Hillary votes with Repugs, and Obama sits this one out but says he would have voted NO

[jillan]

Warning: This is a controversial topic

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21688
(Yes - it is a repug website and that is why they are so happy that it didn't pass - infact that are calling the ACLU Islamic Activists)

Saving the 'John Doe' Amendment
by Ericka Andersen

Posted: 07/26/2007

Should citizens -- acting in good faith to report suspicious activity -- be subjected to lawsuits by Islamic activists? Democrats think so. Last week, they attempted to strip away the “John Doe” provision from the new Homeland Security Department legislation. For now, they have failed.

All but one Republican, presidential candidate Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who abstained from the vote, united against removing the provision. Voters who wanted to omit the amendment included a crowd of Democrats including presidential candidate Sens. Joe Biden (D-Del.), Jim Webb (D-Va..) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), among others. Those who abstained, including Brownback and presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), effectively sided with those who voted against it. Democratic presidential candidate and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to keep the provision. Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Rep. Benny Thompson’s (D-Miss.) spokeswoman said he was concerned that the amendment could lead to racial profiling, according to a news report. But Thompson played a key role in working out the specific language of the final bill.

The Democrats who voted to strip the provision teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union, which in November wrote a letter to Leiberman claiming that religious persecution had occurred and the clerics were “deemed a threat to security merely because they had, in accordance with their faith, conducted their evening prayers in Arabic.” The ACLU said that after 9/11, “flying while Muslim” made some passengers unfair targets. However, the imams’ behavior in the November incident provoked a real concern for air travel safety. Suspicion is a simple, preventative measure that puts citizens in control and helps security officials. If you see something, say something.
----------------

This is a tough subject.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. What actually is this provision?

I really do not want to visit a reich wing website. What are the details?

[wyldwolf]

3. essentially, Muslims should be allowed to sue you if you report what you deem suspicious activities.

:shrug:

Sorry. If I see ANYONE do something like exchange a suitcase at an airport, leave a package on a chair and then someone else immediatley walks by and scoops it up, etc. I'll report it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. And when there is no suspicious activity, merely the malicious intent to harass?

I agree with the ACLU (and very firmly disagree with the RNC and HRC) on this matter.

If you file false reports to law enforcement with the purpose of harassing someone, you are subject to both criminal acts (filing false reports) and are subject to civil action (harassment.) Please explain why Muslims should NOT have identical rights in an identical situation.

[wyldwolf]

14. what "false reports to law enforcement with the purpose of harassing someone?"

:shrug:

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. the current laws would apply to them as well

I don't understand why they need more? Harassment / false reporting currently apply to everyone.

[ChazII]

13. I would report it as well.

Here in Arizona, in terminal 4 there is a place where anyone can go and pray. One of those Imans teaches/preaches in Tempe, Arizona. Like cancer and genetic disorders, suspicious activites does not know race or religion.

[jillan]

5. Remember those IMAMs that were praying before a flight,

and someone reported them to the authorities?
Well they sued because they were not doing anything wrong.

This is for providing legal protection for citizens who report suspicious behavior.

It is a controversial topic. It is racial profiling. But at the same time would
racial profiling have prevented 9-11? (looking at 9/11 from the msm story about it)

We have this problem in Az with illegals coming across the border.
Cops just can't pull over someone because the are Hispanic.

It's a hard call.

[ProudDad]

25. I live in Arizona

and I don't have any problem with "illegals coming across the border"...

Speak for yourself bunky, not for "we"...

[wyldwolf]

2. I would have voted the same.

:shrug:

If I see what appears to me to be suspicious activities, I'll report it. The person's color, religion, or ethnicity would not hinder me and neither should the threat of a lawsuit.

[wuushew]

8. So why take away the legal right to sue?

If a suit has no merit it will either be dismissed or defeated in court. By preventing such challenges from ever being heard one is creating a situation that stifles the grievances of a particular group.

Also it bothers me that politicians are the arbiters of what is suspicious or not. Cannot you not perceive how this will create a slippery slope standard by which people feel more and more compelled what would be otherwise innocuous behavior?


I can see a lot of things wrong this idea.

[wyldwolf]

16. the proper way would be to sue the law enforcement agency

Sorry - if someone is doing something out of the ordinary, I'll report them. Better to be on a safe flight than dead and politically correct.

[ChazII]

17. Thank you for your common sense.

:yourock:

[wuushew]

23. So why oppose the right to sue?

You said in your previous post that you personally would not be hindered by the threat of a lawsuit.

Keeping the right to sue would keep the plaintiff happy and would have no bearing on you since your only interest is the perceived threat to public safety. Isn't that a win win situation?

[ProudDad]

27. You obviously don't get the point

So you're in the airport and some asshole "in good faith" decides that you're a threat to security, maybe he doesn't like your t-shirt...

so this prick tackles you to the ground and pummels you senseless...

and is immune from civil or criminal penalties because he acted "in good faith"...


Sorry, this is another fucking republican vigilante protection "law"...fucked up on its face...and unconstitutional...

I'd rather trust a judge to throw out frivolous lawsuits than some prick with a hard-on for "liberals" or "a-rabs" acting in "good faith"...

[wyldwolf]

31. you obviously don't get the point

So you're in the airport a citizen "in good faith" sees you leave a package in the men's room, or watches you hand off a suitcase without a word to the person you're handing it off to.

So he reports you to security and security comes to you and asks to see the suitcase.

Yep, the citizen is immune from civil or criminal penalties because he acted "in good faith"...


Sorry, this is another fucking "prooogrrreeessiivvee" PC stance.

[Canuckistanian]

34. I agree. It assumes that judges are clueless idiots

If a suit has merit, I'm perfectly confident in a judge's ability to handle it correctly.

If not, there's always the appeal process.

But to arbitrarily cut off ALL such suits is dangerous.

[rinsd]

4. Piranha, you should note that the amendment failed and did not pass (nt)

[jillan]

7. What failed was the part to prevent racial profiling.

[rinsd]

9. No, the amednment allowing good faith reporting of suspisciuous activity failed

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00261#position

[jillan]

10. Right - and by providing immunity, you are opening the door to racial profiling.

I did change the wording in my op.

[rinsd]

11. Unfortunately, there is still confusion. RWers are pissed because it did not pass.

And I apologize for the rw sites linked to but they are livid that the Democrats defeated this amednment

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26315&only&rss

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/19/dont-let-the-dems-kill-the-john-doe-amendment/

Headline from Michelle Malkin

Don’t let the Dems kill the John Doe amendment Update: House Dems kill John Doe amendment…fight moves to the Senate Update: 8:55pm Senate Dems kill John Doe amendment…roll added

IOW, citizens are not protected from civil action should they racially profile or even report suspicious activity in good faith.

[Dhalgren]

12. The vote:

"Purpose: To provide limited immunity for reports of suspicious behavior and response." and it passed. this means that I can turn you in for "acting suspicious" and you cannot sue me if it turns out I was just giving you the business.

[rinsd]

15. No, it did not " Vote Result: Motion Rejected"

Apparently they needed 60 votes for that amendment.

[Dhalgren]

18. Oh, my bad, I was too quick with the vote count. I saw that the Yeas

had won, I didn't realize it needed 60 votes to pass. Well, good then!

[jillan]

19. By not passing people are allowed immunity.

That's why the rethugs are happy, and the ACLU is not.

[Dhalgren]

20. Ok, now I am completely confused!

The bill without the amendment grants accusers immunity? So what was the amendment that Clinton voted with the Republicans about?

[jillan]

21. To give people immunity from reporting on suscpicious behavior

That is the controversy.

Because people will be able to say "There's an Arab on my plane - I am not comfortable with their behavior". And it would be okay.

The arguement is that this can lead to racial profiling.

I gave the example above how I live in Az, and they are trying to control
illegal immigrants. Yet, the cops can't just pull someone over because they are Hispanic.
In fact that happened here. More Hispanics were pulled over in one suburb than any other minority.

Or another example is African-Americans getting pulled over in large cities more than White people.

The ACLU & Dems (most) were trying to prevent racial profiling.
The Rethugs were trying to protect people who report suspicious behavior.

What won was people can report whoever they want without the fear of being sued.

[sandnsea]

22. Right, racial profiling

I'm sure if Obama thought his vote would matter, he'd have been there. He sponsored the racial profiling legislation, and the videotaped interrogation legislation, in Illinois.

I'm honestly not surprised Hillary was afraid to vote against it. She thinks she can't afford to show an ounce of weakness on defense. It really ends up being the same kind of stonewalling foreign policy, whether she intends for it to be or not. Criminy, Pryor, Tester, Lincoln, Salazar, they didn't even vote for this crap.

[ProudDad]

29. They brought it back in the Conference Committee

and, with Hil's help, attached it there...

It will have to come to a vote in the full House and Senate again but since it's stuck into a bill to "protect the fatherland", those cowardly fucks will still pass it...

[ProudDad]

28. According to the article

it DID pass... It was an amendment upheld in conference...

"Voters who wanted to omit the amendment included a crowd of Democrats including presidential candidate Sens. Joe Biden (D-Del.), Jim Webb (D-Va..) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), among others. Those who abstained, including Brownback and presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), effectively sided with those who voted against it."

Thanks in part to DINO "New York Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to keep the provision..."

"The new bills, HR.1 and S.4, will improve cargo inspection on passenger planes and ships, increase security distribution funds to the highest risk locations, and most importantly, grant legal protection for citizens who report suspicious behavior."


More racial profiling, more vigilante actions against oppressed and/or despised minorities...and in Hillary's case, more republican lite...

[goodgd_yall]

24. I need more information and the problem with right-wing sites

is they don't give you the whole picture. In trying to find more information, the only sites google provided were right wing! Anyway, it seems to me that people should be able to sue when they suffer damages (miss a flight, get thrown off a plane) if the so-called suspicious behavior ends up being rather silly, i.e., based on cultural or religious ignorance. Didn't the imams (the case that spurred the "John Doe" amendment) pass through security? The 9-11 bunch would never have gotten through security with today's standards so it's hard to make comparisons between this incident and 9-11. My own experience is that racial stereotyping goes on and no one is getting in hot water for it, despite what repugs want you to believe. I went to Hawaii with two Egyptian acquaintances (an older man and his teenage daughter). They were travelling with 5 other non-Arab people. We were all together like one big family and WHO gets stopped at security and is given a thorough search. The Egyptian father and daughter (they were American citizens, but Egyptian descent).

[goodgd_yall]

26. Clinton and Schumer were the only Dems to vote to ensure immunity

They were definitely out of line with their Democratic compatriots.

[ProudDad]

30. Most of the Dems are

craven cowards when it comes to "protecting the fatherland" from the untermenchen...

They wrap their yellow asses in the flag at every opportunity...

[bornskeptic]

35. Not true. There were eight who voted yes.

Baucus, Bayh, Clinton, Conrad, Dorgan, Landrieu, Ben Nelson, and Schumer.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

33. good samiratans get screwed in this country

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5518099

I would like to see clearer language in the provision, but there should be some kind of protection against someone who is trying to do the right thing. At the same time there should be penalties against people who clearly are abusing the law, for instance, if one person reports 50 different muslims on separate occasions. There are a lot of Islamophobes out there but there are also a lot of people who want to harm our country. A fine line must be walked to protect our lives and our liberties.

[Clark2008]

36. What's an "Islamic" activist?

Do they mean "Muslim" activist?

When are these idiots going to learn that, in describing people who follow Islam, the word that should be used is, "Muslim." When describing art, heritage, etc., the word is "Islamic."

I stopped reading after the headline because anything that followed was surely just as misinformed.