Anti Terror Tipster Amendment

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by dbermanmd, Jul 24, 2007.

  1. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    or the John Doe Amendment that would "protect anyone from civil lawsuits who, in good faith, offers a tip about suspicious activity on mass transit".

    Last nights Democratic presidential YouTube debate revealed that all of the Democratic candidates oppose it. Why? Do you agree with them or not?

    So lets tally the current position of the Democrats running for president:
    1. they oppose the Patriot Act
    2. they oppose electronic surveillance programs (or want them hamstrung)
    3. they want to close Gitmo - but do not say where they would want to house POW's
    3a. they want to afford terrorists captured on the field of battle in foreign lands rights enjoyed by Americans - mind you these foreign combatants are in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
    4. they oppose aggressive interrogation of terror suspects.
    5. they have in four debates failed to utter the words "Islamic terrorism".


    I guess if the Democrats have their way, if you see something suspicious on a plane or train or bus you better get a lawyer first - that is if you make it to your destination.

    Again, I remain behind my beliefs that if OBL could vote in the next general election he would vote Democratic in a heartbeat.
     
  2. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 24 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]484239[/snapback]</div>
    1. They want to preserve American's freedoms, instead of eroding those freedoms.
    2. See 1. It's called a warrant. Tell W to learn how to get one.
    3. Lets see... maybe we just want to stop some of the practices that have been going on there, like torture, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, holding them indefinitely without trial, etc. The prison is partially accepted as existing outside of US law, which many, many people see as being particularly bad. It's the place you send prisoners so you can treat them in a way you couldn't treat them in a prison in the US.
    3a. Oh, they're outside the Geneva Convention, so we should just ignore everything it says about treating people humanely?
    4. you got this one right on the head. interrogation, yes. but ""aggressive interrogation" is torture, which is against the law here in the US.
    5. Maybe thats because terrorism isn't limited to islamics, despite what you and bush want us to believe?
     
  3. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 24 2007, 03:08 PM) [snapback]484251[/snapback]</div>
    please comment on the john doe amendment - you think thats a bad thing?
     
  4. Pinto Girl

    Pinto Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    3,093
    349
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I guess that the only defense I can think of is that, if this had passed, any crazy person could make an accusation, based only on God knows what...with no fear of retribution...what a great way to attract attention to oneself!

    Why would we remove an impediment to doing so?

    The question is: Are folks really *not* coming forward due to the threat of legal action against them? I'm not sure this is even a problem in the first place. I certainly wasn't aware of it.

    I'll tell you this: if I really and truly think I see something worth mentioning, I'm going to, regardless...and I'll take my chances with the lawyers later.
     
  5. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    I don't really know anything about the amendment. However, i would ask you who, in this great country of ours, is protected from lawsuits for anything? You pull someone out of a burning car and give them mouth to mouth you can be sued. sued for trying to save their life. Now, generally the courts will take the situation, intent, and results into account and throw out lawsuits that are made for frivolous reasons.

    how would this apply to the john doe amendment? Well, if i report you for suspected terrorist activity and i end up being wrong, you could sue me. I would then have to defend my report by listing the things that led me to make it. Things like "He was trying to light his shoes with matches" or whatever. On the other hand, if my defense was "He's islamic and was talking very fast with the islamic guy next to him", then the lawsuit might be appropriate.

    So, under this proposed amendment, who would determine what constitutes "good faith"? What set of criteria would be in place to determine what were appropriate reports and what weren't, and what sort of process would people have to go through if they felt they had a good reason to sue because the other party didn't have sufficient justification for making the report?
     
  6. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 24 2007, 05:03 PM) [snapback]484307[/snapback]</div>
    It relates back to the case of the "lying Imans" - they are suing the passengers who called authorities on them. The bill is designed to protect people who notify the authorities of suspicious behavior in good faith. Again, what is wrong with that? So it defuses your crazy person example. It is similar to good Samaritan laws that protect physicians who stop to help those in need of help.
     
  7. formerVWdriver

    formerVWdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    258
    0
    0
    This defies common sense. No -- it's unbelievably stupid.

    If I see something suspicious, I am going to report it. They can do what they want to me, but they cannot make me risk my life or those of others because it isn't PC to notice that something isn't right.

    How many crimes have been solved and accidents prevented because ordinary people said, "Look at this!" to authorities? What about that truck driver who solved the sniper shootings (John Lee Malvo and I forgot the other name)?

    For all this talk about rights, how about my right not to be killed? How about my right to use my brain and eyes?

    This is like bad fiction. Or satire too extreme to work.

    And what group are they pandering to this time? People who live in a fantasy land where Bush is the enemy and every one would play nice if we would just ask them to.
     
  8. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 24 2007, 04:07 PM) [snapback]484315[/snapback]</div>
    First, the Imams are suing US airways, including a few unnamed passengers. It was US Airways that called the police to have them removed from the aircraft, not the passengers. If you're going to use something as an example, it pays to have all your facts right. At least, it adds to your credibility.

    Everything i've read says that the airline acted appropriately for the situation, and that there was ample reason to remove them from the plane. That being said, could other situations be a case of racial profiling? I can certainly see how it could, with the insistence of some that all we have to worry about are islamic terrorists. Again, it comes back to the question of whether the actions of the airline were appropriate or not. In this case, it appears they were. In other cases, maybe not. regardless, who is to judge that? After the fact, these individuals were delayed in their travels, costing them time and money. If there was just cause, then i'm sure the courts will throw the lawsuit out. In a situation where it was based solely on racial profiling or where there wasn't just cause, then the courts will support the lawsuit. Who other than the courts can decide this? Why should it be written that they can't be sued for their actions... what other recourse does our legal system provide for situations where there isn't just cause for actions such as these?
     
  9. IsrAmeriPrius

    IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    4,333
    6
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 24 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]484311[/snapback]</div>
    The courts, obviously. B)
     
  10. Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    922
    10
    1
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Eagle, idiot!
    (yes the post starts by calling you a name ooooohhhhh I guess that means the point isn't as strong, but man stupid is as stupid does!)

    The Imans ARE suing the passengers!!!!!

    So if you tip off a law enforcement official (or flight attendant) you can now be sued!
    (Granted the case against the people will be thrown out, outright, as individual citizens in their individual capacity are NOT bound by civil rights laws or regulations)

    The Imans staged this event to get this reaction so they could sue, there by weakining the resolve of the next person who witnesses a suspiscious action.

    You, and you're overly PC democrat sickophants don't want a strong America, reliant upon the individual. You want (despite your clamoring otherwise when a Republican is in office) a strong government. The only way to achieve a strong government is weaken the people until they have no choice but tp really upon the government.

    whoa, what a rant, eh!

    The Imans should immediatelybe charged with incitign a terrorist action and tried as such. Odds are they would be convicted.
     
  11. Pinto Girl

    Pinto Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    3,093
    349
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I'd be pretty upset, too, if I didn't look like most of the people in a given country, and was arrested for praying to a deity in which the majority did not believe.

    Question: So, based only on the observation of their race, and their religion, they were banned from flying...?

    Why is that okay?

    I'm not following.

    Forget the abstract examples of "keeping America safe" and such....why is it okay in *this* specific instance? This case (from what little I've read so far) seems to support the Democratic view, of ensuring some form of compensatory process.

    So, say --hypothetically-- they can't sue...what do we think the recourse (if any) should be for folks who are unfairly singled out and discriminated against, based on factors obviously not pertaining directly to their safety as airline passengers?

    Do they get a form letter from the president of the company? A free bag of peanuts...? Does the person who singled them out have to be their butler for a week?

    Seriously, how should they be compensated? Or, if not at all, is enduring accusations like this the sacrifice we make for living in a "free" country?

    I sure hope not.

    -----

    I still don't believe that folks *aren't* coming forward, 'cause they're afraid to be sued. Clearly that's NOT the case here, is it?
     
  12. huskers

    huskers Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    2,502
    2,433
    0
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Advanced
    The winners here will be the lawyers.
     
  13. KD6HDX

    KD6HDX New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    256
    4
    0
    Location:
    Chino Hills,CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    I would guess that if you use pejorative language in your report to law enforcement, then maybe you could be sued for a hate crime, if LE cannot prove anything was being conspired by said group, then the accused could see a copy of the report against them and search for those pejorative terms that may or may not be included in the written report. If they could, by a stretch prove that you filed a false report because you hated some ethnic group, or members of any religious group, by quoting your internet posts from the past, then maybe a good lawyer could prove a hate crime was committed. am I way too far out on this one? Maybe?

    Are we a litigious society, you bet.

    Will I speak up if I see something out of the ordinary, you bet.

    PS Iman- means magnet in the Spanish language, Imam is the word your looking for.
     
  14. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 24 2007, 08:18 PM) [snapback]484410[/snapback]</div>
    Amazing, not one person on the "left" can just say its a good bill. And still, somebody please explain to me why the Democratic Presidential candidates do NOT support it?????
     
  15. formerVWdriver

    formerVWdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    258
    0
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 24 2007, 08:18 PM) [snapback]484410[/snapback]</div>
    Couple things -- it sounds to me like the Imams intentionally provoked distress just so they could be victims, perhaps even hoping for such an amendment. We are not dealing with stupid people here. (We are the stupid people.)

    For ex., they asked for seat belt extenders when none of them needed them. If you don't need a seat belt extender, it doesn't take a great deal of imagination for others to think you are up to something. Of course, a regular belt could be used for the same thing. But people who look different, pray to a deity whose name is often invoked as a justification for violence and whose fellow believers have declared war on the West should be sensitive to how their actions might appear and make sensible choices such as not asking for seat belt extenders when you don't need them.

    When I lived up North, I had a S.C. license plate. I was driving on the NJ Turnpike to visit friends when I was pulled over by the state troopers under some pretense -- can't remember what, but I didn't get a ticket. I wasn't speeding. Then they wanted to search my car. I know I should have demanded a warrant or a lawyer or had a hissy fit in the middle of the road, but I just wanted to get where I was going so I said, "Sure." They started asking me if I had any illegal weapons. I said I didn't know -- was the can of mace on my keychain legal? (I think they said no but weren't really interested in mace). Turns out they were looking for people from the South running guns up to the Northeast. They thoroughly searched my car. I was nice, they were nice, I had no guns and off I went. I never could decide if I was offended or thought it was just nutty funny.

    Now, I was profiled because I was from the South. I also endured more subtle profiling from Northerners who assumed I was racist, or perhaps just more racist than they. I cannot tell you how many people would repeat for me the old "Shake 'n Bake" commercial verbatim, and other bad Southern-accented things from the culture. It was tiresome. People asked me if I had had worms, and told me that Southerners go barefooted and pick up worms in the yard. (Barefooted, yes; worms, no.) Lots of condescension. And the fact that I pray to a God at all made me as foreign to those in my circle as those Imams praying in the airport.

    When you are different, you have to expect that you will be treated differently. Get over it -- and in fact, be sensitive. Pray silently. Don't ask for seat belt extenders you don't need. Don't get airplane seat assignments in the same pattern the highjackers used.

    What the Imams did was intentional and provocative. I'm wondering who should be suing whom....

    And you're right -- people weren't afraid to report them. They were too afraid not to.
     
  16. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    First off... I wasn't supporting what the Imams did, DA - in fact i think i acknowledged that they did indeed act suspiciously and the actions of the flight crew were justified. I also pointed out that the main target of the lawsuit was the airline, and several unnamed passengers were tagged along with it - in other words, unlike Berman indicated they weren't just targeting the passengers.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 25 2007, 06:18 AM) [snapback]484595[/snapback]</div>
    I'm still waiting for you to reply to any of my posts thus far. Please explain to me why it's such a good bill. Explain to me why we can literally sue for ANYTHING, and i do mean anything, and yet you want to make reporting a suspicious behavior exempt. People get sued for ridiculous stuff all the time. It's up to the courts to decide if a lawsuit is justifiable or not. In a situation like that of the Imams, i would fully expect the courts to throw out the lawsuit. No harm done. Why shouldn't individuals targeted have the right to sue? Like i said before, it's very easy to say someone was doing something suspicious. What if there was a situation where someone got thrown off a plane because a couple of people had a grudge against him and filed a complaint? He could potentially sue and bring up witnesses from the plane that could debunk the lies leveraged against him. Under your proposed bill, they wouldn't even have the right to do that. Instead, their lives would be severely inconvenienced, and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

    I will say this about the bill: It's a good idea to protect those individuals that make reports and have good, solid reasons for doing so. It's not a good idea to offer blanket protection to anyone that makes such a report, because people will abuse the system.
     
  17. scargi01

    scargi01 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    783
    55
    0
    Location:
    Missouri
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 24 2007, 07:18 PM) [snapback]484410[/snapback]</div>
    If I remember correctly, they weren't reported because of their race/religion. Before they boarded the plane they were praying loudly in the terminal and were heard making anti-US remarks and were chanting "Alla" as they boarded. Three of them asked for seatbelt extenders when they didn't need them. When they were given the extenders they put them on the floor under their seat and didn't use them. They didn't sit in their assigned seats, but positioned themselves in the back, middle and front of the plane, in the same pattern as the 9-11 terrorists. In addition to suing t he airline they are suing the passengers that reported their concerns to the airline. My understanding is the bill would prevent people who report concerns to authorities from being sued. I guess the Dem. candidates think it is more important to be able to sue someone than to report suspicious activity on an airliner. :huh:
     
  18. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Jul 25 2007, 08:49 AM) [snapback]484625[/snapback]</div>
    And yet, as it's been stated, if you remove the repercussions like this, you'll be flooded with false reports made by people that want to make someone's life difficult. You'll get people calling in their neighbors with complaints, not because they seriously think they're a threat, but because they have some other problem with them. The neighbor gets harassed by the cops and his life becomes difficult for a while, all in the name of "national security" and the republicans want to tell that neighbor that there's nothing he can do about it. That he's not allowed to appeal to the justice system against the individuals who filed a false report designed to make his life hell.

    As it stands today, the courts already protect people from lawsuits like the one the Imams are attempting to wage. The courts will shoot it down, the passengers and the airline won't have to pay a penny.

    Please, tell me why i should be prohibited from filing a lawsuit if i'm reported for suspicious behavior, when i can literally sue for anything else? There's absolutely nothing that you can't sue for.
     
  19. scargi01

    scargi01 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    783
    55
    0
    Location:
    Missouri
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 25 2007, 08:59 AM) [snapback]484631[/snapback]</div>
    Because I shouldn't have to pay for a lawyer and lose time from work just for reporting to authorities behavior that seems suspicious. I think your fears of out-of-control or abuses of this system are un-warranted. People that don't make false reports (most everyone) aren't going to suddenly say "oh, they can't sue me so I am going to cause them trouble". And don't forget, they only REPORTING the activity. The authorities have the discretion on whether to act on it or not. That acts as a filter for false reports. Of course there will always be exceptions where some crackpot causes a lot of trouble. But is that rare exception really worth discouraging people from reporting suspicious behavior on an airliner? Should it be harder or easier for people to report suspicious activity on an airplane?
     
  20. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    Then tell me why we don't prevent lawsuits for any other reasons. Why is it that i could pull someone from a burning car and deliver life-saving CPR, only to later be sued for accidentally cracking his ribs in the process? With just a little research, you can find a ton of very real lawsuits that never should have been filed. But thats what the courts are for - to determine what should and shouldn't be upheld, on a case-by-case basis.
     
Loading...