U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–109 PDF 2011

SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING ACT OF 2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 963 

JUNE 24, 2011 

Serial No. 112–55 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 24, 2011 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 963, the ‘‘See Something, Say Something Act of 2011’’ ............................... 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....................... 1 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....... 7 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 8 

WITNESSES 

Lawrence J. Haas, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, American Foreign 

Policy Council 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

Chris Burbank, Chief of Police, Salt Lake City Police Department 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26 

M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., President and Founder, American Islamic Forum 

for Democracy (AIFD) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York ................................................................ 11 

(1) 

SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING ACT 

OF 2011 

FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks, 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Franks, Smith, Chabot, King, Nadler, 

Quigley, and Scott. 

Staff present: (Majority) Holt Lackey, Counsel; Sarah Vance, 

Clerk; Grant Anderson, Legal Research Assistant; (Minority) David 

Lachmann, Staff Director; Keenan Keller, Counsel; and Veronica 

Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. FRANKS Well, that buzzer means this meeting needs to come 

to order quickly. 

Good morning and welcome to this Constitution Subcommittee 

hearing on H.R. 963, the ‘‘See Something, Say Something Act of 

2011.’’ 

Information is the most important tool we have for preventing 

terrorist attacks, and an alert citizenry is the most important 

source of information about potential terrorist attacks. The more 

that our law enforcement and anti-terror professionals know, the 

better they can understand our enemy’s plans and stop attacks before they occur. 

Some of the most useful information available to these professionals comes from the ordinary Americans who see something out 

of the ordinary and alert the authorities. When citizens see suspicious activity that could be related to a terrorist attack, they 

should share that information without hesitation. This is why the 

Department of Homeland Security has made it a centerpiece of its 

anti-terror efforts to tell citizens if you see something, say something. 

The question presented by this hearing is whether fear of frivolous litigation should discourage citizens from coming forward with 

information about suspicious behavior they observe. The answer in 

my judgment is a resounding no. When an American reasonably 

suspects that an act of terrorism may be in the works, his or her 

focus should only be on preventing that attack—not on avoiding 

civil liability. We must not allow our civil litigation system to get 

in the way of our anti-terrorism strategy. 

2 

Last week, the Attorney General argued that our civilian court 

system is, quote, our most effective terror-fighting weapon. Well, I 

would strongly disagree. Our most effective terror-fighting weapons 

are the eyes and ears of 300 million Americans who share a common goal of keeping our country safe. 

The list of terror attacks that have been prevented or mitigated 

by brave citizens stepping forward and sharing their suspicions is 

long. The Unabomber’s reign of terror was ended when his brother 

came forward with his suspicions. A private security guard helped 

minimize the death from the 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta. Street vendors who noticed suspicious smoke coming from a 

parked van prevented last year’s attempted bombing of Times 

Square. Possible attacks on Fort Dix and downtown Dallas have 

been stopped in the planning phase because of tips from concerned 

citizens. 

By contrast, I am not aware of any attack that has been prevented by a court order or a lawsuit. What we must never allow 

is for our court system to intimidate or interfere with our citizens’ 

willingness to share information and prevent attacks. Unfortunately, some citizens who have come forward with their good faith 

suspicions of terrorist activity have been sued for coming forward 

and sharing their information. Passengers on a 2006 U.S. Airways 

flight who shared their suspicions about the behavior of some of 

their fellow passengers found themselves defendants in a lawsuit 

for their efforts. 

Under our current law, citizens who suspect terrorist activity 

must at least consider the possibility that they will be sued if they 

are wrong. Worries about lawsuits should be the furthest thing 

from a citizen’s mind when a terror plot may be in progress. Our 

citizens should rely on their own reasonable instincts and common 

sense and do the right thing. 

The flow of information and the vigilance of our citizens are fundamental to preventing terrorist attacks. The message to our citizens should be clear: if you see something, say something. The 

message should not be: say something and we will sue someone. 

H.R. 963 will make clear that our anti-terror strategy is based 

on citizens exercising their vigilance and common sense, not the 

fear of costly litigation. 

And I look forward to our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

And I yield now to the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement. 

[The bill, H.R. 963, follows:] 

3 


HR963-1.eps
4 


HR963-2.eps
5 


HR963-3.eps
6 


HR963-4.eps
7 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, today’s hearing is on the See Something, Say 

Something Act which revisits existing immunities granted by Congress and by other statutes to persons making reports to law enforcement and to law enforcement officers acting on those reports. 

In the real world, this kind of community law enforcement cooperation has been one of the keys to success in fighting crime and 

terrorism. I am glad to see that there is a developing enthusiasm 

on this subject, even from my colleagues who have in the past opposed such efforts as the COPS program. This may be the beginning of a beautiful partnership. 

The See Something, Say Something initiative is familiar to every 

New Yorker. Our police force has worked hard over many years to 

develop the trust and cooperation necessary to make their efforts 

more effective. The community-oriented policing program that we 

pioneered is a model for the country. So I strongly support efforts 

to encourage citizen involvement. 

Coming from New York City and working here in Washington, 

I know a little something about being a terrorist target. You can 

walk to Ground Zero and to the Brooklyn Bridge from my office. 

I pass Times Square every day on the way to the office. My district 

has been bombed twice by international terrorists. Jewish communal institutions were targeted by terrorists in New York, and 

thanks to alert citizens and law enforcement, those plots were 

foiled. So New Yorkers are very familiar with the continuing threat 

of terrorism and with the necessity to form close partnerships between law enforcement and the community. 

So what are my concerns today? The testimony we are going to 

hear today—or some of it at any rate—will continue an unfortunate 

pattern of demonizing the world’s more than 1 billion Muslims. The 

rhetoric can be prettied up any number of ways but the result and 

the message remain the same, that law enforcement and the public 

need to target Muslims in order to keep us safe. 

Wouldn’t it be nice if that were all that were necessary? In the 

real world, it is not. In the real world, treating an entire community as inherently suspect is not only wrong, but law enforcement 

repeatedly tells us that it actually makes us less safe. I have been 

told that in meetings with local law enforcement, with Federal law 

enforcement, and in meetings with El Al Security, people who 

know something about security. It blinds us to other threats, to 

means by which terrorists can evade our scrutiny, and it undermines the community cooperation that gives law enforcement the 

eyes and ears on the street they need to stop terrorism before it 

occurs. 

I recall how loudly some conservatives complained when the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo some years ago, 

withdrawn under political pressure, that identified certain rightwing elements as potential terrorist threats. After Oklahoma City, 

the shooting of doctors and the bombing of clinics and the widespread existence of private armed militias preparing to make war 

on the United States, it is not far-fetched for DHS to issue such 

a caution. 

8 

So we will hear a great deal of demonization of one group, and 

that testimony will be largely irrelevant to the legislation we are 

supposed to be considering today. 

What would be useful would be to find out what is the current 

state of the law and where actual legal problems might exist. I 

don’t know how much of that we are going to hear, but that, it 

seems to me, is the fundamental question we need to examine. 

For example, I would love to hear from DHS which is promoting 

the See Something, Say Something program whether they believe 

the law needs to be changed and how, in fact, the bills before us 

change the law, if at all, both from common law tort law and from 

current statutes. 

I want to welcome our witnesses and I look forward to their testimony on this very timely and important topic. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the Ranking Member, and I now recognize 

the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because of time constraints, I would ask unanimous consent to have my entire opening 

statement be made a part of the record, as well as a statement by 

Chairman Peter King of the Homeland Security Committee. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

9 


Smith-1.eps
10 


Smith-2.eps
11 

[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:] 

Mr. SMITH. But I also would like to make some brief comments 

about this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, ordinary citizens who remain alert and vigilant 

about their surroundings are America’s first line of defense against 


King.eps
12 

terrorist attacks. This is why the Obama administration has 

launched the See Something, Say Something campaign to encourage Americans to report suspicious activity that may relate to terrorism. 

I have joined with Senators Lieberman and Collins to introduce 

bicameral legislation to further this important goal. 

Citizens who share information to stop a possible terrorist attack 

should be praised not sued. Too often citizens are reluctant to 

share their genuine suspicions about possible terrorist activity. Unfortunately, at least part of this reluctance may be based on fear 

of being sued for making such a report, and we saw that in the 

case of the passengers on the 2006 U.S. Airways flight. They noticed suspicious behavior. They reported it. Six individuals were 

taken off the plane. They were later allowed to go back on the 

plane but shortly thereafter they sued the passengers for reporting 

such activity. 

H.R. 963 extends protection from costly lawsuits to any citizen 

who reports suspicious terrorism-related activity in good faith, 

whether transportation is involved or not. The bill also allows these 

Good Samaritans to recover attorney’s fees. 

To protect against the next attack, we should encourage an open 

and honest sharing of information. Intelligence officials and investigators cannot combat the terror threat alone. They need the help 

of alert citizens who see something suspicious and say something 

to authorities. And when Good Samaritans act to safeguard their 

fellow citizens, the least we can do is protect them from being sued. 

When our courts are used to silence concerned citizens, they become a weapon in the terrorists’ hands. 

Today’s hearing, Mr. Chairman, will explore how H.R. 963 furthers all these important anti-terrorism goals and makes America 

safer. 

I thank you for having the hearing, and I will yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the distinguished Chairman. 

And as you all know, a vote has been called and we are going 

to have to adjourn the meeting for the moment, and I hope that 

we will see you here after votes. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. FRANKS. This meeting is called back to order. Thank you all 

for being so patient. 

I just want to say for the record here that this is somewhat of 

a reaction to one of the opening statements. This bill will not lead 

to racial profiling. The bill provides immunity for Americans who 

report suspicious activity without regard to the sex, race, religion, 

or national origin of the party engaging in the suspicious activity 

or the party making the report. If a citizen had reported the 

Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, or Timothy McVeigh for serious and 

suspicious activity, this bill would have given that citizen immunity. The 2007 law that created similar immunities in the transportation context has not led to any known incidences of racial 

profiling. This bill is about creating immunity for citizens who report suspicious activity reasonably in good faith. It is not about racial profiling, and a report based on race alone would probably not 

be reasonable or in good faith. So I just wanted to put that down 

for the record. 

13 

And I so look forward to the testimony this morning from our 

distinguished panel of witnesses. 

I want to remind Members that without objection, all of their 

opening statements will be made part of the record. 

And we do, indeed, have a very distinguished panel of witnesses 

today. 

Our first witness, Mr. Lawrence Haas, is a senior fellow for U.S. 

Foreign Policy at the American Foreign Policy Council, a former 

senior White House official, and award-winning journalist. Mr. 

Haas writes widely on foreign and domestic affairs. He is quoted 

often in newspapers and magazines and appears frequently on television and radio. Mr. Haas was communication director and press 

secretary for Vice President Al Gore and before that, communications director for the White House Office of Management and 

Budget in the Clinton administration. After his White House tenure, Mr. Haas served for 2 years as director of public affairs and 

special assistant to the president at Yale University. Welcome, sir. 

Our second witness, Chief Chris Burbank, has been the chief of 

police at the Salt Lake City Police Department since 2006 and has 

been with the department since 1991. Chief Burbank has a bachelor of science degree in sociology from the University of Utah and 

is a graduate of the FBI’s National Executive Institute. Chief Burbank served as a venue commander during the 2002 Salt Lake City 

Winter Olympic Games in which post he was responsible for planning, organizing, and implementing security for the downtown 

Olympic Square with more than 1,000 Federal and State and local 

law enforcement officers and troops from the Utah National Guard 

under his command. Welcome, Chief. 

Our third witness, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, is the President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Dr. Jasser founded AIFD in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the United States as 

an effort to provide an American Muslim voice advocating for liberty, freedom, and the separation of mosque and state. 

Dr. Jasser is a first generation American Muslim whose parents 

fled Syria in the mid-1960’s. 

Dr. Jasser is a respected physician who served 11 years as a 

medical officer in the U.S. Navy. He is currently in private practice 

in Phoenix, Arizona, specializing in internal medicine and nuclear 

cardiology. He is past president of the Arizona Medical Association. 

Dr. Jasser is from my home State and a very beloved friend, and 

I welcome you, Dr. Jasser. 

Each of the witness’ written statements will be entered into the 

record in its entirety, and I ask each witness to summarize his testimony in 5 minutes or less. But to help you stay within that time 

limit, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches 

from green to yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

Before I recognize the witnesses, it is the tradition of this Subcommittee that they be sworn. So if you would please stand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you and please be seated. 

Now I would recognize our first witness, Mr. Haas, for 5 minutes, 

sir. 

14 

TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE J. HAAS, SENIOR FELLOW FOR U.S. 

FOREIGN POLICY, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY COUNCIL 

Mr. HAAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

Members of the Subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to be here. 

With only 5 minutes, I will be as crisp as I possibly can be. 

I strongly support this legislation. I hope Congress and the Administration can enact it as soon as possible. I do believe that it 

draws the appropriate line between national security and personal 

protections. It will enable the American people and law enforcement officials to do precisely what it is we want them to do and, 

at the same time, apply these protections only to the extent that 

Americans make good faith efforts to play their roles honestly and 

not in cases in which people knowingly target groups or individuals 

with dishonest, unfair allegations or action. 

Mr. Chairman, in light of the recent U.S. success in bringing justice to Osama bin Laden and reports of al Qaeda’s weakened state, 

we may grow tempted to let our guard down, and I do believe that 

would be unwise for at least two reasons. 

First, we face a terrorist threat that is far larger than the state 

of any one organization. It is a threat that involves a variety of 

interconnected groups and an underlying ideology which is known 

as jihadi or jihadist or jihadism, about which I write more in my 

testimony. 

Second, efforts to attack the United States from outside or to foment anti-American feeling from within continue and actually are 

increasing at a rather feverish pace, and it is not just me who says 

so. In a speech earlier this year, the Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough had this to say. ‘‘For a long time, many in 

the U.S. thought that our unique melting pot meant we were immune from this threat, this despite the history of violent extremists 

of all kinds in the United States. That was false hope and false 

comfort. This threat is real and it is serious.’’ And he goes on to 

detail a bit about it related to al Qaeda and some of its subscribers 

within the United States. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General have 

also spoken in recent months about this growing threat from within the United States from American citizens or others who are living within the United States. Homegrown threats that are fueled 

by radical Islam are on the rise, and if I could just offer a few statistics. 

Law enforcement officials arrested 22 jihadi suspects from May 

2009 to November 2010. That was compared to 21 in the previous 

7 years. Since September 11th, there have been more than 50 

homegrown terrorist plots which have included plots to blow up the 

Brooklyn Bridge, an office building in Dallas, a Federal courthouse 

in Illinois, the transit system in Washington, D.C. and the transAlaska pipeline. 

And you can just consider the news of recent weeks. Jihadi web 

forums posted a potential hit list of U.S. leaders in government, industry, and the media. The Department of Homeland Security and 

the FBI warned police across the country that al Qaeda retains a 

continuing interest in attacking oil and natural gas targets. We 

had the arrest of a Somali American man in Columbus on charges 

15 

of helping al-Shabaab. We have had two Iraqi men living in Kentucky who were arrested and charged with helping al Qaeda in 

Iraq and so on. 

Mr. Chairman, you have already outlined how the American people have played a vital role in protecting the homeland. The Fort 

Dix incident, the potential bombing in Times Square, the recent action this year which led to the arrest of Khalid Aldawsari of Lubbock, Texas. We also know what can happen when we let our guard 

down, probably the best example being the case of the Fort Hood 

shooting where we ignored numerous hints of potential trouble 

from Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan leading to a 

shooting that left 13 dead and 38 wounded. 

I want to make one final point as my time is running out. Congress has reacted well to pending problems. It reacted well in 2007 

in response to the so-called ‘‘flying imams’’ case that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, with legislation to protect people who report 

suspicious activity in the transportation sector. It responded well 

with regard to the problem of libel tourism just last year with legislation that it passed and President Obama signed. 

With the See Something, Say Something Act of 2011, Congress 

has an opportunity to move from defense to offense, from reacting 

to proactive activity and to provide a more general protection for 

well-meaning citizens and officials in whatever context legitimate 

suspicions arise. 

So with that, I thank you again for inviting me to testify. I would 

be happy to take any questions that you have later on. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haas follows:] 

16 


67109A-1.eps
17 


67109A-2.eps
18 


67109A-3.eps
19 


67109A-4.eps
20 


67109A-5.eps
21 


67109A-6.eps
22 


67109A-7.eps
23 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Haas. 

Chief Burbank, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS BURBANK, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Mr. BURBANK. Thank you very much. 


67109A-8.eps
24 

The role of local law enforcement has evolved significantly over 

the past 10 years. We have been tasked with ever-increasing responsibilities, especially in our homeland security role, without relinquishing our traditional duty of providing for public peace and 

order. We as a profession have achieved numerous significant accomplishments in spite of continuing economic pressure and decreasing staffing levels. Domestic terrorist plots have been thwarted through attentive actions. Cities across the Nation have seen 

crime numbers steadily decline, especially violent crime. Salt Lake 

City, for example, during 2010 realized a 25-year low in part one 

crime. I am frequently asked for the reasons driving this decrease 

which seems counterintuitive in the face of recession. 

Public order and community well-being are the responsibility of 

every citizen in the neighborhoods we serve. There was a point in 

history, however, in which the public relied upon and expected law 

enforcement to address disorder and criminal activity. In fact, people accepted the notion that the police knew best and rarely questioned the means of investigation if they resulted in the incarceration of criminals. 

Police events transpired which called into question the integrity 

and professionalism of agencies throughout the United States. The 

public demanded increased oversight, input, and accountability. Civilian review boards emerged. Neighborhood watch and community 

partnerships expanded. Community policing became not only 

standard practice but an expectation. Citizen involvement and 

partnership places emphasis upon relationships and responsibility 

for public peace upon all participants. 

While many factors certainly contribute to the steady decline of 

criminal behavior, we in law enforcement have become better partners and more effective stewards of public trust. We function best 

when we stand as a part of not apart from the community. In order 

to continue in a successful and productive direction, public trust 

and confidence in law enforcement must be safeguarded and nurtured. 

The threat of terrorism, combined with substantial technological 

advances and enhanced community participation, has created an 

environment in which law enforcement is capable of collecting, retaining, and disseminating information in greater volume than ever 

before. Personal information concerning a suspicious individual in 

Salt Lake City can be shared with agencies within the region or 

across the country in minutes. While this increases our capacity to 

apprehend and interdict criminals, additionally it should accentuate the need for transparency, national standards, and oversight. 

The goal of effective policing is to ensure public safety and minimize the impact of disorder by preventing criminal activity, not 

merely responding for documentation after the fact. To accomplish 

this, it necessitates contact based upon the Supreme Court established standard of reasonable suspicion. This standard, ingrained 

within police recruits requires officers to develop articulable facts 

suggesting criminal activity prior to conducting an investigative 

stop. Race, ethnicity, and religion cannot be utilized as factors to 

create suspicion. Allowing bias to influence enforcement actions 

erodes public trust and creates detrimental case law. 

25 

Improved hiring practices, effective training, and administrative 

accountability have helped minimize officer bias in police-generated 

encounters. A significant number of police contacts, however, are 

dictated through citizen calls for service and inherently adopt the 

bias of the reporting individual. For example, frequently in areas 

troubled by gang activity, people will report groups of minority juveniles dressed in sport attire as gang members. Unfortunately, 

from the moment we receive that call, a certain amount of bias is 

interjected. We do not have the ability to second guess the caller 

or refuse to respond. What if in fact they are correct and this group 

poses a threat to public safety? And if the description is accurate, 

for officer safety reasons, we cannot send a single officer. Violent 

gang members have a propensity to carry weapons, and so we send 

a minimum of two units. If the suspicions of the caller are incorrect, the perceptions of the community are the police are being 

heavy-handed and targeting minority youth, and we have yet to 

take any police action other than responding. 

It is imperative that we remain mindful of the tremendous burden facing our law enforcement officers as they strive to protect the 

communities in which we reside. Considerable responsibility should 

accompany any expansion of police authority. I hold officers to an 

extremely high standard of conduct. The laws and legislation regulating their actions should receive no less attention. 

We must never allow this or any other piece of legislation to be 

interpreted as lowering the traditional standards of qualified immunity. Law enforcement as a profession will suffer if granted immunity for taking actions that ignore clearly established law, constitutional rights of individuals, and legal standards of probable 

cause and reasonable suspicion. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burbank follows:] 

26 


67109B-1.eps
27 


67109B-2.eps
28 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Chief. 

Dr. Jasser, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, sir. 


67109B-3.eps
29 

TESTIMONY OF M. ZUHDI JASSER, M.D., PRESIDENT AND 

FOUNDER, AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY 

(AIFD) 

Dr. JASSER. Thank you, Chairman Franks, Ranking Member 

Nadler, and Members of the Subcommittee. As the president of the 

American Islamic Forum for Democracy, we have been on the front 

lines of countering not the militant threat but the ideological fuel 

of which violence is only one symptom. 

You have before you H.R. 963, the ‘‘See Something, Say Something Act of 2011.’’ This act is the minimum our Congress can do 

to protect any citizen that reports anything and any law enforcement professional who acts upon suspicions in good faith. 

The threat, as you heard from Mr. Haas and the Congressional 

Research Service, has only been increasing exponentially, and in 

the past 18 months, even today, we hear a report, ‘‘saved by citizen,’’ reported about the two individuals in Seattle. 

In theory, the Department of Homeland Security program, If You 

See Something, Say Something, is straightforward, but unfortunately it is in a vacuum. Secretary Napolitano’s admonition to us 

was as citizens when she said, ‘‘we are simply asking the American 

people to be vigilant, recognizing that our security is a shared responsibility that all of us must participate in.’’ I am sorry. But the 

reality is that when many of us on the front lines of reform and 

directly countering and exposing militancy and the ideas that fuel 

them end up being faced with the oppressive tactics of intimidation 

and the threats of lawsuits in the trenches of what is called 

‘‘lawfare,’’ we feel alone. The Nation leaves us alone and hangs us 

out to dry with little to no support other than from other activists 

and reformists that get it. 

Secretary Napolitano may be in the perfect world, feel that it is 

a shared responsibility, but without limiting citizen exposure, without protecting our citizens, that shared responsibility is a pipe 

dream. When an international Islamist organization with vast, 

endless global funds in the UK threatened me and our organization 

simply for speaking the truth with a libel suit just for reporting the 

truth, I understood like never before what victims of ‘‘lawfare’’ 

must feel. That is libel tourism and this body protected us with 

other legislation. But that applies to all people that speak out that 

may be inhibited because of fears of intimidation in the legal sector. 

There is a large chasm between the ‘‘seeing something’’ and ‘‘saying something.’’ As we saw with the Times Square bomber, ultimately Aliou Niasse, a Senegalese Muslim, and Lance Orton, a Tshirt vendor—these two citizens saved thousands of lives in New 

York by simply reporting what they saw to law enforcement. But 

people like that should no longer be looked upon as heroes but simply as dutiful citizens, but they are looked upon as heroes because 

of the challenges that they have and because of the pressures that 

they can be under. 

We saw young workers at Circuit City who ultimately reported 

a DVD they saw, and they said, quote—the workers said ‘‘I don’t 

know what I should do because if I call someone, is that being racist.’’ Their call to law enforcement led to the arrest and conviction 

of the Fort Dix Six. 

30 

The bill that we spoke about, this bill in 2007 protected passengers, and once this bill was passed in Congress to protect the 

passengers, a civil rights organization, CAIR, dropped its lawsuit 

against the passengers because of your protections. 

Ultimately a former Federal air marshal said, ‘‘instilling politically correct fears into the minds of airline passengers is nothing 

less than psychological terrorism.’’ As Muslims, our group was horrified that groups like CAIR and the imams, some of which we 

know locally, decided to sue and create, I think, an incorrect narrative in the minds of the American public about Muslims’ approach to terrorism. 

The only successful attack that has occurred on our soil since 9/ 

11 should have been a wakeup call to the need for this act. The 

Fort Hood massacre was committed on November 5, 2009, and an 

Army psychiatrist, Major Nidal Hasan, killed 13 of our fellow soldiers and injured over 30. 

However, it is interesting. That fear carried over hypocritically 

even into the Pentagon’s report. 85 pages of an after-action report 

that was done in the comfort of months of analysis didn’t even 

identify the word ‘‘Islam,’’ ‘‘Muslims,’’ ‘‘Islamism,’’ ‘‘jihad.’’ Nidal 

Hasan’s name himself did not appear in the after-action report. So 

ultimately, how can we counter an ideology that we can’t even 

name? And yet, the report said they wanted to punish some of the 

superior officers that did not report what they saw. When the brass 

and the best that our military has could not even describe it, how 

can you hold accountable the superior officers that Nidal Hasan 

was led by? 

So ultimately, there was a culture of fear and a culture that 

needs protection. This law will not eliminate that, but it will certainly be a significant first step in giving them the protection necessary from legal retribution. We need to start to peel away those 

barriers. 

Lastly to give you a snapshot of the pressures and the environment with which some of us work, the Council on American Islamic 

Relations in Michigan released a video to its members telling Muslims—very appropriately they said it is our Islamic responsibility 

to report any acts of violence that are impending, but they didn’t 

say report to DHS. They said report to them, report to the mosques 

so that CAIR can gather the data and then give it to DHS. That 

is not See Something, Say Something. It is see something, give it 

to a civil rights organization so that they can determine if it is discrimination and then ultimately say something. That chasm, that 

large valley between see something and say something is what is 

happening out in the front lines and in the area of ‘‘lawfare’’ that 

we need to breach. 

Ultimately protecting citizens reporting and law enforcement acting on those suspicions does not do anything to due process or to 

the constitutional protections. We just need to lift the denial that 

there is a problem, and we have to lift the denial that it is a very 

litigious society in which we live in. 

I would ask you to please get familiar with ‘‘lawfare’’ as soon as 

possible so that you understand all of the fronts that we have to 

fight this battle, and limited or qualified immunity is a very necessary part of that. Ultimately, if you want our citizens to have no 

31 

pause or intermediary between ‘‘see something’’ and ‘‘say something,’’ we need to protect them with legislation like this. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jasser follows:] 


67109C-1.eps
32 


67109C-2.eps
33 


67109C-3.eps
34 


67109C-4.eps
35 


67109C-5.eps
36 


67109C-6.eps
37 


67109C-7.eps
38 


67109C-8.eps
39 


67109C-9.eps
40 


67109C-10.eps
41 


67109C-11.eps
42 


67109C-12.eps
43 


67109C-13.eps
44 


67109C-14.eps
45 


67109C-15.eps
46 


67109C-16.eps
47 


67109C-17.eps
48 


67109C-18.eps
49 


67109C-19.eps
50 


67109C-20.eps
51 


67109C-21.eps
52 


67109C-22.eps
53 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Dr. Jasser, very much, and I thank 

all of you for your testimony. 

And I will now begin the questioning by recognizing myself for 

5 minutes. 

Dr. Haas, first, how important are citizen reports to helping to 

thwart terrorist plots? And do you believe that this bill’s requirements that reports be made in good faith based on reasonable suspicion provides sufficient protections against reports that are made 

for abusive or other inappropriate reasons? 

Mr. HAAS. Well, to take these in reverse order, my reading of the 

legislation is that it draws the appropriate line between providing 

important protections for people who make good faith efforts while 

making very clear that it does not protect people who knowingly 

target groups or individuals. Now, of course, I appreciate what the 

chief said about the application, the practical application, of any 

piece of legislation, and I defer to him on how precisely it should 

be applied. But my reading of the legislation is that it draws a 

common sense line between improving our national security, protecting our national security and yet at the same time not opening 

the door to profiling. 

Now, with regard to your first question, I think the evidence is 

quite clear. We just have example after example where individuals 

have stepped in where law enforcement has not seen something 

and one thing has led to the other, and we have saved literally 

hundreds if not thousands of lives. So I think the evidence is really 

quite clear on that. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. 

Chief Burbank, as you know, a narrower version of this legislation was limited to the public transportation context and signed 

into law in 2007. Do you know of any evidence that the 2007 law 

has led to law enforcement ignoring clearly established law or the 

constitutional rights of individuals or legal standards of probable 

cause and reasonable suspicion? I know that is the concern and I 

understand that concern. Do you know any of examples like that? 

And do you oppose H.R. 963, and if so, what would you do to help 

us fix it? 

Mr. BURBANK. Well, let me say this, that I am not opposed to the 

legislation. I think we just need to be cautious because our citizens—and we could not as police officers, especially local law enforcement, do our job without the assistance of the public in which 

we serve. So it is vital that we have an exchange of information 

that takes place. But our citizens are not trained in standards of 

reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and so it is important and 

contingent upon us to ensure that law enforcement, as they receive 

this information, that they vet the information, that they look at 

it responsibly and not just arbitrarily throw things in a database 

or make reports that go on that can have significant impact into 

the future and also, as you mentioned earlier, potentially cloud our 

ability to sort through information. And so, again, it is implementation and the careful implementation that do we have the checks 

and balances in place to ensure that we are just not arbitrarily taking information and saying, yep, that is valid information and we 

are going forward with it. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. 

54 

Dr. Jasser, you testified that an Islamic civil rights group instructed citizens not to directly report suspicious behavior to authorities. Can you comment on how today’s legislation would encourage, in particular, American Muslim populations to directly report suspicious activity to law enforcement officials? 

Dr. JASSER. Yes, I think that is very important, Chairman. To me 

as a citizen, there are two options. Either we start moving toward 

a society where government has to interfere more—and by virtue 

of what these civil rights groups are doing, they say we don’t want 

government monitoring mosques, et cetera. Well, I could not agree 

more. I don’t want the government in my private life. Well, if we 

don’t want that, then we need to empower and protect citizen reporting. It is either one of two things. Either citizens report because terrorism works by blending into the community by random 

acts that nobody can predict or government will sadly end up sacrificing liberty for security. 

So ultimately, while the group—you know, I do want to qualify 

one thing. They did not tell people not to go to Homeland Security, 

but they said the way to do it is through CAIR. And ultimately, 

what that does is consolidate their power so that even though that 

group, by the way—the FBI has cut off all communications through 

a communique to them basically saying we will no longer communicate with you because of Hamas, et cetera. They still end up controlling a lot of the information and reporting, and many Muslims 

who feel that they don’t want to go through them end up saying, 

well, they are the group that is leading our community. Whether 

we like them or not, we are going to report to them. And I think 

it becomes more of a tribalism, if you will. And if we are going to 

fight that and protect reformists and protect Muslims that will 

break that cycle, we need to provide legal protection for them. 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, sir. 

My last question is to you, Dr. Jasser. How will encouraging 

open discussion of potential terrorism-related transactions or activities or occurrences, and open discussion more generally, further 

your efforts to provide a voice for American Islam? 

Dr. JASSER. Yes. I think the Fort Hood example couldn’t have expressed it more. Here you had a doctor. I came out of that environment at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and I can imagine what happened. It has been 15 years since I have been there. But ultimately, here was a doc who was supposed to be talking about 

PTSD and ended up talking about why militant Islam is valid and 

why it is a war against Islam and starting citing scripture, and nobody said anything because they are not trained in counter-terrorism but also because of the environment that they didn’t want 

to be labeled as discriminatory or racist against Muslims. 

In our environment, if we are going to separate mosque and state 

and begin to have a dialogue about the beautiful aspects of our 

faith that is the solution to terrorism, if we are going to have that 

dialogue, we need an environment in which we can say, well, what 

is spiritual Islam and what is radical, what is political Islam. What 

is the ideology fueling this movement? Nidal Hasan did not become 

radical overnight. This was a process of radicalization. And again, 

what would have been the environment if he had been arrested a 

55 

few weeks before November 5? What would be the case in the court 

system today? 

Look at Chaplain Yee and others. Mr. Yee himself has become 

part of a cottage industry of victimization, and nobody really looked 

at the fact that many of the facts in his case were not released because there were national security concerns of some of the information he was transmitting. 

So at the end of the day, I will tell you my work needs an open 

environment. And again, it doesn’t stigmatize Muslims. It allows 

Muslims to have an internal debate that we are not a monolithic 

community, that we have ideas that need reform and other ideas 

that need lifting up because if we are going to counter Islamism as 

an ideology, we need to have a dialogue not between Islam and the 

rest of the world, but within the Muslim community for reform and 

modernization. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, sir. Thank you all very much. 

I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Haas, we all agree that we want people, if they see something, to say something. That is not under discussion. But how 

does this bill, H.R. 963, the bill before us, alter the liability structure of law enforcement officers in a manner that differs from current law? I mean, what does it actually change? 

Mr. HAAS. Well, I am, to be honest with you, sir, far more focused on how it provides the important protections for average 

Americans. I am not an expert in terms of the existing liabilities—— 

Mr. NADLER. Okay, but the key is, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t 

change much, if at all. 

Chief Burbank, can you answer the question? What additional 

protections, if any, does this bill give that current law does not, 

current normal tort law and so forth? 

Mr. BURBANK. Qualified immunity currently exists for law enforcement, and I don’t see it changing that standard. My concern 

is the perception that the standard is being changed by this, and 

that is what we need to safeguard against. 

Mr. NADLER. Do you think that the perception that this bill 

would change the standard is a bad perception? 

Mr. BURBANK. In speaking with law enforcement officials and officers, the expectation is that there is now more protection. 

Mr. NADLER. That there will be more protection. 

Mr. BURBANK. Yes, that they will be more protected. And I can’t 

stand here before you and say that protecting officers is a bad 

thing. I mean, we need to ensure—— 

Mr. NADLER. The current law—does it sufficiently protect officers? 

Mr. BURBANK. I believe it does, yes. 

Mr. NADLER. You believe it does. 

Does this bill—forget the perception—would it in fact add protection in any way? 

Mr. BURBANK. I do not believe that it specifically does. 

Mr. NADLER. And is that for members of the public too or just 

for law enforcement? 

56 

Mr. BURBANK. That is speaking strictly for law enforcement. 

Mr. NADLER. Now, what about members of the public? 

Mr. BURBANK. Well, I believe that this does extend a little more 

to members of the public as far as qualified immunity which in 

other—— 

Mr. NADLER. How does this extend to members of the public beyond regular tort law? In other words, under normal law that we 

have, if you see something and you are in good faith and you report 

it and you have no malice, you are protected. You have that qualified immunity. How does this add to that? 

Mr. BURBANK. You are getting into an area of law where I would 

be—— 

Mr. NADLER. Can anybody answer that question? 

Dr. JASSER. Mr. Nadler, I am not an attorney, but what I can tell 

you is that in 2007, the qualified immunity was passed by your 

body to the passengers that report—— 

Mr. NADLER. No. I understand that, but the question is some of 

us believe that what we did in 2007, while harmless, didn’t in fact 

change anything even for passengers. 

Dr. JASSER. Well, if it didn’t change anything, Mr. Nadler, then 

CAIR and the imams would not have dropped the lawsuit 

against—— 

Mr. NADLER. Well, maybe they had a perception but it didn’t 

change the underlying law. I mean, people can act on 

misperceptions. I am trying to ask—and apparently no one can answer the question—if we are actually changing the underlying law. 

Apparently for law enforcement, the answer is no. For regular citizens, no one really can answer that. 

Dr. JASSER. I believe it raises the threshold of the amount that 

you have to prove that it was in good faith or not. I think that 

without this added language—— 

Mr. NADLER. You think it raises the threshold. Okay. 

Now, either Mr. Haas or Chief Burbank, are law enforcement officers still required to exercise the level of care required for reason 

of suspicion under Terry v. Ohio? 

Mr. BURBANK. Absolutely. 

Mr. NADLER. They are. Okay. 

Does this bill impose any additional investigative burden on law 

enforcement due to lack of training and discerning suspicious from 

otherwise ordinary behavior? 

Mr. BURBANK. No. I do not believe it does. 

Mr. NADLER. Let me ask you one other question. What has been 

your experience of how the prejudices of individual citizens can impact the responses of police officers? 

Mr. BURBANK. We are subject to every call that comes into the 

police department in 911 or otherwise that the citizen who is making that report—their individual bias potentially can be in that call 

for service. And so we rely upon the training and experience of our 

officers as they go on these calls to sort those things out. But we 

do not have a choice, as I mentioned in my testimony, to differentiate or tell Mrs. Jones I am sorry we are not coming out today because we don’t believe your report to be valid or credible. 

57 

Mr. NADLER. And let me ask one other question, Chief Burbank. 

Do you have any experience with lawsuits arising out of tips to the 

police? 

Mr. BURBANK. Personally no, I do not. 

Mr. NADLER. Are you aware of this being an issue in other jurisdictions? 

Mr. BURBANK. Not an issue that rises to the level of frequent discussion in meetings with other chiefs of police. But I have heard 

of them, yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Now, we are often told that focusing especially vigorous law enforcement attention on certain communities or outright racial or religious profiling—some people say that is an effective and necessary law enforcement tool, that we place our communities at risk if we allow political correctness to prevent law enforcement from doing so. Would you comment on whether you 

think that is correct or incorrect? Are we sacrificing a useful investigative tool if we don’t do that? 

Mr. BURBANK. That is absolutely incorrect. When we make enforcement decisions or take investigative action based upon race, 

ethnicity, religious belief, then it is wrong because we lose sight of 

what our ultimate goal is, and the standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause rely on us to articulate what is the underlying criminal behavior that we can see that allows us to interject ourselves in someone’s life. And when we ignore that, when we 

don’t take that, then the volume of information that potentially is 

there is overwhelming. We need to always refer back, what is the 

criminal behavior that we are focusing on or looking at in order to 

interject ourselves as law enforcement into someone’s life. 

Mr. NADLER. And finally, Dr. Jasser, do you agree with that? 

Dr. JASSER. Absolutely. This is not going to change any of the 

constitutional protections that a citizen has, but what it does is for 

those of us on the front lines, Mr. Nadler, it allows us to remove 

the obstacles. It protects citizens and at least tells us that government is not going to hang us out to dry and let us be—we can’t 

deny the fact that we are a litigious society, and that if there are 

protections that citizens in good faith—I don’t think this bill protects malignant citizens that report by virtue of profiling. I don’t 

think it does at all. This simply raises the bar so that things reported in good faith are not going to be afraid of being dragged into 

court simply because they report it. 

And I will tell you a lot of the suing that is done is not done because they think they can win. It is done because they want to tie 

up organizations like ours or others in financial ruin so that we 

don’t have the ability to continue to do the reform and the counterterrorism that we are doing. 

Mr. NADLER. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Nadler. 

And just for point of clarification, this bill is broader than the 6 

U.S.C. 1104 which was passed in 2007 as part of a transportation 

bill. The 2007 provision granted immunity only for reports of a suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence that involves or is directly against a passenger transportation system or vehicle or its 

passengers. Now, this bill, by contrast, provides immunity for reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:32 Nov 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\062411\67109.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
58 

ports of any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence whether 

or not it involves transportation. 

It is appropriate in my mind and important to expand these immunities beyond the transportation context because, obviously, terrorists do attack other areas besides transportation systems. So 

just for point of clarification. 

And with that, I would yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 

Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. I thank the Chairman for yielding and all the witnesses for your testimony. I am probably going to go down a path 

here that is maybe a little bit different than you might have anticipated. 

As I listened to the testimony and in particular that of Dr. 

Jasser, whom I have heard speak in the past—and I very much appreciate all of your contributions to this country, and yours is, of 

course, included in that, Dr. Jasser. 

It is just interesting to me to hear the perspective that you bring 

from this from your perspective and how much your voice contributes to a broader view of how we address this American civil society in the face of the enemies that we have internally and without. 

I think you have added a lot of understanding to it. 

I will probably go further than most will on this Committee, but 

when the word ‘‘profile’’ comes up, I remember preparing to board 

an El Al airliner and not going through a body search or anything 

of the intensity that TSA puts me through but simply an interview 

where they looked in my eyes and asked me a series of questions 

and, once satisfied, said okay. And I might not even known that 

I was being profiled, but they were asking a lot of smart questions, 

and if I had given the wrong answer to probably any one of those, 

I might have gone through a lot more examination. 

And I hear the expressions that we have here on this panel, our 

concern about how this bill doesn’t authorize profiling. I am of the 

view that everyone in this country, if they are going to function in 

our society, has to profile. People put labels on themselves by the 

clothes they wear, their speech mannerisms, their tattoos, their 

body piercings, all kinds of things, the signs that they carry around 

this city. They just scream at us and say ‘‘profile me.’’ This is my 

position. Get my message. We know we don’t have time to hear 

what goes on inside a person’s head. 

I watched the—what shall I say—the flying imams leverage a 

point and end up with a settlement in Minneapolis that I think 

was completely unjust and sent the wrong message and intimidated a lot of people not to report and not to see something, say 

something. 

I just asked someone to pull an article. This is a thing from 

memory that may not be considered to be in context here. But this 

is an article in San Francisco dated June 2nd of this year, and it 

is about how fire crews and police could only watch a man drown 

in the bay because they had not received the proper training to go 

pull this man out of the bay by San Francisco. And finally, a witness—it says in one article, another one it says a volunteer—pulled 

the man’s lifeless body out of the 54 degree water. 

I think of one of my brothers who pulled a person out of a swirling eddy below a damn who was drowning, in fact, did die, and he 

59 

didn’t wait for training. He went in and pulled that man out and 

did everything he could to save his life. I can think of an occasion 

in my own life that way, not to speak about it into the record. 

I am just concerned that the culture of this country has gone to 

this point of being so overloaded with this litigious society that you 

have referenced that we have lost track of our duty to our fellow 

man and fellow woman, that we have lost respect for our own culture and our own civilization to the point where when something 

needs doing, we should go do that, do the right thing regardless of 

the litigation consequences. And I think it is sad that we have to 

come before this Judiciary Committee and carve out the narrowest 

of exceptions for specific circumstances when the society and the 

culture should always instinctively support the people that do the 

right thing for the right reasons regardless of whether profiling 

needed to be part of that conclusion that they drew. 

And I would ask Dr. Jasser. I know that you have thought about 

this deeply, and I would be very interested in what you might have 

to comment about what I have said. 

Dr. JASSER. Thank you, Mr. King. 

Yes. I cannot underscore enough how much—you know, you raise 

the issues that this bill just does one thing, which is raises the bar 

of liability protection. But the issue is much deeper. It is one of 

education. And I think one of the other things that See Something, 

Say Something is not—it is done in a vacuum—is that we need to 

educate our population. What are we looking for? So many people, 

when they uncover a cell in the neighborhood, say, oh, he seemed 

to be a normal guy, but you know, he was doing this and that and 

I didn’t realize it and they never reported it. The same thing with 

the Fort Hood issue. So many things could have been reported. The 

Times Square bomber. Citizens saved that but then once the reporter started looking at his history, there were many neighbors 

and others that could have reported things months in advance that 

did not. And once we start educating our population about things 

to look for—it is not that we are asking them to spy on one another. We are just reporting things that are public. 

And I think it is interesting. The UK—there is a website called 

directgov where they tell citizens to report radical websites to the 

government, and it is a reporting system where they see something, say something on the Web. And cyber jihad is a significant 

thing. 

And right now, I guarantee you there are a lot of citizens afraid 

to report because they see what happens to groups like ours, the 

way we get stigmatized and targeted as anti-Muslim when in fact 

there couldn’t be anything more pro-Muslim than weeding out radicalism within our community. So if we are going to breach the 

chasm of ignorance and educate our population, we need to protect 

them and say, you know, the cultural change you are talking about 

doesn’t happen overnight. This legislation is one step toward doing 

that. 

Mr. KING. And if the Chairman would just indulge for one concluding question, I would appreciate that. 

This comes to mind as I listened to this. When the issue of Juan 

Williams came up and he was dismissed from NPR, what were 

your thoughts on that? 

60 

Dr. JASSER. You know, I will tell you my thoughts were that here 

you have somebody dismissed simply because he said something 

that was on his mind. Now, did his comments—were they bothersome? You know, I have Muslims in my own family that wear hijab 

and look very ethnic, and we are proud of that. So, yes, that is a 

conversation we have to have. But at the end of the day, to dismiss 

somebody for saying that he felt it but didn’t feel it was right I 

think was a limitation and a squashing of free speech. 

And we have to be careful in this country and that by political 

correctness and protecting minorities like us, like Muslims, that we 

then start suppressing free speech to where we can’t educate our 

population. You can’t educate a community that can’t even talk 

about it, and you have to be able to talk about fears, talk about 

what is discrimination, what is not, what is ideology. You remember Islam and Islamism is not a race. It is an ideology. Actually 

true racial profiling, which is wrong and against our Constitution, 

doesn’t work because what we are fighting is an ideology. So if you 

are going to educate our communities, you have to be able to talk 

about it. And he got punished just for speaking out. 

Mr. KING. I would argue it doesn’t go against the Constitution, 

but I appreciate your response and the tone with which you delivered it. It is constructive. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Haas, I know that you were jumping to get in 

there here. 

Mr. HAAS. I just wanted to say briefly that you are talking, Congressman, about two different aspects of this. You are talking 

about the cultural level and we are talking about the legal level. 

Obviously, with regard to the legislation here, we are talking about 

the legal level. But, of course, they are connected. And to the extent that there is a legal liability, it seems to me we are sending 

a cultural signal. What was dangerous about the case of the flying 

imams, when those passengers were potentially liable—and we can 

debate whether they were, in fact, liable. I heard before Congressman Nadler said he didn’t think the 2007 legislation was necessary. That is a separate debate. But to the extent that there was 

a widespread perception that there was a legal liability, it seems 

to me the government is sending a cultural signal that it does not 

take this reporting as seriously as it should. 

You have very appropriately responded to the particulars of that 

situation. You responded to the particulars of the libel tourism situation. It seems to me with this legislation you could send a much 

broader signal that we are really serious about your responsibilities 

and your ability, your legal ability, to do the right thing, to see 

something and then to say something. To the extent that we continue to play catch-up and we are sort of playing Whac-A-Mole— 

that is, a situation comes up and we pass a law; a situation comes 

up, we pass a law—it seems to me we are always one step behind. 

I think this legislation can put us one step ahead. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Haas, and thank you, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. I just wanted to say that there is another component 

of this discussion that I don’t believe I articulated very well, and 

that is our duty as citizens to see something, say something and 

61 

when appropriate do something on the spot because it is the right 

thing without regard to not having the right license or training or 

a permission slip from government. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. King. 

Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Burbank, is it possible in applying this to prevent profiling 

on the basis of race, religion, or national origin, or does something 

like this actually promote racial profiling? 

Mr. BURBANK. I think we have to be careful that we are not conducting profiling. I think a definition needs to be made here. 

Profiling for criminal behavior is absolutely appropriate and is 

done every single day in effective law enforcement. You observe behavior and you say this leads me to believe that criminal behavior 

is taking place, very similar to the El Al description. They are looking at do eyes divert. Is someone perspiring? Those are the indicators of someone lying, not how they are dressed, the color of their 

hair, their eyes, or do they pray or not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does objective, reasonable, good faith—does that include racial prejudice? 

Mr. BURBANK. No. I think it is just something that we need to, 

as we implement this, ensure that we are not allowing that to take 

place. 

Mr. SCOTT. Exactly what are we protecting people from with the 

bill? Has anyone ever been found liable for making a criminal justice tip in good faith with objectively reasonable suspicion? Has 

anyone ever been found liable? 

Mr. BURBANK. Not in my jurisdiction that I am aware of. 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Jasser, has anyone been found liable? 

Dr. JASSER. Ask U.S. Airways and the Minneapolis security and 

others that ended up paying unknown amounts settling that case. 

Ask many of the victims of—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Wait a minute. What was the finding? You have people who have made reports and hassled people without good faith 

and without any objectively reasonable suspicion. They may be 

found liable. Is that right? 

Dr. JASSER. They still would be found liable, but—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Now, if you are found to have made your report in good faith with objectively reasonable suspicion, has anyone 

in those circumstances with those findings been found liable? 

Dr. JASSER. That simple assumption you made is that people can 

have the financing and the time to go through a court to prove that 

they did it in good faith. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, let’s first of all get to the answer to the question. The fact is no one has ever been found liable who made a good 

faith—based on objectively reasonable suspicion—no one has ever 

been found liable. Is that right? 

Dr. JASSER. Well, the thing is I have demonstrated cases to you, 

sir, of the Fort Hood incident and others that people said their fear 

of litigation is what prevented them from reporting. There are 

cases of libel tourism of people that had been found liable for saying things that they were not protected from until the libel tourism 

62 

bill was passed. But I am not aware of a specific case. You know, 

it is almost a chicken or the egg—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Was that under United States law? 

Dr. JASSER. I am sorry, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. The case you mentioned. 

You have gone around the case. The fact is that no one has ever 

been found liable for a good faith tip based on objectively reasonable suspicion. That is a fact. 

Now, who has the burden of proof in a lawsuit to prove good 

faith or objectively reasonable suspicion under the bill? Is it part 

of the prima facie case or an affirmative defense? 

Dr. JASSER. I don’t know the answer to that question, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Under what circumstances in American jurisprudence 

is someone with a winning case, that is, someone who can show 

that the tip was made based on bigotry, not in good faith, and 

without any objectively reasonable suspicion—if you have those 

facts, should you be able to bring a lawsuit? 

Dr. JASSER. Can you restate your question? 

Mr. SCOTT. If you have someone who you believe has made a racist tip to law enforcement not based on good faith and without any 

objectively reasonable suspicion, should you be able to bring a lawsuit? 

Dr. JASSER. Absolutely. As I said, this legislation doesn’t—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Who with a legitimate lawsuit has to bet their house 

on the outcome of the litigation? What plaintiffs have to incur if 

they find they can’t prove their case, although they in good faith 

believed it. We are not talking about frivolous lawsuits because 

Rule 11 takes care of that. In a good faith lawsuit, why should 

plaintiffs have to bet their houses on the outcome of the case? Who 

else has to do that? 

Dr. JASSER. But on the one hand, you are saying the legislation 

doesn’t add anything. On the other hand, we are saying that it actually makes them have to bet their house. So it is one or the 

other. If this legislation does change the bar—— 

Mr. SCOTT. It doesn’t change the bar. It means if you have a winning lawsuit, you have to bet your house on the outcome of the 

case. For example, you believe it is true and you bring it and the 

witnesses change their stories or something happens and you lose 

your case. Why should you have to pay attorney’s fees and costs to 

the defendant for having brought what you in good faith thought 

was a legitimate lawsuit? 

Dr. JASSER. Because we have a threat that is increasing. And I 

can tell you from my—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Who else in American jurisprudence—what other 

plaintiffs have to pay attorney’s fees and costs? 

Dr. JASSER. I think it would help decrease the litigiousness of society if we did do that, but from this perspective, I can tell you 

that—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Does that mean you can’t think of any plaintiff that 

has to bet a house in order to bring a lawsuit? 

Dr. JASSER. I cannot, sir. I don’t know. 

Mr. SCOTT. In an automobile accident, if you bring a losing lawsuit, you don’t have to pay attorney’s fees. Is there any plaintiff 

63 

that has to come into court fearing that they might lose their house 

if they lose the lawsuit? 

Dr. JASSER. I think if you ask any of the families of the 13 victims at Fort Hood, they would have liked this type of system available to them. 

Mr. SCOTT. This would be the only case in which a plaintiff in 

American jurisprudence would have to risk attorney’s fees and 

costs in order to have the right to bring a winning lawsuit. Is that 

right? 

Dr. JASSER. Again, we are in a state of war against an ideology 

that is threatening us, and if we continue to embolden the courtroom attacks and oppressive tactics by groups—I think if you talk 

to families that were victims from people like Nidal Hasan, they 

will tell you that that is a small price to pay to protect our Nation. 

Mr. SCOTT. So what we are deterring is not the reports, good 

faith, objectively reasonable suspicion standards. What we are deterring is people in good faith bringing a lawsuit against someone 

who in bad faith, without any reasonable suspicion, made a complaint and caused them to be jailed or otherwise—miss a plane or 

whatever in bad faith. They would be deterred from bringing a lawsuit because unlike any other plaintiff in American jurisprudence 

they would have to risk their house in the situation where they 

might not win the case for one reason or another. 

Dr. JASSER. Mr. Scott, since 2007 since transportation passengers 

were protected, is there any examples I am missing of people that 

have had to risk their house and didn’t because of the protection 

of passengers? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, the question is whether or not a plaintiff with 

the facts. And you can’t say anybody didn’t make a complaint because they had a good faith, objectively reasonable suspicion and 

didn’t make a complaint. What we are talking about is American 

jurisprudence. We do not require plaintiffs to bet houses in order 

to bring a lawsuit except in this case. 

Mr. FRANKS. I just want to thank the witnesses for your testimony. I appreciate all the efforts that you make to make our society and our country a safer place to live, and I wish you all the 

very best. 

I want to remind the Members that they, without objection, will 

have at least 5 legislative days to submit to the Chair additional 

written questions for the witnesses which we will forward and ask 

the witnesses to respond as promptly as they can so that their answers may be made part of the record. 

And without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days 

with which to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the 

record. 

Again, I thank the witnesses and I thank the Members and observers. 

And this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ