John Doe Protection Act

As you’ve probably read on other blogs, Congressman Steve Pearce (R-NM) has introduced what is being called the John Doe Protection Act across the internet. Audrey Hudson of the Washington Times has been a real tiger on this whole issue since the Flying Imams started this whole thing last November;

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.
    Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted “Allah” when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.
    “I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud,” the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.
    Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks — two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
    “That would alarm me,” said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. “They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane.”
    A pilot from another airline said: “That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry.”

Audrey also warned us last month about the threat to the “John Does” who reported their suspicious behavior;

A group of imams suing US Airways for discrimination amended their lawsuit this week to target only the “John Doe” passengers who they say are racist and falsely accused them of behaving suspiciously.
    The six imams were removed from a flight in Minneapolis in November for disruptive behavior reported by passengers and members of the flight crew.
    The lawsuit filed earlier this month targeted “passengers who contacted US Airways to report the alleged ‘suspicious’ behavior of plaintiffs performing their prayer at the airport terminal.”
    The amended lawsuit identifies possible John Does as individuals who “may have made false reports against plaintiffs solely with the intent to discriminate against them on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity and national origin.”  

Today she’s writing about the legislation introduced by Joe Lieberman in the Senate and Congressman Pearce in the House;

A bipartisan coalition in the House and Senate is pushing legislation to protect Americans from being sued for reporting to authorities suspicious activity that may lead to a terrorist attack.
    “If you see something, you should say something, and not have to worry about being sued,” said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican.
    The measure was introduced in the Senate late Friday and is sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, along with Mr. Kyl and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the panel’s ranking Republican.

     A House version introduced yesterday is sponsored by Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican; Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee; and Rep. Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania Republican.
    “In a post-9/11 reality, passenger vigilance is essential to security. If we fail to protect passengers that report suspicious behavior, it would be a huge victory for terrorists,” Mr. King said.

The House legislation is HR 2291 and HR 1640 (this link takes you to thomas.loc.gov, just type in the HR# in the search box to read the bills – they don’t have permanent links). I’ve got a call in to Lieberman’s office to find out the Senate designation that hasn’t been returned yet. The House Resolution 1640 reads;

(a) In General- An individual shall not be liable for any injury or damages relating to such individual’s qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior. A civil action for damages related to such disclosure may not be brought in any State or Federal court.

(b) Qualified Disclosure of Suspicious Behavior- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior’ means any disclosure of the allegedly suspicious behavior of another individual or individuals to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or other security personnel that is made in good faith and with the reasonable belief that such behavior is suspicious.

HR 2991 reads;

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 SECTION 1. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTING SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR.

(a) In General- Any person who, in good faith, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary disclosure of any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence indicating that an individual may be engaging, or preparing to engage, in an action described in section 3 to any employee or agent of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Justice, any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, any transportation security officer, or any employee or agent of a transportation system shall be immune from civil liability to any person for such disclosure under any Federal, State, or local law.

(b) False Disclosures- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any statement or disclosure that the person making the statement or disclosure knows to be false at the time it is made.

 SEC. 2. IMMUNITY FOR MITIGATION OF THREATS

Any person in receipt of a report described in section 1 who takes reasonable action to mitigate a suspicious action described in section 3 shall be immune from civil liability to any person for such action under any Federal, State, or local law.

 SEC. 3. COVERED DISCLOSURES.

The actions described in this section are possible or attempted violations of law relating to–

(1) a threat to a transportation system or the safety or security of its passengers; or

(2) an act of terrorism (as defined in section 3077 of title 18, United States Code) that involves, or is directed against, a transportation system or its passengers.

 SEC. 4. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS.

Any person who is named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit for making a voluntary disclosure described in section 1 or for taking an action described in section 2, and is found to be immune from civil liability under this Act, shall be entitled to recover from the plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney fees allowed by the court in which the lawsuit was decided.

 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect on November 20, 2006, and shall apply to all activities and claims occurring on or after such date.

 

But the Democrats are hot to strip the language from last month’s Transportion bill as reported by Crotchety Old Bastard  and Little Green Footballs. Michele Malkin has more on the bill.

I expect everyone to call, write, fax, and email your Congressmembers to support these bills.

Category: Legal, Politics, Society, Terror War