
By Audrey Hudson
July 19, 2007
Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.
The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.
Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or John Doe passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on Nov. 20 before their removal.
(cut)
Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.
(cut)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Well, I called the Cloakroom and THEY don’t know.
While I am making a presumption, it would be my belief that the amendment DOES NOT protect a citizen from knowingly filing a false report of suspicion. If you have any source of info that would prove my assumption otherwise then please provide it.
Though I believe the Imams probably did this on purpose to cause the uproar that they wanted, let's presume they were completely innocent, just for the sake of argument. Have they suffered damages due to this situation? It could be argued. Do you think a lawyer wouldn't be drooling for a shot, no matter the odds, at an airline? As for myself, I carry two red gas cans that are full of saltwater into my house to do water changes for my fish tank once a week. It's highly unlikey, but someone "could" interpret that as something suspicious. Especially if I were Muslim, IMHO. Could I be damaged by something as simple as misunderstanding? It's happened to people before. Will I like the idea of the police dropping by to checl it out? Not likely.
Although this situation is unlikely(I hope), frivolous lawsuits already abound. I work next to an ambulance chaser and I hear some weird things people get sued over. If a suspicious, but unknowingly false accusation, happens to an innocent person, it will at best be a hassle, at worst something much more costly.
I completely agree with the spirit of the law. By no means do I think it's a bad idea. I just think some extra provisions could be made to protect the accused. I want absolute zero chance of my money going down the drain to a lawyer to defend an accusation that may possibly affect my life negatively.
Your presumption(IMO) is the Gov't has made adequate protections for it's law abiding citizens in this bill. I tend not to trust them and especially not most lawyers. You also may be presuming only reasonable people will make an accusation on a reasonable suspicion. I believe there's a lot of unreasonableness in the world.
This is an important bill.
Here’s a link to find/write your Representative easily:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.