Anti Terror Tipster Amendment

What Judge in their right mind would rule in favor of the "imams".
Seriously.

No court in the US would rule against the passengers here. There is zero reason for knee jerk legislation to protect the passengers that are easily going to win this (as well as the airline). A good lawyer would actually win countersuit against these Imam idiots. This is fluff legislation, a complete waste of time and money, and a complete waste of time discussing it. What the imams did was akin to shouting "fire" when their is not one. It's a convictable offense. Who the hell is the lawyer that is representing them in these lawsuits? They ought to be disbarred.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 25 2007, 09:59 AM) [snapback]484631[/snapback]</div>

The passengers and the airline won't have to pay a penny? Who pays for the lawyers they have to hire to respond to the frivolous lawsuit before the courts "shoot it down"? Will they have to countersue to recover their legal fees?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DelerPrius @ Jul 25 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]484644[/snapback]</div>

And you can be damn sure they imams won't have any money to pay anyone else's legal fees. I think the point of the stunt the imams pulled was designed to discourage people from reporting suspicous activty for fear of being sued. Do you guys know how much lawyers cost?

 

That all depends... do you want a fancy, high priced lawyer, or someone cheap? even someone cheap could throw down the Imams lawsuit without blinking an eye. Besides that, in this case the individuals won't have to do anything... the airline will be providing a lawyer against the Imams, since they are the primary defendant in the case.

With any lawsuit people counterclaim for court costs. It's just a fact, much like lawsuits are a fact in our greedy society.

Seriously, though... who in their right mind will sit there on a plane thinking "Man, this guy could really be a terrorist" and not report him, regardless if they can get sued or not? the court system is in place to protect people from frivolous lawsuits, and the give people a sensible way to recoup their losses if, in fact, the parties to blame weren't acting in good faith. All this bill would do is protect and encourage those people who want to file false complaints to make someone's life difficult.

Like i said before, why protect the people who report suspicious behavior, but not protect a number of other things, like providing life saving CPR?

Here are some things that should be banned from suing:

Suing a company for serving you hot coffee without warning you that it's hot. Duh!

suing a company after their can of adhesive explodes, despite clear warnings on the label concerning the flammability of the contents.

suing a company for using a seatbelt that someone with a .17 BAC couldn't operate after they backed their car into Galveston Bay.

suing a company for the ingredients they use in the foods.

suing a hone (or business) owner for injuries sustained while attempting to rob them.

suing a company because their beer didn't help you with the ladies, and because it got you sick afterwards.

suing yourself (it's actually been done)

suing a strip joint for whiplash from large breasts



I mean seriously... there are a ton of frivolous lawsuits out there... why should we protect people in this one case and not others? BTW, all the above actually happened.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 25 2007, 09:59 AM) [snapback]484660[/snapback]</div>

How can I get a case of this???

 

Define good faith. Tell me who is going to determine, on a case by case basis if the accusation was made in good faith. Is this not something that is ALREADY DONE by the courts when a lawsuit is filed against someone?

 

"This is REAL SIMPLE. Do you support a bill that lets innocent bystanders who observe suspicious behavior related to possible terrorism report it to the authorities, while acting in GOOD FAITH, without fear of getting sued? Yes or No?? "

More black and white framing/baiting.
You're either with us or against us, right?

You can't possibly expect people to answer that , do you? It's not so simple, and never is. The intention of the bill is nice enough, but the bill is entirely unneeded, and is just "feel good" legislation (which both parties are often guilty of). While the upfront intention may be good enough, the follow through of it could complicated things to a worse degree. I agree with the previous post, this is good for the lawyers. They'll have their hands full defending many more "accused" people, who may or may not be of Arab descent. (likely not). Joe over their just sold crack! go get him!

This bill does not in ANY WAY raise our security in the US. I don't care how many frivolous suits these idiots bring. Americans like myself will ALWAYS confront a susicious activity as described above.

BTW, does this bill apply to whistleblowerers, who's protections have been pared down in recent years?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 25 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]484731[/snapback]</div>

Nice definition. Now please tell me who is going to determine, on a case by case basis, which accusations are made in good faith and which aren't.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 25 2007, 12:26 PM) [snapback]484716[/snapback]</div>

This manner of "debating" is aptly portrayed (and is in reality the main subject of the film) in the movie, "Thank You for Smoking".
Some things never change.
Good point about the lawyers.

 

"if the bill is unneeded why are those passengers being sued by the Imams????? who is going to reimburse them for their legal fees?????????????????? do you understand the concept of "good faith" and its inclusion in this bill??"

I do. It is a "gray area" requiring further interpretation by a third party. I also know that "gray area" is something you don't seem to understand, since you will not accept it in any argument made by someone who dares to not agree with you.

As for legal fees. It's called counter suits. Although, I expect the airlines are doing the defending and the passengers don't even need one for such an obviously frivolous suit. Heck, it would be my honor to sit in court and describe what took place. You think a jury will rule against the passengers here? YES OR NO?

Sometime you have interesting points to make. Othertimes, you're simply throwing out crap in your blind hatred of anything that doesn't agree with your view. The latter is certainly the case here.

You're whole argument rests on some notion that this bill is needed to fight terrorism, so Let me restate my earlier point:

"This bill does not in ANY WAY raise our security in the US. I don't care how many frivolous suits these idiots bring. Americans like myself will ALWAYS confront a susicious activity as described above."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 25 2007, 12:57 PM) [snapback]484787[/snapback]</div>

The burden of proof always never lies on the defendant - innocent until proven guilty. If the government wants to stand behind those who report suspicious activities, then there are other ways to do so than pointless bills. Publicly recognize those individuals on the plane. Stand behind them and support them during the lawsuit, and allow the courts to make a statement (which, btw, is their job).

However, you didn't answer my question. who is going to determine, on a case by case basis, which accusations are made in good faith and which aren't?

Note that your description above, of putting the burden of proof on the plaintiff, still implies that it goes before the courts. It still implies that some judge has to see both the plaintiff and the defendant, at which point both are going to plead their case... whats the difference?

the downside of the bill is the blanket protection it offers to anyone who makes an accusation, regardless of the true motive behind it.

 

This "protection" is not specifically for terrorist related suspicions.
Also, this has to do with a homeland security bill and partisan bickering on it, and this amendment is a republican method of pressuring democrats to go along with the rest of the bill. As said before, 2 things you don't want to see made are sausages and laws.

Anonymous denunciation with no comeback should it be inaccurate or malicious has always been a sign of "less free" societies. The right to face one's accuser is a basic part of Common law.

There's a fine line between "John Doe" actions and defamation of character.

"Objectively reasonable suspicion" as the amendment is worded sounds so benign, but is in fact impossibly vague.

Bear in mind that at least two major terrorist attacks in Britain, and one here, were aborted because of intelligence brought by Muslims. Make it more likely that the "suspicious" behavior of dressing in one of those white cassock looking things, or wearing a beard and a skullcap, and that sort of cooperation is liable to decrease.

This is slamming the barn door shut when it is open a crack and none of the horses have escaped ... yes, the imams did file suit, but they haven't gotten any judgment out of the principals, and I frankly doubt that they are likely to.

This law is designed to protect profiling by airlines. I don't even mind profiling by the airlines, given the threat involved and the impossibility of searching/monitoring everyone (provided, they are done respectfully). However, I don't see the advantages of this amendment. I do see the disadvantages of it (including flooding the authorities with more reports of "suspicious" behavior than they can possibly act on) and I think it belongs in that category of "political theatrics" . Every conservative outlet, blog, and church group is tripping over themselves to trash democrats on this, knowing the common man won't understand it enough to see the forest from the trees. Them Dems voted for the terrists!


AGAIN:
This bill does not in ANY WAY raise our security in the US. I don't care how many frivolous suits these idiots bring. Americans like myself will ALWAYS confront a susicious activity as described above.

YOU answer my question: Would any judge or jury side with the imams in this case?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Jul 25 2007, 08:49 AM) [snapback]484625[/snapback]</div>

Honestly, I didn't know anything about the nature of their prayers, their asking for seat belt extenders, anti-US remarks, choice of seats, etc.

A lot of the controversy would seem to hinge on how, exactly, they presented themselves.

On one hand: it's their right to present themselves as they see fit.

On the other: we're in a heightened security environment,especially at an airport; anyone not sensitive to that (regardless of race or religion) needs to be taken aside for a bit of an attitude adjustment.

That said, there should still be something which prevents wanton reporting of others.

Say I'm driving in my car, and someone cuts me off, and I call the highway patrol to report it. Even if I give a license number for the violating car, that's still not enough for the officer to write a ticket...right...?

It should work the same way in these cases. A report from a civilian is enough to trigger a further investigation, but not enough --on its own-- to detain someone.

 

Let's skip the amendment and handle the situation Montana style... Some of you may know this as 'the Wyoming Way, or Texas Technology', but the implementation is the same.

When someone's chanting like that on the plane, go beat the crap out of them until they forget their own name or their hijacking plan, toss the limp body out on the tarmac and request departure from the tower. No delays, no lawyers, no problem. :lol:

 

In the case described, I defend your right to kick the crap out of these guys.

These imams are baiting the system. Fluffly laws don't do a thing. Why wouldn't the case the imams brought up be immediately thrown out of court anyways?
Wouldn't a law making it illegal to "impersonate a terrorist" make more sense? Doesn't such an act already get classified as criminal, much like screaming fire to incite a riot?