Captain's Quarters -

"If the Democrats can't even get this bipartisan bill accomplished, then what are they doing on Capitol Hill" The same as the Republicans for the last 6 years. Difficult to distinguish who is worse…

Inform on your rivals! Denounce your neighbors! With complete impunity as long as you remember to say 'Hocus-pocus terror-focus!' There hasn't been such a great opportunity since 1930's Leningrad!

Cap'n Ed wrote:

The Democrats are in charge now. They have to start producing something other than committee hearings and pointless investigations. Real people need real protection against the intimidation tactics that will make this country less safe.

Um, no. Their base is interested in exactly one thing: getting George Bush. Everything else takes a back seat that that.

Witness the really stupid remark by James I. Hymas (May 14, 2007 10:04 AM) in which he compares the Circuit City clerk informing the FBI about a terrorist cell to Stalin's police state. One wonders if he'd be quite so hysterical (both meaning of the word) about "informers" if, oh, the clerk had reported on a group of Christians who planned to bring Bibles into a public school.

Democrat intransigence on this issue SHOULD demonstrate clearly to the general public what we conservatives have always known: democrats are not trustworthy on matters of national security. Their record is clear: they want full civil protections for captured terrorists but want to leave American citizens open to lawsuits if they DARE to go to the police when they spot some loonie Muslim planning to murder people. In doing so, they are setting us up for more terrorist attacks.

When I insult people, "docjim505", I sign my name and take the consequences. I guess that's the difference between us.

Mr. Hymas:

I see nothing insulting in Doc's remarks. You did compare the Circuit City clerk to an informer in Stalin's USSR and Doc rightly called you stupid for doing so.

The left cannot accept criticism without labeling it hate speech or an attempt silence debate. Perhaps it is merely projection.

Hey, neat! I've been insulted by some little puke too cowardly to sign his name!

Thanks for the foretaste of your Brave New World, "docjim505".

There's no question 9/11 changed us!

Before 9/11? People wouldn't have known about the behaviors that led to the takeovers of 4 planes.

Yet, while in flight, at least the last one landed in a field in PA. And, not on Congress. Or the White House.

The other thing to notice? Following 9/11, America's "blue collars" came together, in NYC, and took over the cleanup. From the innept ways the politicians would have milked it, otherwise.

The changes are there when people are in front of the agenda.

While congress critters? I'd bet both sides are pretty nervous, now.

And, both sides have "affilliations" with muslems.

The donks? There are 7-million muslem voters. Many of them black muslems. Converts to Islam.

It's not a small problem! It's huge.

Because?

Money drives the machinery.

And, the Saud's (yes, I know. Here I go, again.) Have spent BILLIONS influencing our elections; and working themselves deep into the media complex.

In spite of this, you've got more freedoms today. BECAUSE OF THE INTERNET. Because of the way so many people deal with their lack of trust in pundits. And, other assorted officials. Coming together to share what they know.

Michelle Malkin's visibility SOARED when she published the report of a woman, I think her name was Jacobson; flying with her child, and husband. Getting freaked out by what muslems, travelling as muscians, were doing in the plane's toilets.

So, again. Congress knows what makes all police work GREAT. When the public CALLS. When the public gives the clues that are needed. So that the perps don't have all the advantages.

Gotta tell ya, I'm clueless on how all things play out. But we're all in the dark.

Still? Last night on Drudge, he played a clip of pelosi. Drawing out of Iraq as NOT a loss to our troops at all. But laying the blame at the feet of the Commander In Chief.

In 1940, the Isolationists in Congress (mainly GOP kiesters who were guaranteed to vote against FDR, found that FDR used this when he ran for his 3rd term. The GOP put up Wendell Wilkie. And, FDR went into Madison Square Garden. And, gave a speech. Remember this: 60-million Americans were in the habit of tuning FDR in when it was advertised he was gonna speak.

FDR reached the lecturn. And, his speech included the names of 3 GOP'ster, who were isolationists, anti-farm workers. Anti=FDR. And, FDR turned their names into a mantra: MARTIN, BARTON, AND FISH.

Later, when Wilkie lost, (and FDR appointed him to "tour" ... because FDR said "he liked the man. He just didn't like the company he keeps.)

Wilkie told FDR that the MARTIN, BARTON, AND FISH "tag" destroyed his chances to win the election.

And, FDR, when he first dreamed up the phrase, said: He was going to take the tail of the donkey and pin it on the behind of the elephant.

What Americans haven't seen for awhile, now, is a man who truly enjoys the nature of a good fight. The press NEVER got the best of FDR. But in his 1000 press conferences? He was always able to zing them. So many idiotic questions. So many tempting targets. The people ate it up. And, realized they had "nothing to fear but fear, itself." Whatever that means.

Bush hasn't got the gift of the tongue. And, now? The storm clouds are building. He invited them in. He played with the HOUSE OF SAUD. Okay. You can yawn. But for lots of people, now, their eyes are open.

And, what's ahead? Well, let me re-phrase the question: Will the GOP become a minority party? Worse, will it follow the path of the WHIGS. Where no man like any other. And, in the end the party flew apart?

Politics is a very nasty game. But without it? We'd have despots.

Sort'a like the way men love heavyweight prize fighting. Where, at the top, the ring gets the respect from the multitudes. Who come to watch the vicarious thrill of seeing one man punch the daylights out of his opponent.

Why should politics be different?

Senators Collins and Lieberman introduced their version of how to protect people who report threats on Friday, indicating not only that they take this issue seriously, but that they intend to focus on it in the upcoming negotiations with the House on the 9-11 bill, where Peter King and House Republicans together were successful in seeing it included before the bill left the House floor.

Odd posting problem.

When I hit the "post" button; I get an "error message."

But when I close out of Netscape, and come back in, my message is posted.

The other thing? The "comments" shows ZERO coomments. While the comments are here, to see.

Well, I don't understand how computers work. So don't mind me. This is just an OBSERVATION.

I see Mr. Hymas has been reading the Captain today and has now taken to quoting the former WaPo reporter. I guess the Captain should be credited with establishing a new leftwing talking point.

"They have to start producing something other than committee hearings and pointless investigations"....

Ed, I hope you of all people realize how grossly incompetent Gonzales is and how blatanly partisan the firings and hirings were. Either he's incredibly incompetent for not knowing what was going on in his own department or he's incredibly incompetent for allowing everything to happen. Either way he should have been fired months ago.

As for passing bills, give your heads a shake. It doesn't matter who's in charge. Big government moves slowly and stupidly. You cannot possibly suggest that one party is more competent or speedy at it than the other.

And even more ridiculous is the tired shriek that Democrats are weak on national security.

America has no need for whistleblower protection - in your paranoid and revenge-hungry country, I have a really hard time believing anybody would think twice about reporting suspicious activity for fear of a lawsuit coming back the other way.

However, the unfortunate but fair response to trumped up charges is a lawsuit. Holding people responsible for damages in a court of law is the American way. And now suddenly, certain citizens cannot exercise that right when their lives are shattered? America now wants to pick and choose who has the right to sue? What a ridiculous unconstitutional double standard.

But hey - the American game continues to be: simply denounce everything about the other party. Sadly, that will never change, but only get worse. You all need to grab some objectivity and look at things without your party blinders on.

There seems to be more than a little confusion as to what I wrote. Careful reading of my initial post will reveal that there is not a single reference to the Travelling Imams or to the Circuit City clerk.

Both incidents have happened, they're over, the consequences are before the courts. Future changes in the law will have no effect on the disposition of the cases unless the law is made retroactive and the retroactivity of the new law stands up as valid. That would be pretty complex. It would be a lot easier to declare the tipsters Heroes of the American Union and give them a pension.

The concern is the panicky cries for special immunity - anonymous immunity - in certain circumstances of informing. Read your history, guys. If Leningrad in 1935 is too much of a stretch for you, try Rome in, say, AD 50. Any society that encourages anonymous denouncements is an unpleasant place to live.

Anonymous informing, and its cousin, poison-pen letter-writing, is a disgusting activity, to be stamped out, not encouraged.

If you feel that the civil suit against the whisperers in the Travelling Imam case is so absurd that it should never happen, then you've got a problem with torts, not terrorists. If your problem is with tort law, fix the whole thing, don't make the law more complex by introducing exceptions.

As a followup to the article on Townhall.com by Cliff May who discussed boycotting investing in companies who do business with Iran, Syria, North Korea, et al; if this list were published and circulated in the blogosphere, we, as Americans could do our part individually in the war against our civilization

James I. Hymas,

I may have been a little hasty when I called your comparison of protection for whistleblowers with Stalin's regime "stupid". Or, more to the point, it may be that you are not stupid. It could be:

(A) You wrote in haste and, upon further reflection, realize that you went too far in your comparison;

(B) You're brain damaged and can't discern the difference between citizens in a free society cooperating with the police in the interests of public safety and the State forcing people to inform on each other to squash political dissent, or;

(C) You really ARE an idiot.

If you persist in making the comparison between protecting whistleblowers and Stalin's regime, I must ask what you make of ANY anonymous informer in ANY crime. Should we get rid of Crime Stoppers, for example, or the Witness Protection Program?

As for fears that people might use this program to cause trouble for innocent people, I believe that there are already significant penalties for making false reports to the police. What we're interested in doing with this legislation is stopping terrorist sympathizers like CAIR suing people who report suspicious activity. It's all part of that "connecting the dots" that DIDN'T happen prior to 9-11.

Or are you one of the lunatics who believes that 9-11 was an inside job?

Dolt.

/s/ James B. Raper

Hymas, what do you know about the "whistleblower laws" that are already on the books? Why do any of those laws exist? I promise a "careful reading".

Why should that kid deserve any extra protection? It's not like those jihadi wannabes were going to kill anyone important. Just a bunch of Soldiers who should have studied harder in school so they didn't get stuk in the Army to begin with.  Ain't that right, James?

I added and excerpt and link to my 2007.05.14 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup.

Bill Faith,
Proud Veteran-American

Doc J, why did you do it?

I live in a dangerous area where the police are even afraid to go…I have a handgun in order to protect my family. Why would I trust anyone who doesn’t know me from Adam, but would still use every means at his disposal to take my handgun away from me…leaving me at the mercy of the lunatics and the police?

None of the Capt’s trolls are to be trusted.

Hymas, what do you know about the "whistleblower laws" that are already on the books?

There's lots of 'em. Amont the most popular ones in Toronto are the ones whereby you can call the police to ticket cars parked overnight in residential neighborhoods if you don't like that particular neighbor. Is that the one you mean?

Why do any of those laws exist?

Because many people want to evade responsibility for their own actions and get Mummy-Government to make everything better.

Hope that helps.

swabjockey05,

Yeah, you're right: it probably wasn't a smart thing to do. Libs aren't to be trusted, but I guess that the worst they can do is organize a boycott of my house or something.

Oh, well. What's done is done.

Hym...LOL.

So the Canooks let you tell the police to ticket the neighbor because you don't like him?

Or is it because he was illegally parked?

Don't get me wrong, I dislike the cops and the police state as much as anyone...but I've been almost killed more than once due to illegally parked cars blocking the visibility. I've also had idiots double park me so I couldn't get out of the driveway. Are you suggesting that we do away with parking laws...or just how they are enforced?

Why should that kid deserve any extra protection? It's not like those jihadi wannabes were going to kill anyone important. Just a bunch of Soldiers who should have studied harder in school so they didn't get stuk in the Army to begin with. Ain't that right, James?

No, that ain't right at all; your insulting opinion of American soldiers - who very often put it ALL on the line, not just the inconvenience of being sued that you think is so terrible - is not one that I share.

Well, "mistakes were made."

I still think you can't get large scale terror without the funding. And, most of the things that are protecting us these days, are coming from people who work very quietly. Trying to decipher the way the money flows in. And, the money flows out.

Since Iraq, could turn out to be a disaster; where predicitons say we're going to be exiting in "6 months, .... A number DEBKA says, too, is true.

There's now some "gambling going on."

The Saud's can't quite do their "fly out of America" the way they did following 9/11.

And, who knows? Does the Baker deal to give the Saud's $8-billion in our latest technology "pass the light of day?"

While over in Israel, you can almost smell the pressure; where "someone" is being pushed TO LIGHT UP THE SKY WITH WAR. (Olmert didn't bite last summer, when Lebanon whetted Baker's appitite.)

And, you KNOW from the Iraqi Study Group, that "surrender" was done on a "bipartisan basis." With the people who wrote the report under their tutelage; Baker and Gates ... UP FRONT AND CENTER.

So, yeah. You can let your eyes decieve you.

But IF Bush brings anything down, ahead, it might not be Israel, ya know? The soap opera fromthere? What if it doesn't cover what's happening here?

Why did Tony Blair RUN from office? What's he know? What can come out, ahead?

While, yes. There seems to be some sort of UNIFIL game at play in Southern Lebanon, where there were almost TWO Israelis jets shot out of the sky. We're told (well, if you read DEBKA, you're told), these two events were seconds away from the anti-aircraft trigger being pulled.

But Sarkozy's won in france. Maybe, in a few days we will see if Chirac provides a "parting shot?" Or not? He's not a friend of Bush, either. So, I ain't gonna guess.

The other shooter? A german ship. Now, that would make a big splash of a headline, wouldn't it? One Israeli plane downed. What happens, then, to the german ship?

Whose ass gets covered.

And, whose ass gets exposed.

Don't ask me. Events are in play, however.

And, we'll get to see what money can buy. And, what, not.

Ya know, I expect no "whistleblowers." But up ahead? I expect books to fly, because there's gonna be a lot of singing canaries.

...and is that the same Mummy-government people like you want to use to deprive me of the only means I have to defend my family...?

Many years ago, I spent 5 days in Toronto. When I was there, I found Toronto to be like Disneyland compared to where I live. I doubt it's changed too much, slick. Using the Mummy state to ticket the illegally parked car is bad...but using the Mummy state to take away my property without due process is OK.

I was watching a documentary over the weekend about the Inquisition and the use of anonymous witnesses and accusers as part of that inglorious history.

I was not aware that there was any sort of reticence on the part of the public to inform the authorities over security concerns or that well meaning citizens had to endure threats and legal intimidation as a result of responsibly reporting suspicious persons or behavior. I am curious if anyone has any links to stories or events which would show that this is a big enough problem to warrant special legislation.

but I've been almost killed more than once due to illegally parked cars blocking the visibility. I've also had idiots double park me so I couldn't get out of the driveway. Are you suggesting that we do away with parking laws...or just how they are enforced?

Many, if not most, streets in Toronto have a 3-hour parking limit - which means that if you park overnight in front of your house, you're violating the regs and deserve a $100 ticket.

Anybody can call up and complain, at which point a parking officer will come out, chalk the tires, then come back three hours later and write up tickets.

Now, it may well be that in your neighborhood, the only complaints under such a system would be (or are) from people who suddenly woke up at 1am and were terribly concerned about lack of visibility. Certainly, the police will say that's the concern and the complainers, if it was possible to question them, would almost certainly earnestly insist that was the concern - but every single case I've ever heard of in Toronto, however, has been pure spite.

It's like that with most of these so-called Whistleblower Laws. They pander to our worst natures and - to a greater or lesser extent - create a society of backbiters and snitches.

I don't like systems in which the might & majesty of government and its tools is used to gratify spite. You show me any form of authority unbalanced by responsibility - such the ability to inform anonymously - and I'll show you some abuse. Let the civic minded take credit for their brave actions and I'll applaud them I see fit.

You know what I noticed?

The kid didn't want to be on TV!

He'd have had instant "hero" status in this country. You'd have thought it could be just what most people want.

The kid doesn't trust our system, anymore. He wouldn't be protected.

That's not a concern for a "whistleblower law." That shows you the reach of "THIS MAFIA!" How crazy they are! And, how they go after innocent people.

Well, the kid did the right thing. And, the FBI did its job.

If you know anything about police work, you'll know it doesn't work without cooperation.

As to the fears people have? Let me tell you a story. Back in the early 1950's (I think), WILLIE SUTTON got of of Sing-Sing. And, was on the loose.

A kid spotted him. 21 year old guy. And, he made it onto TV. Though I can't remember his name. He was shot down in his own neighborhood. By the mafia that wanted to teach folks a lesson.

How did the kid, then, recognize Willie Sutton. He was in the post-office. The post office used to hang the FBI's "10 MOST WANTED" pictures on the wal. He saw Sutton. And, recognized him as "being in the neighborhood." BROOKLYN.

The victim was buried in a funeral parlor that was on Coney Island Avenue, near Avenue I. Right across the street from the elementary school I went to.

So, yes. You help get someone arrested, and, you, too, then have to deal with the fallout. FROM THE BAD GUYS.

Wasn't worth the ticket to be on TV. Or even to get picked up in a limosine; so you could travel from show to show. And, "halp" the daytime programs get exposure.

Avoidance of having your name fall out in public view; as being a DO-GOODER. Kid, here, is smart. Ya gotta hope we're not like Iraq. Where the corruption of the police is so great; they have revolving doors on jail cells. And, this kid's name could be sold to the bad guys. It it was known.

You know what I'm saying?

Why should that kid deserve any extra protection? It's not like those jihadi wannabes were going to kill anyone important. Just a bunch of Soldiers who should have studied harder in school so they didn't get stuk in the Army to begin with. Ain't that right, James?

No, that ain't right at all; your insulting opinion of American soldiers - who very often put it ALL on the line, not just the inconvenience of being sued that you think is so terrible - is not one that I share.

Not my opinion of our troops, Jean Kerri's, which I assumed you agreed with since you don't seem to grok the fact we're at war. Maybe you aren't completely hopeless after all.

It's like that with most of these so-called Whistleblower Laws. They pander to our worst natures and - to a greater or lesser extent - create a society of backbiters and snitches.

Gee, you mean like a society where a Canuck who doesn't even live in America feels free to condemn what is absolutely an in-house issue, just to prove the assumed and innate superiority of all moonbats everywhere? Are nose-sticker-inners as bad as backbiters and snitches, or are they assumed to be one and the same clueless but potentially lethal varmint?

I think the Flying Imams planned their actions to precipitate the incident that led to their suit. Obviously, I am speculating, but I don't think they did this for some time in the limelight. I think they did this to facilitate terrorist attacks.

Protecting people who report suspicious activity isn't just a good idea - it's an absolute requirement for a nation at war with terrorists.

While I agree that the Democrats have really dropped the ball, they are not the only ones making decisions here. War is not the answer for terrorism; it is one of the reasons that terror exists. If conservatives really want to fight terror then they should look into different alleys where funding would actually make a great impact. This war has cost over $340 billion to date. According to the Borgen Project, it costs just $19 billion annually to end starvation and malnutrition or just $23 billion annually to reverse the spread of Malaria and AIDS. Wouldn’t aiding in the development of countries and supporting the Millennium Development Goals to end poverty be a better plan for attacking extremism? Afterall, what lies at the root of extremism?!

"Afterall, what lies at the root of extremism?!"

the Quran??

j/k

"Afterall, what lies at the root of extremism?!"

the Quran??

j/k

Gee, you mean like a society where a Canuck who doesn't even live in America feels free to condemn what is absolutely an in-house issue, just to prove the assumed and innate superiority of all moonbats everywhere? Are nose-sticker-inners as bad as backbiters and snitches, or are they assumed to be one and the same clueless but potentially lethal varmint?

Geez, I find it very difficult to formulate a response to this one! I'll defer to the Captain's judgement regarding the propriety of commenting - sometimes negatively - on another nation's politics. Cap'n?

I see Mr. Hymas has been reading the Captain today and has now taken to quoting the former WaPo reporter.

Actually, I scooped that guy by about six years - internet anonymity has always bugged me. You don't read too much about the controversy on the Net, though, because most people who feel this way just don't participate.

I can live with pseudonyms on the Net and allow them on my own (non-political) blog - as long as the discussion is halfway civilized. Once you start using pejoritives in posts, though, and promoting strong opinion, you gotta use your own name - otherwise you're just a little kid scrawling on the bathroom wall.

lexhamfox ,

Perhaps you missed the fact that the Flying Imams named the folks who reported their suspicious behavior as John Does in their lawsuit against the airlines. What does the Spanish Inquisition have to do with the issue at hand. One might be tempted to claim that you were trying to tar us with the brush of be "Little Torquemadas"...

RE: Gee, you mean like a society where a Canuck who doesn't even live in America feels free to condemn what is absolutely an in-house issue, just to prove the assumed and innate superiority of all moonbats everywhere? Are nose-sticker-inners as bad as backbiters and snitches, or are they assumed to be one and the same clueless but potentially lethal varmint?

Posted by: NahnCee at May 14, 2007 5:48 PM
------------------------------------------------

JUNIOR BLOG PATROL OFFICER NahnCee SPEAKS!

CANADIANS OUT!

AMERIKANZ ONLY ON CQ!

ED FORCED TO TAKE DOWN ALL STORIES ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL "CLEARLY IN-HOUSE ISSUES"!

BLOGOSPHERE EAGERLY AWAITS NahnCee's NEXT EDICT!

I saw Fox News covering this story this morning, including getting one GOP and one Dim Congressman to get their viewpoints - they both agreed the protection from lawsuits bill is good.

Nothing will make some Liberals more angry, now, than to see Fox News spotlighting Congress' reluctance to move forward on this.

Cucking Stool asserts that the actual legislation is just meaningless grandstanding, and I'm not sure I don't agree with him. If anyone can post a link to a neutral evaluation of the actual legislation, I'd appreciate it.

Certainly, according to the Overlawyered quotation of a response from the Imam's lawyer, the Imams are concerned about conduct that would not be protected by the legislation.

I have mixed feelings. The Fort Dix case is pretty clear cut and the clerk was as right to report their tape as he would have been had the tape appeared to show a possible rape or other crime.

However,

1. Encouraging citizens to help will be a mixed blessing. It will produce helpful tips but it will also result in even more bogus, even baseless & stupid, leads that can result in needlessly wasted time and resources.

2. There should certainly NOT be "blanket immunity". Tips that are both reasonable and made in good faith, even if mistaken, should be protected. Tips that are unreasonable or made in bad faith, such as for purposes of harassment, should definitely NOT. Someone who has been vindictively harassed should be able to seek remedy.

3. A good metaphor might be found in the laws governing proper use of 911. Obviously mistakes are made and severe indigestion has been confused with a possible heart attack and resulted in unnecessary, but NOT criminal, "misuse" of 911. Still, there is a point where a "mistake" becomes so unreasonable, so avoidable, that it falls into the realm of the criminal.