You too can be sued for reporting a TERRORIST

[Etek]

Democrats made sure YOU can be sued for exposing terrorists.
Instead of 'See something, say something' Democrat Senators will let you be sued for reporting a terrorist.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NATION/70719001/1001

[partymember]

so...the Turkish guy named Mustafa i befriended at Mickey D's who said "no" when i asked him if he liked America...nah, he ain't a ter'ist...right?

[lsmurphy]

so...the Turkish guy named Mustafa i befriended at Mickey D's who said "no" when i asked him if he liked America...nah, he ain't a ter'ist...right?

Why are you at MickyDs befriending Turks?

[VALMET_M76]

Why are you at MickyDs befriending Turks?

He is the PARTY MEMBER!!

;)

[partymember]

the guys name was Mustafa and we were high. Its fun to say.

Mustafa.

hehehe.

MUSTAFA!

[6526]

the guys name was Mustafa and we were high. Its fun to say.

Mustafa.

hehehe.

MUSTAFA!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

BULBOUS BOUFANT!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl_smal

[glockgangsta]

Thank U Alquiedacrats 4 us havin 2 worrie bout some commie layr suin us if we stomp some rag hed on a plane tryin 2 bring teh Bish Down :mad:


Itold U dudez LONG TIME ago thez AlquiedaCratz were teh lowest of teh low :mad_small

[sjohnson]

You can be sued for anything. I can be sued for posting in this thread. I could be sued for reporting that my neighbor is cooking meth.

Whether or not you can be successfully sued is another matter. If you harass someone, you could lose a suit. If you report a crime, or an activity that a "prudent man" would legitimately think was a crime, you might get sued but they'll lose the suit.

I don't see how a citizen reporting possible terrorist activity is any different than one reporting any possible crime.

Nothing new here.

[akjim]

Can I get and AMEN and a contingent payment on that one boys.

[Vendetta]

You may like America, but this isn't the America the founding fathers envisioned.

It could be a lot better. No?

[16r40]

You can be sued for anything. I can be sued for posting in this thread. I could be sued for reporting that my neighbor is cooking meth.

Whether or not you can be successfully sued is another matter. If you harass someone, you could lose a suit. If you report a crime, or an activity that a "prudent man" would legitimately think was a crime, you might get sued but they'll lose the suit.

I don't see how a citizen reporting possible terrorist activity is any different than one reporting any possible crime.

Nothing new here.

couldn't put it any better there johnson........a cardboard badge and "jesus" in your heart should not give you immunity. passing this kind of bill will just give these people more incentive to report false accucations on their neighbors, and having cops go on wild goose chases......I am willing to bet that if they did pass the bill, and a gunowner was arrested and his gun conficated, this group right here on the forum would be the first ones to condemn this outlandish bill that gives no recourse to the gunowner.

you folks need to see how a bill with "good intentions" can always turn around and bite you in the ass.

[Etek]

Guys,

Neighbor reports you for not taking your trash out before 06:00 and the cops will never give you their names. The right to face your accuser went out the window years ago.

Right now we are in a war against knuckleheads that don't wear a uniform and target civilians.

Read the article for Christ's sake.

IF you report a probable terrorist threat IN GOOD FAITH you CAN be sued.
MANY folks on an airliner reported that 6 Middle Eastern men were doing the SAME FUCKING SHIT that the 9-11 attackers were doing and all these 'John Does will be sued.

So next time you are on an airplane and a guy starts lighting his shoe, be a good Sheeple and die because you are a pussy afraid of a lawsuit.

[sjohnson]

No, YOU die. And I did read the whole article, for Muhammed's sake! :evil:

I won't be a pussy because reporting an Imam for doing suspicious shit on an airplane, or reporting a 22 year old college student for doing suspicious shit at StarBucks or reporting an 80 year old granny for doing suspicious shit at a church: reporting any of them is the same, I take the same risk of being sued.

What makes reporting or stopping a muslim a "special" need for you guys? Are they superhuman? Have special rights that strip yours away? What makes a reporting a muslim more scary than reporting a christian?

You're saying you'd puss out if you saw Timothy McVeigh getting ready to bomb a federal building? Because, you have NO special protection from being sued if you did.

Why do you "need" special protection against reporting a muslim?

BFD.

[lsmurphy]

No, YOU die. And I did read the whole article, for Muhammed's sake! :evil:

I won't be a pussy because reporting an Imam for doing suspicious shit on an airplane, or reporting a 22 year old college student for doing suspicious shit at StarBucks or reporting an 80 year old granny for doing suspicious shit at a church: reporting any of them is the same, I take the same risk of being sued.

What makes reporting or stopping a muslim a "special" need for you guys? Are they superhuman? Have special rights that strip yours away? What makes a reporting a muslim more scary than reporting a christian?

You're saying you'd puss out if you saw Timothy McVeigh getting ready to bomb a federal building? Because, you have NO special protection from being sued if you did.

Why do you "need" special protection against reporting a muslim?

BFD.

If I offend you, assumeing you're just a poor white boy like myself, what are you going to do? Sue me for what? It's your money, can you afford it? What's your case and how far are you going with it? If I think you have a meth lab in your house and strange people comming and going all hours and so on and I call the cops and I'm wrong you're going to sue me for what?

He's the difference Johnson, You don't have the backing of the ACLU or CAIR and thier MULT-MILLION dollar war chest and thier staff of attorneys.


Scott

[VALMET_M76]

You guys aren't understanding.


The Democrats are going to make the CRIME you reporting the suspected terrorist.

Democrats want one thing.

The End of the USA as we know it.

[sjohnson]

If you're poor I can sue you for more than you'll ever have, essentially making you my financial slave for the rest of your life. I'll be building AK's paid for with YOUR money.

If I'm arrested but not convicted of running a meth lab, I could easily sue you for defamation of character. If I lost my job or monetary gains due to your call, I could sue for damages, both actual and punitive.

Happens all the time.

Those Imams were arrested, and exonerated. They, as legally INNOCENT citizens chose to sue those involved with the events leading to their arrest.

Happens all the time.

CAIR scares you with their war chest? Why, if you make a righteous call, a "prudent man" call, the judge is gonna throw out any suit against as frivolous, and commend you for being a brave and conscientious citizen.

Watch the "John Does" in the Imam airplane case. Chances are almost perfect that the suit against them will be dropped by the judge.

Since September 11, just how many people reporting suspicious muslim activity have been successfully sued? Can you name one?

But you want "protection" from "penalties" that have never been applied.

OK, let's do it. Let people turn in Muslims 24/7/365. Serves'em right. Fackers are Muslims, and if they lose jobs or whatever over a few false accusations, hey, they're MUSLIMS. Right?

So, Hitlery gets the Prez, and convinces Congress that people with firearms are a danger equal to the Muslims. And signs into law the same protection against turning in people who OWN firearms. She doesn't ban firearms, just allows us to be reported for suspicious behavior. Backdoor gun ban, it becomes a liability to own them.

The Brady bunch goes wild. Nationwide, hundreds of gun owners lose their jobs, some lose their families, some take their own lives, all over unfounded accusations from people who are protected by law from being sued.

Kewl, huh? After all, like CAIR the NRA would have been there to sue the accusors. So the law is necessary, right?

If you can't see why due process doesn't extend to being able to apply for civil relief against those who maliciously intend you harm, you'll never understand why stripping the judicial rights of any citizen is wrong. Innocent until proven guilty is dead if such a bill as the one shot down passes.

VALMET, this wasn't a Democrat bill that was being PUSHED, it was a Republican bill that was shot down. You may be right about a Democrat agenda, but shooting this bill down did NOT make it a crime to report a person. You want to live on leaps of faith, great, but don't demand others do the same. Show me.

[VALMET_M76]

sjohnson?

The Republicans wanted to INCLUDE the provision that DID NOT MAKE IT A CRIME to report on suspected terrorist activity.,

The DEMOCRATS said NO, that would be a CRIME.

This all goes back to the the six goddamned inmans that staged the terror attack simulation on that airliner months back.

For REPORTING their suspicious behavior the inmans are SUEING and the DEMOCRATS are BACKING THEM.

[sjohnson]

sjohnson?

The Republicans wanted to INCLUDE the provision that DID NOT MAKE IT A CRIME to report on suspected terrorist activity.,(Edit) Wrong, murder is a crime. Being sued by you for calling your dog a bitch is not a crime, it's a civil action. Same as some idiot Imam suing people who only wanted to protect themselves and others. But suing someone is not accusing them of a crime.
The DEMOCRATS said NO, that would be a CRIME.Disagree, they said the existing practice of ANYONE can sue ANYONE, the same privilege we have ALL held since our judicial system was established, REMAINED UNCHANGED.
This all goes back to the the six goddamned inmans that staged the terror attack simulation on that airliner months back.

For REPORTING their suspicious behavior the inmans are SUEING and the DEMOCRATS are BACKING THEM.Even if the Republican bill were to pass and become law, the ex post facto provision of the Constitution would prevent the law from applying to those Imams. So the Democrats are not backing THEM. THEY already have the guarantee of the right to sue JUST AS DO YOU AND I.

It makes no sense to me - touch the 2A and we're all pissed. But this support for a bill that would have been an unconstitutional law is crazy.

Y'all are pissed at Gonzalez and Lautenberg for that bill that would allow the AG to declare someone a terrorist and remove their right to possess firearms - a perversion of due process, but it's somehow OK to eliminate due process because of someone's religion or ethnic heritage?

Great, but don't tell me you're a "strict constructionist" and go around quoting the Founding Fathers, because you're acting just as hypocritical as the Libs.

[lsmurphy]

Johnson, have you ever had to retain an attorney to answer a law suit? It can destroy you. Judge may drop the case after defendants pay 20 to 30k in fees. These fucker attorneys that you defend know how to wipe the average guy out finacialy all along knowing it will never go to court. I've been there I know.
Defend at will.


Scott

[lsmurphy]

I listened to this same bullshit on H and C tonight. Some asshole muslim attorney was stateing the very same thing, courts and due process. My ass.


Scott

[sjohnson]

Nothing to defend. It's part of our legal heritage and imbedded into our Constitution and inherent rights.

It sucks that those Imams are being stupid and suing people who were only trying to be good citizens. But, as citizens who weren't convicted of anything, those Imams have the same right as you or I to petition the civil court for reparations via a law suit. Do you want to give up your right to sue?

Explain the difference between the Lautenberg anti-terrorist gun purchase bill and this report-a-terrorist bill with respect to due process.

Due process is one of the very basic rights we have, it's why Bush is in trouble with the Gitmo detainees.

If due process doesn't apply equally to all citizens, it isn't due process. All men are not created equal. You are NOT guaranteed of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[lsmurphy]

Man this really fuckin pisses me off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A good attorney will run you in circles knowing you are paying 250.00 per hour, he'll lead you to a hearing and then back off, more depositions, more discovery, more papers to sign more phone time more time off work more stress and a week before you see the judge, cancel. Start all over again. He knows how to break you first, of course this practice doesn't work for the big players but when your a poor white boy and your accused of something you can't dissprove your fucked and you'll never see the judge to tell your side.

Defend at will.

Scott

[lsmurphy]

I agree with due process then the gov needs to by law provide some type of defence to whistle blowers.


Scott

[sjohnson]

I hear that, in spades. And we have whistleblower laws already on the books. Those laws MAY be used as the argument, or part of it, for dropping any suit against the John Does.

Are civil lawsuits out of control in the U.S.? I sure as hell think so. We're the most litigious society in history. But who makes the laws? LAWyers.

One thing I'd like to see is penalties for people who bring frivolous suits against innocent people. Not just the innocent's costs, but punitive damages levied.

[lsmurphy]

Here's the real world. I sold my house and the buyer was exactly 4k short at closing. She and I agreed that I would hold a second for one year and she gave me a security check for the 4k. After the closing I presented her with the 2nd contract and asked her to send the signed copy and my first check. She has since refused. She said that there's nothing binding her to sign the contract. I deposited her 4k check which was returned last week marked NSF. OK I sue. Igo to small claims, 10% fee to file. 4k + payments + fileing fee, more that 5k max for small claims so I sue for a total of 5k cost me $500 to file. I'll get a judgement against her name and I'll never get paid. Can't get blood from a turnip. I hire an attorney it will cost a minimum $2500. I throw good money after bad. The best hope I have is to ask the State Attorney to procecute her for her worthless check and the threat of a felony might get her to pay up.

Scott

[sjohnson]

Same kind of deal here. I'm owed $900, but the bum won't pay.

I filed small claims, the bum's father meets me outside the courthouse with a deal. We dicker and I end up with a bit over 50 cents on the dollar. His a$$hole son got a $900 loan for almost two years and I take a $400 loss.

Some of it depends on your local laws. Here I could have gone to small claims, and with a judgement in my favor could have had the Sheriff's office serve papers, including wage garnishment. And any cost would be billed to the defendant.

If you're in one State and they're in another, it can become impossible to collect, for sure.

[TACTIUS]

couldn't put it any better there johnson........a cardboard badge and "jesus" in your heart should not give you immunity. passing this kind of bill will just give these people more incentive to report false accucations on their neighbors, and having cops go on wild goose chases......I am willing to bet that if they did pass the bill, and a gunowner was arrested and his gun conficated, this group right here on the forum would be the first ones to condemn this outlandish bill that gives no recourse to the gunowner.

you folks need to see how a bill with "good intentions" can always turn around and bite you in the ass.


For A MORON, you hit the nail on the head with that one thats true. completly true

[16r40]

For A MORON, you hit the nail on the head with that one thats true. completly true


thanks, and if your problem wasn't because your mother and father were brother and sister, you would be OK

[Texas_XD]

thanks, and if your problem wasn't because your mother and father were brother and sister, you would be OK

Oh.. damn! ROFLMAO

Sweet burn!

[TACTIUS]

thanks, and if your problem wasn't because your mother and father were brother and sister, you would be OK


oh boy you sure got me there, wow that was sharp

CLEVE- Ohio thats alot more back water the Fort Lauderdale Florida
twenty years in the Army and thats as good as it gets for that Army dog.

hey man take about ten bucks from your monthlyarmy pension and buy your self a book on developing a thought process.

that should leave you with about One hundred and fifty dollars left for the rest of your expenses for the month.

Geuss the VA cant treat "demensia" in its advanced stages.
On the brighter side you could get a job at wal mart with your mom and that would be more then your entire pension a month.

[johnnyv1966]

I suppose if ones claims turn out to be false. If someone makes damaging false claims about others shouldn't they be punished?

Thats why if one is going to report something keep ones statements to strictly the facts.

Then if one is sued counter sue them for "Abuse of Process" Do them hard and deep!


One needs to keep in mind that many here are firearms enthusiasts. Could you imagine not suing some liberal minded miscreant for spinning your recreational use of firearms into " I tell you he's a guy whos a killer, ...all those guns..you know the type...he shoots every week and talks about guns" Could you imagine a liberal minded employer finding out about you'd fascination with firearms and denying you a promotion or terminating your employment for being a "Nut case" potential "work place homicidal maniac"

[Etek]

I suppose if ones claims turn out to be false. If someone makes damaging false claims about others shouldn't they be punished?

Thats why if one is going to report something keep ones statements to strictly the facts.

Then if one is sued counter sue them for "Abuse of Process" Do them hard and deep!


One needs to keep in mind that many here are firearms enthusiasts. Could you imagine not suing some liberal minded miscreant for spinning your recreational use of firearms into " I tell you he's a guy whos a killer, ...all those guns..you know the type...he shoots every week and talks about guns" Could you imagine a liberal minded employer finding out about you'd fascination with firearms and denying you a promotion or terminating your employment for being a "Nut case" potential "work place homicidal maniac"


It's about not getting sued by someone who is on an airplane and you report his suspicious activities IN GOOD FAITH.
Not you in your backyard shooting targets with a BB gun or walking through the woods with an AK.

Once again, read the article and read the law.
It passed today BTW.

[Etek]

'John Doe' protection to get floor vote


July 25, 2007


By Audrey Hudson - A late-night agreement yesterday guaranteed that so-called "John Doe" protection — to prevent airline passengers from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior — will get a floor vote in the House and Senate.

"This is a huge win — a hard-fought victory for House Republicans and, more importantly, for the American people," said Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

The provision survived a contentious congressional process before a House-Senate conference committee agreed just before midnight yesterday to include the measure in the final draft of the September 11 Commission bill.

The move ensures the provision cannot be amended on the floor. It is expected to come to a vote in both houses of Congress before the August recess.

If passed, the measure will nullify, in part, a lawsuit filed by six imams against U.S. Airways and unnamed "John Doe" passengers. The legislation was initiated after the imams filed the lawsuit in March claiming that passengers and the airline violated their civil rights by removing them from the flight.

The suspicious activity included changing seats, the seating pattern, moving about the cabin before takeoff, criticizing the Bush administration and the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and asking for seat-belt extensions flight attendants said were not needed.

The lawsuit can still go forward against the airline under the proposed law, but the "John Doe" passengers cannot be sued for reporting their concerns to the flight crew.

"I'm pleased that Democratic leaders finally decided to do the right thing and agreed with Republicans that we should be encouraging Americans to report potential terrorist activity to the proper authorities," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

Democrats initially refused to vote on the language last week when congressional leaders officially met in the conference committee to draft the final recommendations of the September 11 Commission. However, Mr. King pledged to work with leading conferee, Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, to insert the provision in the final written report.

Three sticking points in the conference committee were all resolved, said one aide close to the conference process. "We won on the outstanding issues. It was exactly what we were looking for," the aide said.

The outstanding issues that were resolved include stripping the retroactive language that would have allowed the lawsuit to proceed against the "John Doe" passengers, restricting the reporting to terrorism and not other criminal activity, and limiting it to federal lawsuits.

If passed, the law will become retroactive from Oct. 1, 2006.

"Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under federal, state and local law for such report," the conference language says.

Andrea Rader, spokeswoman for U.S. Airways, said they have been following the legislative fight that began last week. "Airline employees are well-trained in this area, but we believe strongly that an alert public is invaluable in the effort," she said.

The language now mirrors a stand-alone bill sponsored by Mr. Lieberman; Mr. King; Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican; Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican; and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican.

"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," Mr. King said.

Added Mr. Boehner: "This much-needed measure is critical in the effort to confront the significant threats posed by al Qaeda and other terrorists and protect the American people."

"I am pleased to see that the pressure we created led Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid to make the right decision about protecting alert Americans," Mr. Pearce said. "The American people shouldn't have to think twice about alerting security and law enforcement to potential terrorist attacks."

Mr. Pearce said vigilant citizens are the most useful weapon in the war on terror. "It was unnerving to watch the majority party ignore this fact and push to protect potential terrorists rather than innocent Americans," he said.

Miss Collins noted that a citizen's tip led to the recent arrests in Fort Dix, N.J., that foiled a plot to attack and kill American soldiers, showing the need for the legislation. "Vigilant, watchful citizens are vital to America's homeland security," she said.

[rdhood]

Here's the real world. I sold my house and the buyer was exactly 4k short at closing. She and I agreed that I would hold a second for one year and she gave me a security check for the 4k. After the closing I presented her with the 2nd contract and asked her to send the signed copy and my first check. She has since refused. She said that there's nothing binding her to sign the contract. I deposited her 4k check which was returned last week marked NSF. OK I sue. Igo to small claims, 10% fee to file. 4k + payments + fileing fee, more that 5k max for small claims so I sue for a total of 5k cost me $500 to file. I'll get a judgement against her name and I'll never get paid. Can't get blood from a turnip. I hire an attorney it will cost a minimum $2500. I throw good money after bad. The best hope I have is to ask the State Attorney to procecute her for her worthless check and the threat of a felony might get her to pay up.

Scott

She has a house. If you get a judgement, you can put a lien on her house. The next time it changes hands, you get paid. It might be 20 years from now, but you'll get paid.

[sjohnson]

Article 1, U.S. Constitution:
...
Section 9
...
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...

Amazing how the proposed law is to be retroactively applied to start last October, 2006, if passed.

The Imam suit against the flight passengers is completely politically motivated and stupid, but do we really want another example of how the Constitution can be bent to match public opinion rather than being immutable?

[Etek]

Article 1, U.S. Constitution:
...
Section 9
...
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...

Amazing how the proposed law is to be retroactively applied to start last October, 2006, if passed.

The Imam suit against the flight passengers is completely politically motivated and stupid, but do we really want another example of how the Constitution can be bent to match public opinion rather than being immutable?

The "John Does" in the Flying Immams case have yet to be identified so technichally it aint Ex Post Facto.

But I agree that we're on a slippery slope.

But here is the Immas reply. (They liken the John Does to the KKK)

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?
entry=26411_CAIR_Plans_to_Continue_Suing_John_Doe_ Passengers&only%3Cbr
%20/%3E

[lsmurphy]

She has a house. If you get a judgement, you can put a lien on her house. The next time it changes hands, you get paid. It might be 20 years from now, but you'll get paid.
I looked into my crystal ball and I see a foreclosure in thier future. I won't wait on that judgement. However they do have a $50K 5th wheel trailer that's paid for, there's my judgement.


Scott

[johnnyv1966]

It's about not getting sued by someone who is on an airplane and you report his suspicious activities IN GOOD FAITH.
Not you in your backyard shooting targets with a BB gun or walking through the woods with an AK.

Once again, read the article and read the law.
It passed today BTW.

In some ways I am glad it passed as terrorists, particularly foreign terrorists or their assistants, sympathizers, or a "probe crew" could use our laws as intimidation with the threat of a lawsuits to inflict injury on the innocents. Hopefully the bill is limited to circumstances of an exigent nature. A thing is what it is.


However if one lives amongst those who just don't like you, could you imagine the potential to use the government to harassment with immunity? Most of the folks on here are probably first rate "gun nuts". Ever think those who don' t like guns, the ignorant, or someone with an axe to grind might use their new found immunity to embarrass or harass someone without consequence. One has a right to face ones false accuser and hold them accountable.

That is clearly a problem that

[sjohnson]

Just noticed the Etek edit.

1. The law is stated as having a "good faith" clause. Since "good faith" and "prudent man" are inherently a part of civil law, on the basis of that specific inclusion ALONE the law is a BS feel-good law passed by a Congress pandering to public emotion. It will do absolutely NOTHING to prevent person A from suing person B.

2. Naming a John Doe is a legal placeholder and wouldn't create any ex post facto loophole. "John Doe" is used when a person is known but their name is not, and when their name is likely to be uniquely discovered during the course of a court proceeding. The "John Doe" is still the same person or persons, and uniquely identifies them, the same as if their actual name had been used.

[DerWebMeister]

Dead Jihadists can't sue...