Anti Terror Tipster Amendment

Like the old saying says:

"SH*T or get off the pot!"

At some point you have to answer YES or NO.

This bill was a good bill; it provided protection to those that raised the alarm, while balancing the need for protections against false accusations. Its defeat is a defeat for America and security. And to answer the question “who determines good faith?†it is the Court’s, or more precisely a judge. The difference between having the bill and not having it is that if the bill were in place a Judge would here arguments and decide if in effect the person acted in “good faithâ€.

If thee judge sided with that person then no trial, if the judge found that the actions of the person were not in good faith then there could be a trial. As it sits now there will always be a trial, requiring tipsters to hire expensive lawyers and suffer through what will likely bean undeserved assault on their character. The fear of this result will have a chilling effect on people’s actions making a less safe and weaker nation. Just what the Imams wanted!

It is apparent that most of those not answering yes or no, do not support a bill such as this. Which, as pointed out earlier, is similar to Good Samaritan laws which have been on the books for as long as we've been a country. (and then some)

While any type of "immunity" can be abused, it would be comforting to at least know the protection is there.

By the way, airlines as all people should "profile"!!!! It is the only way to use a limited resource to detect a foe that goes out of its way to blend in with innocents. While race, religion or ethnicities are starts for profiling they are not the definitive answer and should not be used as sole factors.

It was apparent in the "flying Imams" case that while their praying and chanting that OBL was great and the US deserved what it got on 911 may have initially tripped peoples suspicions, it was their requesting seat belt extenders and repositioning around the plane (not sitting in their assigned seats) that finally pushed people to act.

By the way, who says you have "unlimited" freedom to practice your chosen religion?? Guess what you don't. The government just can't unreasonably restrict or promote any particular religion. If a Muslim is not sensitive enough to understand that MUSLIMS hijacked U.S. airplanes and flew them into buildings and that MUSLIMS continue to chant for "death to America", when they practice their religion maybe they don't deserve our respect or understanding! I don't go to synagogue and sell shrimp and sausage out front!

Eagle's suggestion that we rely on the government to "stand behind us" at trial is ridiculous. First, Americans, should never and for the most part until recently have never, "relied" on government, and we shouldn't. Government should be a last stop safety net. Ask, Ramos and Compean if they would rely on the government to stand behind them.

Eagle, for a person who decries the current administration and its actions, you sure put a lot of faith in the "government" to do the right thing. Maybe Bush isn't so bad. ;-)

By the way Darwood, you have a right to face your accuser, NOT to sue them! In California there is what is known as a SLAPP suit, it a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation†it means that when someone sues you for the public good (usually Home Owners Associations suing developers for defective construction) the other person cannot bring a lawsuit against the first unless the grounds for that lawsuit are well established. It is really a slightly higher standard than frivolous, but if the Court decides that the counter suit is a SLAPP suit the punishments are quite severe.

 

SLAPP suits are commonly used to get information about internet posters and is a chilling method of squleching dissent.

"By the way, airlines as all people should "profile"!!!!"
I agreed with that already, provided it is done respectfully.

"it is the Court’s, or more precisely a judge."
It is the judges call either way the suit comes up! If we have judges who DON'T see the imam's case as frivolous, then THAT is where the problem lies.

"By the way, who says you have "unlimited" freedom to practice your chosen religion?? Guess what you don't."
I agree with that also. Chanting death to America while boarding a plane should be analagous to shouting "FIRE" on the plane.

Again, this bill in no way enhances our security.
If you as an American, were faced with what these passengers saw and did NOT object, regardless of any risk of litigation, then YOU are unpatriotic. Myself, I would GLADLY see these Aholes in court and would not need a lawyer.

 

This is a knife which cuts both ways.

------

Did you ever know a really smart kid in school, who used that as a cover to cheat occasionally?

I mean, who'd ever suspect an 'A' student...?

That's the same person who will use the notion of profiling against us, in a most devastating way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jul 25 2007, 02:23 PM) [snapback]484868[/snapback]</div>

That suggestion was only in response to an equally preposterous suggestion that this law was designed as a way to "stand behind" tipsters. I'm glad at least one person also thought the idea was ridiculous.

Honestly, now that we've gotten all of you away from the whole idea of "This is great, it completely protects tipsters" and a bit closer to reality, it's becoming clear that even you think that this sort of a bill would mean that it would still end up in a court, in front of a judge. At that point, though, i wonder what this would actually do to "help" the tipster... The individuals bring the suit would still have to prove their case. They would still have to prove that there wasn't reasonable suspicion of their activities. How would this bill change things?

 

It would allow the airlines easy legal cover for profiling.
It would have made more sense to legislate against airline travelers intentional causing panic on a plane, via engaging in "suspicious activity".
But it would not have made a good sound bite that way.

This is a knee jerk, feel good proposal, that as you said, does nothing but provide more work for lawyers, and is a tool for republicans to get the Homeland security bill passed the way they want it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 25 2007, 11:26 AM) [snapback]484808[/snapback]</div>

That is correct for criminal actions, where a defendant is charged with committing a crime, not for civil matters. Innocent and guilty are terms which are exclusive to criminal proceedings. The burden of proof for civil law suits can be shifted by legislation that establishes certain presumptions which may make it easier or harder to find a defendant liable for damages.

In any event, in most cases of frivolous or malicious lawsuits courts can and often do order the losing plaintiff to pay attorneys' fees to the defendant.

I'd be extremely surprised if the Imams' law suit survives the pretrial motions.

 

How about another way we look at this:

Citizens are protected from errors/lawsuits when they report suspicious behavior.

Therefore, the U.S. has "armed" itself with millions of eyes seeing what the government alone can't see. And giving these eyes the confidence and encouragement to report what they see.

America just sent a message to the terrorists that all Americans are watching them.

 

Update. The bill's final language as reported in The Washington Times:

Of course, it is up to the courts to determine "good faith" and "objectively reasonable suspicion."