Full Version: Are you John Doe?
For those of you not familiar with the situation, 6 imams were taken off a plane in Minneapolis back in November after alarming passengers and crew as a result of "suspicious behavior." The 6, with the backing of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are suing the airline and the John Does (i.e. unknown passengers) who reported them.
As a result, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 has been booted back into committee by the Republicans (and a bunch of Democrats) in order to add protective language that will give citizens immunity from such lawsuits. For more indepth details, see this Washington Times article.
First Questions for debate:
1) On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
From the article linked above:
Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and "John Does," passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a "chilling effect" on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.
...
The motion to recommit was based on a bill introduced last week by Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, to protect "John Does" or passengers targeted in a lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams earlier this month in Minneapolis.
Mr. Pearce said the imams are "using courts to terrorize Americans."
While characterizing the lawsuit as "terrorizing Americans" is over to top, it is not a stretch to say that the lawsuit is enabling the terrorizing of Americans. With that perspective in mind, we come to the next element of the topic.
The John Doe Manifesto
Final question for Debate
Are you John Doe?
As a result, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 has been booted back into committee by the Republicans (and a bunch of Democrats) in order to add protective language that will give citizens immunity from such lawsuits. For more indepth details, see this Washington Times article.
First Questions for debate:
1) On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
From the article linked above:
Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and "John Does," passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a "chilling effect" on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.
...
The motion to recommit was based on a bill introduced last week by Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, to protect "John Does" or passengers targeted in a lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams earlier this month in Minneapolis.
Mr. Pearce said the imams are "using courts to terrorize Americans."
While characterizing the lawsuit as "terrorizing Americans" is over to top, it is not a stretch to say that the lawsuit is enabling the terrorizing of Americans. With that perspective in mind, we come to the next element of the topic.
The John Doe Manifesto
Final question for Debate
Are you John Doe?
1) On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
No.
I would argue that a certain level of decorum is expected to be observed by passengers in consideration of fellow passengers, especially in the cramped quarters of a plane. Few passengers, I suspect, would like to be preached at by an evangelist who wouldn't stay in his seat either.
It seems pretty clear that these Muslims were being obnoxious and that their behavior was meant to be disruptive. (As far as criticizing the President though, I do that. I probably wouldn't do it loudly while on a plane, though.) These men know the current climate of the country, and they were inciting mischief.
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
In this case I do.
I think that it is similar to people who call in suspected crimes or criminals to Silent Observer. They must have an expectation of privacy for their protection. Of course there is always someone who calls in a false report (and that kind of person should be punished), but the majority of the calls are helpful to law enforcement.
3) Are you John Doe?
Nope. I haven't been on a plane since 1997. It's expensive, there are a lot of hassles, and I prefer to drive.
No.
I would argue that a certain level of decorum is expected to be observed by passengers in consideration of fellow passengers, especially in the cramped quarters of a plane. Few passengers, I suspect, would like to be preached at by an evangelist who wouldn't stay in his seat either.
It seems pretty clear that these Muslims were being obnoxious and that their behavior was meant to be disruptive. (As far as criticizing the President though, I do that. I probably wouldn't do it loudly while on a plane, though.) These men know the current climate of the country, and they were inciting mischief.
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
In this case I do.
I think that it is similar to people who call in suspected crimes or criminals to Silent Observer. They must have an expectation of privacy for their protection. Of course there is always someone who calls in a false report (and that kind of person should be punished), but the majority of the calls are helpful to law enforcement.
3) Are you John Doe?
Nope. I haven't been on a plane since 1997. It's expensive, there are a lot of hassles, and I prefer to drive.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Mar 29 2007, 02:12 AM) 
1) On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
No this was a stunt from the outset.
QUOTE
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
Absolutely. Penalizing people for reporting something out of the ordinary isn't desirable.
QUOTE
Are you John Doe?
I have been. While it wasn't a terrorist activity on a flight to Florida a man was being less than reasonable about his seating assignment. He was threatening to hold up the entire flight and other things. I let the crew know they were going to have an issue with this "colon". They spoke with him and calmed him down by dragging him off the plane in to the waiting arms of NYPD.
First Questions for debate:
1) On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
No. They deliberately did all they could to provoke suspicion and got pulled from the plane.
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
Yes.
1) On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
No. They deliberately did all they could to provoke suspicion and got pulled from the plane.
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
Yes.
1) On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
"on the face of it", any pleading which avers facts and law upon which relief may be granted is "justified".
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
as a native new yorker whose circle of acquaintences is made up mainly of people with artistic and/or intellectual pretensions, i have never met anyone remotely as adamently anti-Communist as i am. that notwithstanding, i am painfully aware (since the local zeitgeist never stops reminding me) that no American ever did more than Senator Joe McCarthy to set back the cause of anti-Communism in America.
as someone who has strongly supported the American military initiatives in Afghanistan and Iraq, i hope that "Joe Citizen" and his supporters do not screw things up the way their ideological forebears screwed up anti-Communism in America.
for a "slice of life" perspective on a society in which "Joe Citizens" were not only shielded from the wrongful harm they did to the people they secretly accused, but were actually rewarded for doing so, i highly recommend "The Lives of Others" -- http://imdb.com/title/tt0405094/
"on the face of it", any pleading which avers facts and law upon which relief may be granted is "justified".
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
as a native new yorker whose circle of acquaintences is made up mainly of people with artistic and/or intellectual pretensions, i have never met anyone remotely as adamently anti-Communist as i am. that notwithstanding, i am painfully aware (since the local zeitgeist never stops reminding me) that no American ever did more than Senator Joe McCarthy to set back the cause of anti-Communism in America.
as someone who has strongly supported the American military initiatives in Afghanistan and Iraq, i hope that "Joe Citizen" and his supporters do not screw things up the way their ideological forebears screwed up anti-Communism in America.
for a "slice of life" perspective on a society in which "Joe Citizens" were not only shielded from the wrongful harm they did to the people they secretly accused, but were actually rewarded for doing so, i highly recommend "The Lives of Others" -- http://imdb.com/title/tt0405094/
1) On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
See below.
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
It seems to me that legal consistency would require that, if John Doe could be sued for reporting suspicious behavior (thereby causing undo distress and inconvenience), John Doe's "target" could be sued in kind for acting suspiciously and causing unnecessary emotional turmoil, distress and inconvenience. The standard being, what would a reasonable person do under those circumstances? If a "reasonable" person under such circumstances would report a concern, he/she acted correctly and there is no liability. However, if the person acted reasonably in reporting the behavior, the person who was reported must have acted incorrectly, drawing unnecessary suspicion upon his/herself.
If the above sounds good to you, let the John Doe trials begin. If the above sounds like rubbish, perhaps both John Doe and the target should be offered protections unless they commit (or conspire to commit) an actual crime. Therefore, John Doe commits no crime by reporting suspicion and should not be financially liable. Likewise, the person he/she reported should not be financially liable for any behavior that, though legal, might have caused unnecessary stress to those around him/her.
Are you John Doe?
I'm sure I could be. If I noticed behavior that alarmed me I would likely report it.
See below.
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
It seems to me that legal consistency would require that, if John Doe could be sued for reporting suspicious behavior (thereby causing undo distress and inconvenience), John Doe's "target" could be sued in kind for acting suspiciously and causing unnecessary emotional turmoil, distress and inconvenience. The standard being, what would a reasonable person do under those circumstances? If a "reasonable" person under such circumstances would report a concern, he/she acted correctly and there is no liability. However, if the person acted reasonably in reporting the behavior, the person who was reported must have acted incorrectly, drawing unnecessary suspicion upon his/herself.
If the above sounds good to you, let the John Doe trials begin. If the above sounds like rubbish, perhaps both John Doe and the target should be offered protections unless they commit (or conspire to commit) an actual crime. Therefore, John Doe commits no crime by reporting suspicion and should not be financially liable. Likewise, the person he/she reported should not be financially liable for any behavior that, though legal, might have caused unnecessary stress to those around him/her.
Are you John Doe?
I'm sure I could be. If I noticed behavior that alarmed me I would likely report it.
1) On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
No. In fact, John Doe's are being directly asked to report such activities.
This is at Elevated threat levels. All domestic and international flights are considered to be High threat levels, when the above would apply even more strongly. So, in essence, John Doe in this case should be everybody, by request of our government.
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
I am sad that our system is so messed up that any protection is even necessary. Even were we not under any elevated threat state, shouldn't society ALWAYS encourage its citizens to report suspicious behaviour? If such reporting turns out to be maliciously done, there are laws against that already. Those laws are what lead to this lawsuit. Any judge with half a brain, though, should, on the face of it, throw it out of court and admonish the plaintiffs. Here's a tip: If you don't want to have your suspicious activity on a plane reported....DON'T PERFORM A BUNCH OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES! ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE ARAB! Can anyone tell me how this would be different that a group of people dressed in black with hoods on walking suspiciously around a neighborhood and then suing any homeowner's calling the police to investigate? That would be thrown out as farcical, yet I fail to see the difference.
I have to wonder if this entire incident wasn't staged, now. This could be either to assist future terrorists by making it less likely that anyone will report their activities, or it could be to see how they can use our own system against us without even having to actually conduct any terrorism. I don't know if either of these it the case, but I wouldn't say they're that far-fetched, either.
No. In fact, John Doe's are being directly asked to report such activities.
QUOTE(Department of Homeland Security)
All Americans should continue to be vigilant, take notice of their surroundings, and report suspicious items or activities to local authorities immediately.
This is at Elevated threat levels. All domestic and international flights are considered to be High threat levels, when the above would apply even more strongly. So, in essence, John Doe in this case should be everybody, by request of our government.
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
I am sad that our system is so messed up that any protection is even necessary. Even were we not under any elevated threat state, shouldn't society ALWAYS encourage its citizens to report suspicious behaviour? If such reporting turns out to be maliciously done, there are laws against that already. Those laws are what lead to this lawsuit. Any judge with half a brain, though, should, on the face of it, throw it out of court and admonish the plaintiffs. Here's a tip: If you don't want to have your suspicious activity on a plane reported....DON'T PERFORM A BUNCH OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES! ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE ARAB! Can anyone tell me how this would be different that a group of people dressed in black with hoods on walking suspiciously around a neighborhood and then suing any homeowner's calling the police to investigate? That would be thrown out as farcical, yet I fail to see the difference.
I have to wonder if this entire incident wasn't staged, now. This could be either to assist future terrorists by making it less likely that anyone will report their activities, or it could be to see how they can use our own system against us without even having to actually conduct any terrorism. I don't know if either of these it the case, but I wouldn't say they're that far-fetched, either.
1) On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
I doubt it is justified. It'll probably be thrown out of court. The system is working here.
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
I don't support creating new laws just because someone generates a frivolous lawsuit. We have too many laws already, thank you very much. Everyone needs to realize that this is the price you pay for having things like "rules" and "laws". Some people are going to be lawsuit crazy. Creating more laws will not improve the situation.
I doubt it is justified. It'll probably be thrown out of court. The system is working here.
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
I don't support creating new laws just because someone generates a frivolous lawsuit. We have too many laws already, thank you very much. Everyone needs to realize that this is the price you pay for having things like "rules" and "laws". Some people are going to be lawsuit crazy. Creating more laws will not improve the situation.
Apparently on Hannity’s America this Sunday he will have the people being sued on to discuss what happened on the plane that day.
http://www.foxnews.com/hannitysamerica/index.html
Should be interesting to hear their side of this story.
http://www.foxnews.com/hannitysamerica/index.html
Should be interesting to hear their side of this story.
QUOTE(logophage @ Mar 30 2007, 02:33 PM)
1) On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
I doubt it is justified. It'll probably be thrown out of court. The system is working here.
2) Do you support protecting John Does (aka Joe Citizen) from such lawsuits?
I don't support creating new laws just because someone generates a frivolous lawsuit. We have too many laws already, thank you very much. Everyone needs to realize that this is the price you pay for having things like "rules" and "laws". Some people are going to be lawsuit crazy. Creating more laws will not improve the situation.
I'm on the same page as logophage, we don't need new laws just because a group of religious types took it upon themselves to be obnoxious and possibly threatening, got kicked off a plane and then decided to harass law-abiding citizens (assuming this is so).
On the face of it, looks like a frivolous lawsuit all right, and I do believe we have some fairly new laws regarding this misuse of the system. Maybe there are stiff fines involved.
On the face of it, do you think the imams lawsuit is justified?
It sounds to me that, if anything, these imams want to cash in on a lawsuit. Very American of them, according to tort reformers. I haven't stayed in my assigned seat after boarding planes. Did they make a fuss from the getgo? I regularly criticize Bush and his policies. Why shouldn't I do so on board a plane? Are Christians and Jews the only groups that can pray before boarding? This story has all the makings of a sequel to the oh so sneaky Syrian musicians who stirred a panic a few years ago by, shockingly, keeping to their own aboard the Northwest Airlines plane among other things.
Sorry, I don't see how using the lawsuit can be viewed as terrorizing U.S. citizens. This type of brain dead, irresponsible equivocation is the kind that opens the door to a U.S. dictatorship.
Are you a John Doe?
I'm not a John Doe of the juvenile Michelle Malkin variety. Her "mindless suspicions" are good at generating reactionary alarm aiding in the creation of pig races and offers little in the way of saving lives.
It sounds to me that, if anything, these imams want to cash in on a lawsuit. Very American of them, according to tort reformers. I haven't stayed in my assigned seat after boarding planes. Did they make a fuss from the getgo? I regularly criticize Bush and his policies. Why shouldn't I do so on board a plane? Are Christians and Jews the only groups that can pray before boarding? This story has all the makings of a sequel to the oh so sneaky Syrian musicians who stirred a panic a few years ago by, shockingly, keeping to their own aboard the Northwest Airlines plane among other things.
Sorry, I don't see how using the lawsuit can be viewed as terrorizing U.S. citizens. This type of brain dead, irresponsible equivocation is the kind that opens the door to a U.S. dictatorship.
Are you a John Doe?
I'm not a John Doe of the juvenile Michelle Malkin variety. Her "mindless suspicions" are good at generating reactionary alarm aiding in the creation of pig races and offers little in the way of saving lives.
I'm John Galt
I'm much happier now that I have resolved to simply effect the events around me based on my own moral compass.
Liberty, freedom, personal responsibility.
Semper Fi
I'm much happier now that I have resolved to simply effect the events around me based on my own moral compass.
Liberty, freedom, personal responsibility.
Semper Fi
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.