There are many folks who have kept up with the possibility of Republicans submitting legislation to protect John Does who bring possible threats to the authorities, such as during the flying Imams case and the kid who turned the DVD of the Fort Dix Six in. I’ve mentioned it back in the archives myself.
Michelle Malkin links to an article that states
Congressmen Stevan Pearce, along with Rep. Peter King and Rep. Bill Shuster, introduced a bill today that would protect those who come forward to report suspicious activity from frivolous civil liability prosecution.
If passed, the bill, known commonly as the ‘John Doe’ protection legislation, would grant immunity to anyone who alerted transportation security to actions believed to be threatening or to any personnel that "takes reasonable action to mitigate such activity." (bold and color mine)
Rep. Shuster commented: "No American should ever be sued because they tried to stop a terrorist act. No American should be forced to second guess a decision to alert authorities that could save the lives of other. This legislation will protect vigilant American against the threat of punitive and frivolous lawsuits whose only objective is to chill public involvement in the War on Terror when we need it most. I applaud Rep. Pearce and Rep. King for their leadership in spearheading this legislation with me."
Reading around the ‘net, it seems as if that little bit of bold/color above is being missed. The kid in the Fort Dix Six case would not be immune. Why?
H.R. 2291: To grant immunity from civil liability to any person who voluntarily notifies appropriate security personnel of suspicious activity believed to threaten transportation safety or security or takes reasonable action to mitigate such activity.
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.
While it is a good start, and is retroactive back to November 20th, 2006, in order to cover the Flying Imams case, this would not cover the kid, would not cover the first World Trade Center attack, would not cover the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, would not cover the attack against the USS Cole except by the broadest definition, the discoteque bombing in Germany way back in the 80’s, and so on. While a case could be made that almost everthing involves transportation, you know that anyone looking to sue will be able to find a judge that will strictly interpret the law.
They seriously need to consider adding in quite a bit more language to protect citizens who see other suspicious activity and report it.
Trackposted to Right Pundits, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rightlinx, The Magical Rose Garden, A Blog For All, Right Celebrity, third world county, Azamatterofact, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Isn’t it interesting that the left would probably strictly interpret the commerce clause of the Constitution to limit Congress’ power to grant immunity in cases like this to the transportation systems.
At the same time they interpret the commerce clause quite liberally whenever it covers their pet causes, such as environmentalism.
Convenient isn’t it.
It’s all about what benefits them politically, regardless of who else it hurts.