Monthly Archives: May 2007

Police unions backing ‘John Doe’ protections

The “tough on terror” Democrats are still stalling legislation that would protect those who say something when they see what looks like terrorist activity. Law enforcement unions are trying to break the logjam:

Police unions are offering lobbying muscle to push for language in a bill that would protect rail and airline passengers who report suspicious activities from being sued. The support is concurrent with similar legislation introduced in the New York state Assembly last week to ban such lawsuits in state courts.

Police unions say their officers cannot be everywhere to see everything and stop every crime. They offered their support in letters to Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican and author of language added to a rail- and transportation-safety bill to protect airline passengers from lawsuits.

A pending lawsuit filed by a group of Muslim imams targets passengers named as “John Does” who reported that the men acted suspiciously, which resulted in their removal from a U.S. Airways flight.

“Now that our nation is engaged in a global war on terror, it is even more important for citizens to feel that they can report suspicious activity to law enforcement and have that information be used appropriately and in good faith by law enforcement or security personnel,” said Chuck Canterbury, national president of the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.

“Such lawsuits are clearly being used to intimidate witnesses, and it is altogether appropriate that Congress protect them from these frivolous suits,” Mr. Canterbury said. “Doing the right thing should not get you hauled into court.”

The federal bill, stalled in a conference committee, provides immunity from civil liability for airline passengers who report suspicious behavior in good faith.

The pro-amnesty, pro-sanctuary Senate Republicans

Fellow Republicans booed several Senators last week back in their home states when they spoke about the immigration legislation moving through Congress. They will continue the debate back in Washington this week and the Washington Times points out those Republicans are a little hard of hearing:

Judging by what took place in the first hours of the Senate immigration debate last week, critics are deluding themselves if they expect lawmakers to improve the bill when debate resumes after the Memorial Day recess.

Sen. Norm Coleman a moderate Minnesota Republican who cannot possibly be termed “anti-immigrant” or a “bomb thrower” introduced an amendment aimed at closing the notorious “sanctuary city” loophole that cities and states are using to avoid compliance with federal immigration law With all the talk we’ve heard for close to six years from politicians on the right and left about the importance of being able to “connect the dots” in order to thwart terrorist attacks, Mr. Coleman’s amendment should have passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Instead… Mr. Menendez and Sen. Edward Kennedy defeated Mr. Coleman’s amendment by a 49-48 vote, with eight Republicans Sens. Pete Domenici (New Mexico), Chuck Hagel (Nebraska), Dick Lugar (Indiana), Mel Martinez (Florida), Olympia Snowe (Maine); Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania), George Voinovich (Ohio) and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) joining 41 Democrats in opposition [emphasis added mine].

Sens. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, and Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, offered an amendment striking amnesty from the bill. Messrs. DeMint and Vitter sensibly warned that the Senate bill repeats the mistake of the 1986 amnesty. But their amendment was defeated 66-29: Forty-three Democrats voted for legalization, compared to nine voting against it. Disappointingly, twenty-five Republicans, among them prominent lawmakers like Sens. Jon Kyl, John Cornyn and Mitch McConnell, were on the pro-legalization side compared to 20 Republicans who voted no.

Contact your representatives and boo louder.