Bill to Protect Tipsters Revived in Congress
Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 11:15 am
- 4 Comments
After being stuck in a conference committee and stymied by a disagreement over final language, a bill to protect citizens who report suspicious activities seems to be going ahead after all, thanks in part to Minnesota Sens. Norm Coleman, a Republican, and Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat.
Known as the “John Does” amendment — a reference to the unnamed passengers sued by six imams last fall — the provision will be attached to a Homeland Security bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The amendment initially passed the House, but was stuck in a House-Senate conference committee. Lawmakers tried to find middle ground for the original language of the amendment, which was seen as too sweeping by House leaders.
The chief sponsors of the provision are Reps. Steve Pearce, R-N.M, and Peter King, R-N.Y. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., was among a handful of co-sponsors.
As a compromise, the language of the provision was amended to say that the bill gives immunity only to whistleblowers who “act in good faith.”
But sponsors also failed to muster enough votes in the Senate. Klobuchar, who initially voted against the amendment, voted this week in favor of the new language.
Slated to be taken up by the full House this week, the final version of the amendment would be retroactive to Oct. 1. That would provide a shield for the Minneapolis passengers who reported on the six imams — if a court could determine that they acted in good faith.
The Senate is expected to vote on the amendment before it leaves for summer recess.
4 Comments
Comment posted July 26, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
(Expressing disapproval of wording) At first glance, it seems this little added wording pretty much destroys the whole reason for the original bill, which was to give the American people the benefit of the doubt. It would do that by all but removing even the possibility of having to prove in a court of law that you were acting in good faith in such a situation.
That seems important to me, and this is the reasoning:
If we really are serious about using civilians as “the first line of defense” against terrorists – and that seems like a proposition that almost everyone of all political stripes supports – that has to mean something.
And in the case of airliners especially, but really in any situation involving immediacy and helpless crowds, simply reporting a concern has to be not only allowed but encouraged, if we’re serious, even when the odds are strongly against the threat existing.
As the odds always would be, of course, even in a genuine threat situation. Which is, I guess, the point.
That is, on a practical level, it will absolutely always be the one-in-ten or one-in-a-hundred (or even more remote) chance that you should be worried that would trigger considering a report. Because the odds will never be better than that.
“It’s probably nothing” – that will always be the case. And I have no doubt that in such a situation I would try very, very hard to convince myself to relax, it’s probably nothing.
But a little part of me would be saying – you chickens**t.
It seems to me that this wording opens up to a lawsuit almost any expressed worry-that-turns-out-to-be-nothing. Especially, I must add, given the evident purposes and tactics of certain advocacy groups to this point in their existence. In retrospect, it will always be quite easy to identify facts that could have explained away the worry. “Praying loud? That’s a worry? What kind of hater are you?”
This will not motivate our first line of defense very productively. It will minimize the “you chickens**t” concern and heighten the “don’t be a bloody fool” one.
I understand the motive not to simply slap away the possibility of malicious threat-reporting, if even for symbolic reasons. And I suppose there are reasons to consider precedent. But “first line of defense” cannot be drained of substance.
This isn’t about Americans vs. Muslims. It’s about Americans vs. terrorists.
Comment posted July 27, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
A bad day for the hard left But a great day for the vast majority of Americans who support this legislation.
Comment posted July 26, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
(Expressing disapproval of wording) At first glance, it seems this little added wording pretty much destroys the whole reason for the original bill, which was to give the American people the benefit of the doubt. It would do that by all but removing even the possibility of having to prove in a court of law that you were acting in good faith in such a situation.
That seems important to me, and this is the reasoning:
If we really are serious about using civilians as “the first line of defense” against terrorists – and that seems like a proposition that almost everyone of all political stripes supports – that has to mean something.
And in the case of airliners especially, but really in any situation involving immediacy and helpless crowds, simply reporting a concern has to be not only allowed but encouraged, if we're serious, even when the odds are strongly against the threat existing.
As the odds always would be, of course, even in a genuine threat situation. Which is, I guess, the point.
That is, on a practical level, it will absolutely always be the one-in-ten or one-in-a-hundred (or even more remote) chance that you should be worried that would trigger considering a report. Because the odds will never be better than that.
“It's probably nothing” – that will always be the case. And I have no doubt that in such a situation I would try very, very hard to convince myself to relax, it's probably nothing.
But a little part of me would be saying – you chickens**t.
It seems to me that this wording opens up to a lawsuit almost any expressed worry-that-turns-out-to-be-nothing. Especially, I must add, given the evident purposes and tactics of certain advocacy groups to this point in their existence. In retrospect, it will always be quite easy to identify facts that could have explained away the worry. “Praying loud? That's a worry? What kind of hater are you?”
This will not motivate our first line of defense very productively. It will minimize the “you chickens**t” concern and heighten the “don't be a bloody fool” one.
I understand the motive not to simply slap away the possibility of malicious threat-reporting, if even for symbolic reasons. And I suppose there are reasons to consider precedent. But “first line of defense” cannot be drained of substance.
This isn't about Americans vs. Muslims. It's about Americans vs. terrorists.
Comment posted July 27, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
A bad day for the hard left But a great day for the vast majority of Americans who support this legislation.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
