Friday, July 27, 2007
Congress Passes Security Bill
Congress has passed the security bill with a provision that protects those reporting suspicious activity from being sued.
If you don't think lawsuits are a possibility, watch this interview Carson Tucker does with Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman for C.A.I.R. You'll have little doubt left in your mind that C.A.I.R. could care less about our security.
House-Senate negotiators finally reached an agreement this week after Democrats worked out a provision satisfying GOP demands that people who report what they in good faith believe to be terrorist activity around planes, trains and buses be protected from lawsuits.I like how the MSM tried to give the credit for the Democrats.
The bill, passed by the House on a 371-40 vote, ranks among the top accomplishments of the six-month-old Democratic Congress. The Senate approved the measure late Thursday by 85-8, and the White House said the president would sign the bill.Reading further down the article you'll find this.
Emphasis added
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who steered the legislation through the Senate with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said it would "make our nation stronger, our cities and towns more secure and our families safer."So, an independent and a Republican steer a bill through Congress and it's a Democrat accomplishment? Interesting. Don't forget how the Democrats almost scuttled the bill and wanted to leave every day Americans open to lawsuits if they reported suspicious activity.
If you don't think lawsuits are a possibility, watch this interview Carson Tucker does with Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman for C.A.I.R. You'll have little doubt left in your mind that C.A.I.R. could care less about our security.
Comments:
<< Home
371-40 and 85-8 sound like pretty large margins of victory to me. With the Democrats in the majority, I would assume there would be a fair number of Democratic votes for the provision.
And as I said before, I doubt this bill will actually prevent any lawsuits and I equally doubt that there was much danger of such lawsuits in the first place. Now, we just have to hope authorities will be on the ball when hearing such reports and investigate them thoroughly...which isn't terribly different from the position we were in before. Congress can pass all the bills it wants to, if enforcement isn't competent, we are in danger.
As far as semantics are concerned, we do have a Democratic Majority Congress, and - not to put to fine a point on it - though they have accomplished some things, if this bill is considered one of their major "accomplishments" that's not saying a whole lot for them.
Then there is the fact that if "The Democrats (tm)" wanted this bill scuttled, the bill would have been scuttled. Most likely, the holdup was the secret work of one or two individuals waiting for an earmark to come through. That's just the legislative process, no matter how distasteful. Follow the money not the security question, and our defensive issues become apparent.
And as much as I like Tucker for his past work, some of his new work (the defense of Sen. Vitter by claiming every third woman in New Orleans is 'for sale') is bringing him into suspect. Bringing on an individual known for their inarticulation on the civil rights vs security issue should not count as an interview. Reminds me of the Michael Moore vs Charlton Heston 'interview' which IMHO destroyed all the Fat Man's credibility.
Of far more interest to long term security is this news, IMHO.
And as I said before, I doubt this bill will actually prevent any lawsuits and I equally doubt that there was much danger of such lawsuits in the first place. Now, we just have to hope authorities will be on the ball when hearing such reports and investigate them thoroughly...which isn't terribly different from the position we were in before. Congress can pass all the bills it wants to, if enforcement isn't competent, we are in danger.
As far as semantics are concerned, we do have a Democratic Majority Congress, and - not to put to fine a point on it - though they have accomplished some things, if this bill is considered one of their major "accomplishments" that's not saying a whole lot for them.
Then there is the fact that if "The Democrats (tm)" wanted this bill scuttled, the bill would have been scuttled. Most likely, the holdup was the secret work of one or two individuals waiting for an earmark to come through. That's just the legislative process, no matter how distasteful. Follow the money not the security question, and our defensive issues become apparent.
And as much as I like Tucker for his past work, some of his new work (the defense of Sen. Vitter by claiming every third woman in New Orleans is 'for sale') is bringing him into suspect. Bringing on an individual known for their inarticulation on the civil rights vs security issue should not count as an interview. Reminds me of the Michael Moore vs Charlton Heston 'interview' which IMHO destroyed all the Fat Man's credibility.
Of far more interest to long term security is this news, IMHO.
Patrick - I admit to taking a shot at the MSM and Congress although I do believe this would have been better described as a bi-partisan, or tri-partisan to give Joe L. credit, effort. Unfortunately, you are probably correct regarding to lawsuits also.
I'm not sure how the "good faith" stuff works but it appears one may have to demonstrate in court they acted in good faith. Even if they won the legal costs could be high. Perhaps those who sue and claim lack of good faith but lose should be forced to pay legal costs, lost wages, etc. to the defendants. Groups like C.A.I.R. have a lot of money to throw around to intimidate people.
Post a Comment
I'm not sure how the "good faith" stuff works but it appears one may have to demonstrate in court they acted in good faith. Even if they won the legal costs could be high. Perhaps those who sue and claim lack of good faith but lose should be forced to pay legal costs, lost wages, etc. to the defendants. Groups like C.A.I.R. have a lot of money to throw around to intimidate people.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
