If you see something, say something…and prepare to get sued?
posted at 8:05 am on May 11, 2007 by Bryan
We need John Doe protection. Period.
The New Jersey store clerk whose tip led to the arrest of six terror suspects needs legislative protection from being sued as a “John Doe” or whistleblower, lawmakers said yesterday.
“The events in Fort Dix are just another reminder of the need for this legislation,” said Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican and author of legislation to protect “John Doe” passengers being sued by a group of Muslim imams for reporting their suspicious behavior.—
M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, agrees that the FBI’s arrests show the need to protect the principle of “see something, say something.”
“What if this ‘John Doe’ had contrarily chosen to be silent due to a fear of litigation?” Dr. Jasser said.
Republican Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Rep. Peter King of New York used a procedural tactic to add the Pearce language to a rail and transportation security bill in March. The amendment passed unanimously by Republicans and had bipartisan support from 105 Democrats.
In the post 9-11 world protecting anti-terror whistleblowers from lawsuits ought to be the most uncontroversial thing in the world. But after the (f)lying imams fiasco, it’s not. Some Democrats and CAIR are standing in the way. They need to be defeated and humiliated for that. All of us might need this protection some day, because we’re all potential John Does.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Bipartisan support of 105 dems? Why aren’t they ALL on board? They need to be exposed for this and those that support it need to be praised for it. I really hate this stuff because all my representitives are conservatives, so emailing them is preaching to the chior. I have read on HA that some who have dem representitives don’t bother because they wont listen anyway. But I don’t see any reason not to try anyway.
csdeven on May 11, 2007 at 8:19 AM
I personally am not afraid of being sued as a John Doe who reports behavior that could be taken as terrorism.
This is another form of SLAP suit. I’ve dealt with threats of being sued at zoning meetings when facing off against greedy real estate developers (is their any other kind?). While a John Doe law is a good idea, another proper response is a counter suit againist the jihadist wannabee. For very big bucks, need I add.
georgej on May 11, 2007 at 8:23 AM
Two words….Anonymous tip.
soulsirkus on May 11, 2007 at 8:25 AM
Gotta love this country. Cities order their police departments not to report illegal aliens but allow concerned citizens to get gob-smacked with a law suit for reporting suspicious activity. MadTV? SNL? If only.
Limerick on May 11, 2007 at 8:28 AM
I find that many lawsuits brought by litigious “religious groups” are SLAP suits.
Here is the first rule of dealing with cult lawsuits: they never want go to trial. It is an attempt to both silence you and settle out of court.
A cult wants to scare you into thinking you’ll be sued, but it never wants to go to court. If they are taken to court they can be asked anything, and the fact that their organization is filled with dangerous retards suddenly becomes part of the public record. If they were to lose a case, their dangerous illegal activity suddenly becomes an official court document and lives forever.
No; sue-happy religious groups will 99% of the time only threaten to sue. They can’t follow through because the last person they want seeing their dirty laundry is a judge.
Lehosh on May 11, 2007 at 8:32 AM
The problem with the threat, is that it costs money to defend. Scientology is a good example, they seldom go to court, but the costs to defend the allegation can cost tens of thousands of dollars, millions in some cases. The hiring of attorneys, the time and effort, it just ain’t the court case that is the problem.
right2bright on May 11, 2007 at 8:41 AM
This sounds all well and good, but doesn’t defending oneself against a lawsuit cost money? If these terrorists become more open in poorer communties and a citizen has to decide if he wants to defend a lawsuit or feed his family, I doubt anything less than a terrorist with an bomb strapped to his body will motivate that person to take a chance on being sued.
I like the anonymous tip idea, but wouldn’t law enforcement need face to face interviews eventually? What would happen if the terrorists started flooding tip lines with bogus calls? Would law enforcement start ignoring all but the most serious threats because they lack man power?
We need to embarass the people who are holding this up. I feel very confident that a large majority of americans would support this if only they knew what the traitorous dems are doing.
csdeven on May 11, 2007 at 8:48 AM
This from a group that encourages lying to thr infidels, and we are still waiting for that mass of moderates to report suspicious activities withing their own communitues. When will our will grow to the point that we “enough”?
We are under attack from without and within, and we have leaders who side with those enemies.
We really need a real leader to direct us out of this mess.
bbz123 on May 11, 2007 at 8:57 AM
Yeah but Scientology’s confidential secrets were outed in a court case so Lenosh has a point.
aengus on May 11, 2007 at 8:57 AM
Stuff like this aggravates me so much I can’t even put it into words this early in the morning. I’m sure he’ll need fatwah protction at some point also.
vcferlita on May 11, 2007 at 8:57 AM
Even if legislation is passed, there will be loopholes and unscrupulous attorneys. I think the time has come for practicing attorneys to organize a way to defend terrorist whistleblowers. There are dozens of groups who provide legal assistance where specific issues come up (ACLU, Rutherford, Legal Aid, etc, etc.). There’s no reason a similar group couldn’t be formed to protect whistleblowers.
BillLalor on May 11, 2007 at 9:25 AM
This kind of crap makes me so ashamed of my government. There’s honestly not an ounce of common sense in the majority of these idiots.
Privatestock on May 11, 2007 at 9:26 AM
This is the kind of thing that makes you want to pull your hair out. Its common sense – something Dims seem to lack in this area (among others). I would still blow the whistle.
Stevel on May 11, 2007 at 9:40 AM
This kind of legislation should be a complete “no-brainer”. It’s as if these incompetent leaders want to simply will us back to September 10, 2001. Thing have changed guys. I’m not going to call in my neigbor as a terrorist if I sse his grass get a bit too high. And I should never have to question reporting something obviously unusual to the police.
At this rate I weep for my children and my new grandson. What kind of America will they live in?
hoosierken on May 11, 2007 at 9:51 AM
BillLalor brings up a good point. Why isn’t there a conservative -and just as powerful- version of the ACLU and groups like that fighting to protect us from socialism and general liberal stupidity? I’d support the hell out of an organization like that.
Privatestock on May 11, 2007 at 9:54 AM
To limit litigation against John Doe might also mean limiting litigation in some other areas which might not be bad for America but could be bad for some do gooder, uber liberal entities like the ACLU.
Getting legislation passed that limits the ability to sue (for fun and profit) is a hard sell for liberals.
Speakup on May 11, 2007 at 9:58 AM
No, Lenosh says they do not go to court, but they are willing to go to court, most are willing. What they (and others) want to do is intimidate and make you spend money. That is the real danger. Forget about the aberration of one or two Scientology cases that have gone to court (usually a case brought against them), they have usually lost. They don’t care about “dirty laundry” their followers will follow no matter what, they want to suck up the resources of the opposition, wear them down.
An analogy would be when news org. like AP or Rueters plant a false story or picture, they then dodge and delay until you are tired of pressing them for the truth. And if you ever get the truth, it has been diluted with time.
Case in point right now is this Kansas gov. and Brownback. They will dodge and hide until the crisis passes. Our resources (interest) will wear down before their intent and policy is withdrawn.
right2bright on May 11, 2007 at 10:14 AM
An individual shouldn’t be punished by lawyer fees for essentially saving lives. Anyone have a link to the list of Dems who voted against that amendment?
WisCon on May 11, 2007 at 10:17 AM
RE: “See something, say something?”
NOT A CHANCE. If I see something that looks suspicious (to me), I’ll quietly pick up my things and vacate the area. Ya’ll are on your own.
Besides that, ya’ll are opening yourself up to a never ending witch hunt. ‘cuz that ‘crazy old man who lives on the corner has to be guilty of something, and someone should do something about him, before someone gets hurt’.
Have a nice day.
rockhauler on May 11, 2007 at 10:19 AM
The guy didn’t get sued. This article is dealing entirely in hyptotheticals, and if he did get sued, it would be thrown out of court.
I’m not really disagreeing with laws to protect such things, but it sounds like you are saying “Since he didn’t get sued, we should pass laws protecting him from getting sued,” which is a bit odd.
Also, for what its worth (nothing, I know), I think the term “John Doe” is silly in this context. If someone is really a “John Doe” he won’t be sued anyway, because noone knows who he is.
DaveS on May 11, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Yeah but the sheeple want someone who tickles their ears.
csdeven on May 11, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Suing a John Doe allows the defense to force airlines, employers, et al to reveal who the person is.
csdeven on May 11, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Try finding info about this bill. It’s a huge bill, has lots of parts and very confusing. The only whistleblower protection I could find only covers federal employees and contractors. If someone can find the HR# of this amendment, I’d love to read it.
Privatestock on May 11, 2007 at 11:12 AM
It doesn’t matter. They have no grounds on which to sue… it would be thrown out of court.
The only legal liability for the guy you are calling “John Doe” would come about from any false statements that he/she intentionally made to authorities. Like if I called the cops and said I thought you killed someone, and they found out I lied.
Where did this idea start anyway, that someone could be sued for voicing a concern about suspicious behavior?
DaveS on May 11, 2007 at 12:10 PM
It’s the whole “right to face your accuser” thing. One way around it is to “neither confirm nor deny” the existence of a tipper thus the Feds become the accuser, but then you get into the probably cause thing . . .
- The Cat
MirCat on May 11, 2007 at 12:58 PM
I guess a bunch of lawyers decided it was an issue after the attorneies for the flying Imams sued all John Does on the flight.
csdeven on May 11, 2007 at 1:02 PM
I think it does matter. I can sue anyone I want and they HAVE to pay a lawyer to defend themselves even if it eventually is thrown out of court. If they don’t have a lawyer and I do, I win. The point of these lawsuits is to scare people into keeping their mouths shut.
csdeven on May 11, 2007 at 1:05 PM
There’s the Institute for Justice. I like them, YMMV.
Annoying Old Guy on May 11, 2007 at 1:17 PM
That’s brilliant. Did you come up with that yourself?
tikvah on May 11, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Tort reform is needed in general not just for this. There have been studies done showing things like grown men are reluctant to help a drowing child for fear of being sued for sexual harassment.
Resolute on May 11, 2007 at 6:33 PM