"One Nation, Under Surveillance, Indivisible..."
There is some political wrangling going on over a provision within a homeland security bill - and naturally the fault line runs clearly between Republicans and Democrats (what's new?). The provision is the 'Whistle blower' protection act or 'John Doe' act that immunizes American citizens (doesn't say anything about others that are legally in our nation) from lawsuits if they tip authorities off to 'suspicious behavior.' See the New York Times excerpt below to get the jist of the provision.
Clearly, we should not fear personal lawsuits as an obstacle to reporting suspicious behavior in our communities, on the road, in airports, or anywhere else for that matter. It's only common sense.
But what is troubling to me is the rhetoric surrounding this provision - particularly from the hawks - As I have some how, according to guys like Rep. Peter King (R-NY) been co-opted as an agent of the government to closely watch the behavior of all those I come into contact with. I'm all for reporting suspicious behavior of the "a law is about to be broken" type. I'm completely unconcerned, however, with the guy down the street buying 40 lbs of fertilizer - should I ask him, "what are you up to with that fertilizer, Bill?"
Yes, the world is a dangerous place - and increased surveillance, both government and private, can reduce risks - but I have yet to hear a politican clearly define the boundary between safety and totalitarianism. The safest place to live, clearly, is a police state. Is that the level of safety we're really interested in?? I'm not - I'll take the danger of the world as it is without the government being concerned about my safety such that my neighbor feels compelled to 'keep an eye on me.' The best way to divide a nation, and establish a totalitarian state, is to get the general populace to be suspicious of each other - makes the state's job so much easier when we turn each other in for 'unpatriotic ideas and comments' - you know, suspicious stuff like that.
"Those who watch for suspicious behavior will want to keep a close eye on House Democratic leaders this week. A House-Senate conference committee is expected to produce the final text of the homeland-security bill, and Democrats want to eliminate a provision that would protect citizens from being sued for reporting possible terrorist activity.
In March, the House adopted that provision — an amendment sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) — by a margin of 304 to 121. It shields from civil liability not only citizens who report threats in good faith, but transportation employees and organizations that take reasonable actions to mitigate those threats. It is retroactive, in order to cover events that took place on or after November 20, 2006.
That was the date of the “flying imams” incident, which prompted King’s efforts. Six Muslim clerics were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in Minneapolis after fellow passengers reported their suspicious behavior. The men didn’t sit in their assigned seats, asked for seatbelt extenders that they apparently didn’t need, and were overheard making anti-American statements. All were cleared after questioning by the authorities. But, with the help of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), they filed suit against the airline and the “John Doe” passengers who had called attention to them. Their suit alleges nothing less than a “malicious . . . conspiracy to discriminate.” (New York Times).
Clearly, we should not fear personal lawsuits as an obstacle to reporting suspicious behavior in our communities, on the road, in airports, or anywhere else for that matter. It's only common sense.
But what is troubling to me is the rhetoric surrounding this provision - particularly from the hawks - As I have some how, according to guys like Rep. Peter King (R-NY) been co-opted as an agent of the government to closely watch the behavior of all those I come into contact with. I'm all for reporting suspicious behavior of the "a law is about to be broken" type. I'm completely unconcerned, however, with the guy down the street buying 40 lbs of fertilizer - should I ask him, "what are you up to with that fertilizer, Bill?"
Yes, the world is a dangerous place - and increased surveillance, both government and private, can reduce risks - but I have yet to hear a politican clearly define the boundary between safety and totalitarianism. The safest place to live, clearly, is a police state. Is that the level of safety we're really interested in?? I'm not - I'll take the danger of the world as it is without the government being concerned about my safety such that my neighbor feels compelled to 'keep an eye on me.' The best way to divide a nation, and establish a totalitarian state, is to get the general populace to be suspicious of each other - makes the state's job so much easier when we turn each other in for 'unpatriotic ideas and comments' - you know, suspicious stuff like that.
"Those who watch for suspicious behavior will want to keep a close eye on House Democratic leaders this week. A House-Senate conference committee is expected to produce the final text of the homeland-security bill, and Democrats want to eliminate a provision that would protect citizens from being sued for reporting possible terrorist activity.
In March, the House adopted that provision — an amendment sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) — by a margin of 304 to 121. It shields from civil liability not only citizens who report threats in good faith, but transportation employees and organizations that take reasonable actions to mitigate those threats. It is retroactive, in order to cover events that took place on or after November 20, 2006.
That was the date of the “flying imams” incident, which prompted King’s efforts. Six Muslim clerics were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in Minneapolis after fellow passengers reported their suspicious behavior. The men didn’t sit in their assigned seats, asked for seatbelt extenders that they apparently didn’t need, and were overheard making anti-American statements. All were cleared after questioning by the authorities. But, with the help of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), they filed suit against the airline and the “John Doe” passengers who had called attention to them. Their suit alleges nothing less than a “malicious . . . conspiracy to discriminate.” (New York Times).
posted by Scott Scofield | 10:22 PM
|
0 Post a Comment!
