Friday, July 20, 2007

The Sky is Falling

h/t via Illusory Tenant

Regarding the outcry from conservatives about the defeat of the John Doe amendment which would have provided immunity for anyone who alerted authorities about supposed terrorists, and the accusations were found to be false ... this comment by Steve:

Clearly, the way to fight terrorism is to encourage as many people as possible to cry wolf. Surely there’s no way that could be bad for us in the long run.

Hee hee!

7 Swings of the bat:

illusory tenant said...

There's a blurb about this on McIlheran's JS blog, claiming "Sykes is all over this," with a link to nothing but more links to some Michelle Malkin toadies, who seem to have been milking this "flying imams" business every bit as much as their declared enemies at CAIR.

Sykes himself doesn't say squat. Nor does McIlheran, for that matter.

What I'd like to know is, where does Congress get the power to protect selected individuals with what amounts to sovereign immunity.

Maybe one of the Malkin brain trust can answer that.

Dad29 said...

IT is good with repartee, but far too surreal to have lived an actual life. Law school training can do that to you.

Esenberg has a good analysis; until I read it, I wasn't certain that the language was sufficiently protective, either.

But when it must be a "good-faith, objectively-reasonable" suspicion to be protected under the law, we're not talking about someone who doesn't like your language, dress, or the fact that his dog pissed on your lawn last night.

It's not "sovereign immunity." It's national security--which means our wives and children.

When IT grows up, maybe he'll have such concerns.

IN the meantime, IT (or you) should provide us with the list of the Millions? Thousands? Hundreds? Tens? of 'false' reports.

Perspective, you know.

Dad29 said...

The Esenberg post:

illusory tenant said...

Well, there's one of the Malkin brain trust that can't answer the question.

Other Side said...

The defeat of John Doe makes that list unneccesary, daddio. But it would have happened.

Let's use the example of some of our local wingnut bloggers who thought it neccessary to publish personal info about the fellow who refused to send items to our troops in Iraq. He happened to be Muslim ... so he was fair game.

You don't think they would be crying wolf every chance they got?

capper said...

With the reckless rhetoric and hyperbole spouted by the right, especially people like PaddyMac, Charlie, and McBride, I cannot imagine why they couldn't figure out why this would be a dangerous law to pass...Oh, wait, I just reread my sentence and I figured it out.

Anonymous said...

IT pondered: "What I'd like to know is, where does Congress get the power to protect selected individuals..."

RM answers:
"The same power they used to create Hate Crimes or Affirmative Action legislation."

I think "sovereign immunity" is a fair example of hyperbole. A better label would be "qualified immunity."