John Doe Intimidation is Dead – Long Live the King
In what must be celebrated as a major victory for both sanity and safety, the Improving America’s Security Act of 2007 will, indeed, include liability protections for citizens reporting suspicious activity they fear may be linked to terrorism.
As you’ll likely recall, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) responded to last November’s Flying Imams Scam by backing civil litigation naming unnamed (John Doe) “whistleblowers” (who dutifully saw something and said something) as co-defendants. While unabashedly frivolous, the potential hazards of such a suit were by no means lost on most security conscious Americans.
Thankfully, this included ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who quickly drafted a proviso to shield the vigilant from such blatant intimidation-by-tort.
King’s so-called “John Doe provision” of the so-called “Sept. 11 Security Bill” passed the House in March by an overwhelming and decidedly bipartisan vote. But the Senate proved a much harder sell, with many PC-minded Democrats echoing Pat Leahy’s reckless concern that such an amendment “could invite racial and religious profiling.”
The Senate Judiciary Chairman and other Tolerance-Over-Public-Safety Dems — including Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers – have used every technical procedure at their disposal to scuttle this crucial anti-terrorism addition.
But, thanks in large part to King’s resolve and willingness to accept silly “compromise language” specifying immunity only to “good-faith” informants – John Doe Lives. What’s more, whenever signed by the President, the bill will be retroactive to November, 2006 – affording immunity to those wrongfully persecuted by the bogus CAIR lawsuit.
In announcing the inclusion of his provision in both the House (HR 1) and Senate (S 4) versions of the bill today, the deservedly jubilant King proclaimed that:
“In a post-9/11 reality, vigilance is essential to security. Despite the Democratic opposition to this important homeland security measure, I’m thrilled to announce that common sense has prevailed and heroic Americans who report suspicious activity will be protected from frivolous lawsuits. The American people were heard and our country is safer because of it.”
Hear hear — and long live the (Peter) King.
Possibly related posts...
Marc Sheppard is a technology consultant, software engineer, writer, and political and systems analyst. He is a regular contributor to American Thinker, The New Media Journal, Opinion Editorials and Men’s News Daily. | More from Marc Sheppard
Stumble It!
Oh, by the way, you do understand that by “white males” I mean “heterosexual” white males?
barkingdog, why does it matter? That’s obvious. Since only white males are capable of racism, then only white males are capable of hate crimes. Does that answer your question?
Yes, this is good news, but….. who decides whether John Doe was a “good faith” informant? I have a feeling of deja vu all over again here, and I can still see lots of frivolous ACLU lawsuits claiming that the informant did not act in “good faith.”
Does this remind anyone of “hate crimes”? Who decides whether the perpetrator hated the victim? More importantly, WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Imagine this, if we suspect mass murderers of hatching a scheme, we have the freedom to alert law enforcement. Such freedom rings.
Thank God there is some tradition left in odd corners of the world. Like Oz, for instance. Here we still crucify whistleblowers. Even Judges, when told by an ex wife that the ex husband is a terrorist and a murderer, will call her fanciful and give her the children, and not tell a soul for fear of being seen as a snitch. All is well in the world here.