Patriot Act amendment to make protest a felony

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183147,00.html

Pretty scary, Arlen Specter is proposing an amendment to make political protests a felony if they're performed outside of the designated 'free speech areas' which are usually located a mile or so away.
.......

CB, did you read the same article?  Where did it say "Arlen Specter is proposing an amendment to make political protests a felony if they're performed outside of the designated 'free speech areas' "

This is what I see
"A new provision tucked into the Patriot Act bill now before Congress would allow authorities to haul demonstrators at any "special event of national significance" away to jail on felony charges if they are caught breaching a security perimeter  

which would extend the authority of the Secret Service to allow agents to arrest people who willingly or knowingly enter a restricted area at an event, even if the president or other official normally protected by the Secret Service isn't in attendance at the time.


This is already a law

Under current law, the Secret Service can arrest anyone for breaching restricted areas  where the president or a protected official is or will be visiting , but the new provision would allow such arrests even after those VIPs have left the premises of any designated "special event of national significance." The provision would increase the maximum penalty for such an infraction from six months to one year in jail.

Currently, non-violent demonstrators who enter restricted areas at such events previously would be arrested and charged by local law enforcement with simple trespassing, said Graves. Under the provision included in the new law, they will be charged with felonies by the Secret Service.

I'm not saying its a good thing,  I dont see the need to make it a felony and they should just leave it with local law enforcement, but I dont see how this endangers first admentment rights or another rights.
If I missed something I'm sure you'll point it out,  

[T0J0]

Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183147,00.html

Pretty scary, Arlen Specter is proposing an amendment to make political protests a felony if they're performed outside of the designated 'free speech areas' which are usually located a mile or so away.

I hope I'm not the only one troubled by this.  We've had our disagreements in the past, and it seems sometimes like there are members of this board who are more than willing to give up civil liberties because they don't like the people excercising them, but I sure hope this is the camel that breaks the straws back for them.

We're past the slippery slope and are now just falling straight down.

Evil Boosh is going to take all your liberties away Muuuhahaha... Its all part of the master plan!
So you guys plan on many protests in DC in the coming years? Maybe in 2008 after the next democratic presidential election loss.... Ohh Thats right Hillary is going to win running with that great patriot Wesley Clark maybe?! A women pres.
 That amendment has about as much chance passing as Ted Kennedy has passing a breathalizer test on monday morning on the way to work!
 
TJ

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

PROTECTION
Protective Mission
After the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901, Congress directed the Secret Service to protect the President of the United States. Protection remains the primary mission of the United States Secret Service.


Authorization
Today, the Secret Service is authorized by law to protect:

    * the President, the Vice President, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the President-elect and Vice President-elect;
    * the immediate families of the above individuals;
    * former Presidents, their spouses for their lifetimes, except when the spouse re-marries. In 1997, Congressional legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former Presidents for a period of not more than 10 years from the date the former President leaves office.
    * children of former presidents until age 16;
    * visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad;
    * major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general Presidential election.

Restricted area my ****ing ass. Let the local law enforcement deal with breach of local security.
-SW

[Nefarious]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Now HOW many times have we heard hear about the Patriot act?

"If you dont do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"

On this Message Board? Do a Search....

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by T0J0
Evil Boosh is going to take all your liberties away Muuuhahaha... Its all part of the master plan!
So you guys plan on many protests in DC in the coming years? Maybe in 2008 after the next democratic presidential election loss.... Ohh Thats right Hillary is going to win running with that great patriot Wesley Clark maybe?! A women pres.
 That amendment has about as much chance passing as Ted Kennedy has passing a breathalizer test on monday morning on the way to work!
 
TJ

Plan on protesting? no
But just because something may not directly effect me does not mean I have no concerns or objections over it.
 The BS feel good anti gun laws dont effect me either as I dont own a gun but I object to them too.

As for the protestors I may not like what they have to say but they have the right to say it

[Shamus]

Originally posted by storch
it will never fly

Oh yes it will, you have enough morons in this county who will say and think things such as "I dont protest so it wont affect me" or "it gives aid and comfort to the enemy" that anything is possible.

shamus

[lazs2]

Ok... my take..  You guys that are for gun control and you socialists...  what ya gonna do?  throw rocks?  and why do you care?  isn't the government allways right?  You could get hurt at a protest so they are doing it for your own good....

And... why should I pay for you when you get injured at a protest?

Socialists and gun control nazis are getting what you deserve.  If the government doesn't fear the people they simpy grab more power.  

That being said... define "protest".  Is "protest" breaking stuff and shouting down or attacking people?  Is "protest" blocking traffic and shutting down lawful business?

lazs

[Gunthr]

National Special Security Event
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
A National Special Security Event (NSSE) is a desgnation given by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to particular special events. Some people believe that this authorizes the federal government to assume federal control of security measures normally employed by local law enforcement. This is a misleading understanding of what a NSSE is. Identifying an event as a National Special Security Event simply means that DHS (specifically the United States Secret Service) is the agency responsible for "coordinating" all federal support to the event. It does not mean that the federal government all of a sudden is "in charge" of state and local public safety security operations. State and local laws govern roles and responsibilities for law enforcement, fire, public health, emergency medical service and other public safety activities. The NSSE designation, initially created (as described below) as a part of Presidential Decision Directive 62, is simply an order from the Office of the President that affects only other federal agencies in the executive branch of government. Until the Constitution is modified, Congress still is responsible for writing laws. The President is not yet allowed to create laws under the guise of a Presidential Decision Directive. The major exception to the rule that DHS is a partner in, rather than in charge of, security planning and operations is for purely federal events, such as a presidential inauguration.

There are some people who believe that it is in the political and organizational interest of the DHS and Secret Service to maintain the illusion that the NSSE designation puts the federal government in charge of security planning and operations. When the illusion persists, it provides a sense that one agency is in charge of everything — thus satisfying some of the hierarchical impulses of agencies that are uncomfortable with the idea of "unified command." The misleading impression about NSSEs is usually easier to achieve in jurisdictions that rarely have major events, or who believe the federal government is somehow more capable than they are. At times, some local agencies pretend to defer to DHS, since having to be responsible for securing an event takes precious local public safety resources that might otherwise be better used.

Other members of DHS go out of their way to clarify that the NSSE designation does nothing to alter existing public safety laws and responsibilities. Instead, it is an administrative mechanism designed to minimize the uncoordinated and occasionally duplicative work of federal agencies who want to be involved in the event (sometimes called the "free range chicken" problem). When state and local public safety agencies can go to one agency that represents all federal resources, it makes the planning job more manageable, if not easier.

Some people also believe that naming an event an NSSE, "releases federal funding for security plans." This also is an error. Unless congress has appropriated money that can specifically be used for security planning or operations, federal agencies must cover the costs of their participation in the NSSE through their own budget. Though not declared by DHS (which did not yet exist), the first NSSE after the September 11, 2001 attacks was the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. The NSSE designation was received prior to the start of the 2002 Olympics. The first operational NSSE was Super Bowl XXXVI, in New Orleans. More recent NSSEs include the state funeral of Ronald Reagan, the 2004 Democratic National Convention and the 2004 Republican National Convention. Major annual events, such as the NFL's Super Bowl and the State of the Union address, are automatically designated an NSSE.

In the event an NSSE is declared, the United States Secret Service is charged with employing and coordinating all federal agencies including the various bureaus of DHS, the FBI, and other federal police agencies to secure the venue from terrorist attacks. (Again, not local police or other public safety agencies.) Typically, the other federal law enforcement agencies — like the FBI — have statutory responsibilities beyond those "coordinated" by the Secret Service. Consequently, even though the Secret Service is said to be the lead federal agency, other agencies play a role in major events that is neither controlled nor influenced by the Secret Service.

The declaration of an NSSE was established by President Bill Clinton in a portion of Presidential Decision Directive 62 in May 1998. The FBI used to be the lead agency for federal support to local agencies in major events. The story of how the Secret Service took that responsibility from the FBI is a tale of organizational and political intrigue more appropriate for a novel than an encyclopedia.

Some of the security measures people can expect on the scene when they attend a major event that is declared an NSSE:

Heavy police and military presence
Police forces in the area have canceled days off and leaves
Canine teams & Bomb-sniffing dogs
Surveillance
Sharpshooters
Flight restrictions around the area
Coast Guard patrols
Increased railroad security
Extensive road closures
There will also be many security "enhancements" that most people attending the event will never see. Like an iceberg, that which is visible is only a small part of the entire security structure.

[edit]
List of past NSSEs
2000 Republican National Convention
Dates: 31 July – 3 August 2000
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
2000 Democratic National Convention
Dates: 14 August – 17 August 2000
Location: Los Angeles, California
2001 Presidential Inauguration
Date: 20 January 2001
Location: Washington, DC
United Nations General Assembly fifty-sixth session
Dates: 13 September 2001 – ?
Location: New York, New York
2002 Winter Olympics
Dates: 8 February – 24 February 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
World Economic Forum USA Meeting
Dates: 21 May – 22 May 2002
Location: Washington, DC
G-8 Summit
Dates: 8 June – 10 June 2004
Location: Sea Island, GA
State Funeral of Ronald Reagan
Dates: 9 June – 11 June 2004
Location: Washington, DC, Simi Valley, Ca.
2004 Democratic National Convention
Dates: 26 July – 29 July 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
2004 Republican National Convention
Dates: 30 August – 2 September 2004
Location: New York, New York
2005 Presidential Inauguration
Date: 20 January 2005
Location: Washington, DC

Some thoughts:
There have been "restricted areas" at these events for some time.  Looks to me like the proposed legislation enhances laws already on the books, i.e. penalities from Misd enhanced to Felony, and the scope of  restriction from before and during an event enhanced to restrict unauthorized persons before, during, and some time after the event.

There may be more to this than meets the eye.  I think DHS needs to educate us a little better as to the reasoning behind this.

[Mighty1]

Does the word "Restricted" mean anything to you guys?

Sen. Arlen Specter , R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sponsored the measure, which would extend the authority of the Secret Service to allow agents to arrest people who willingly or knowingly enter a restricted area at an event, even if the president or other official normally protected by the Secret Service isn't in attendance at the time.

Why is this bad?

You may have the right to protest but you don't have the right to enter "Restricted" areas.

Now why are some areas restricted?

Simple!

To many numnuts wanting to shout out or cause harm to opposing views.

[Gunthr]

Now why are some areas restricted?

Actually the purpose of the restricted areas are to make it harder for terror strikes on attractive targets - but goes beyond protection of persons to protection of the event itself.  (obviously though, persons would be in danger if an "event" were attacked.)

[Gunthr]

I would also like to note that the title of this thread amounts to a false statement:

Patriot Act amendment to make protest a felony

... wondering if it might be characterized as a biased, partisan statement?  It seems like misdirection to me...

[Chairboy]

Howdy!  A quick heads up, the 'restricted zones' are being expanded to include the audience, hence the title of the subject.

[Yeager]

this has been going on for years...back when clinton was prez they were forcing protestors away from the president.

I think alot of the problem is crowds and how easy it is to be concealed in a crowd and to do harm, both to the people in a crowd and to whatever reason a crowd has formed.  The right to protest cannot be diminished but the rules about when, how, and where certainly can be determined by law.

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Howdy!  A quick heads up, the 'restricted zones' are being expanded to include the audience, hence the title of the subject.

CB, I re-read the article again, and I dont see any reference about the restricted zones being expanded.  In fact Spector himself says that this bill only changes the arresting authority

which merely makes a technical change to clear up legal confusion over who has arresting authority at NSSEs.

what other information do you have?  sounds like just another ACLU boogieman

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Yeager
this has been going on for years...back when clinton was prez they were forcing protestors away from the president.

I don't know if it was Clinton that started this, but I'm fairly certain that Gore was doing it before Bush.