secret service powers
January 30, 2006 1:25 PM Subscribe
Secret Service may be given yet further authority to arrest people. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has added to the latest draft of the Patriot Act legislation before the Senate. As it stands now the Secret Service will get involved if you trespass in a restricted area at the same time as (or immediately before) the people they are protecting. If Sen. Specter has his way the Secret Service will have the authority to arrest any protestors violating the arbitrary restricted areas AT ANY TIME throughout the (potentially multi-day) event.
ACLU hypothetical examples:
* The Secret Service declares a four-day international population conference sponsored by the UN an “event of national significance.” The President speaks one evening. Anti-abortion groups plan peaceful protests, including a candlelight vigil. Under current law, the Secret Service can arrest anyone if they enter a protected zone at the venue for the Presidential speech, while other security issues would be covered by local trespass statutes. If the bill passes, the Secret Service could shut down areas throughout the conference and arrest any protester who violates the zone.
* The Secret Service declares a four-day summit on the war in Iraq in Chicago to be an “event of national significance.” While the Secretary of Defense is scheduled to speak, he will only be present for one event. Protesters plan to engage in nonviolent and non-disruptive, silent “street theater.” Under current law, the Secret Service could arrest the protesters if they enter a protected zone during the event at which the official is speaking, but otherwise the event would be governed by local trespass statutes. If the bill passes, the Secret Service could impose exclusion zones during the entire conference.
posted by taumeson at 1:26 PM on January 30, 2006
* The Secret Service declares a four-day international population conference sponsored by the UN an “event of national significance.” The President speaks one evening. Anti-abortion groups plan peaceful protests, including a candlelight vigil. Under current law, the Secret Service can arrest anyone if they enter a protected zone at the venue for the Presidential speech, while other security issues would be covered by local trespass statutes. If the bill passes, the Secret Service could shut down areas throughout the conference and arrest any protester who violates the zone.
* The Secret Service declares a four-day summit on the war in Iraq in Chicago to be an “event of national significance.” While the Secretary of Defense is scheduled to speak, he will only be present for one event. Protesters plan to engage in nonviolent and non-disruptive, silent “street theater.” Under current law, the Secret Service could arrest the protesters if they enter a protected zone during the event at which the official is speaking, but otherwise the event would be governed by local trespass statutes. If the bill passes, the Secret Service could impose exclusion zones during the entire conference.
posted by taumeson at 1:26 PM on January 30, 2006
Has he changed the color of their shirts to brown, too?
posted by Thorzdad at 1:27 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by Thorzdad at 1:27 PM on January 30, 2006
Wow. Arlen Specter is the devil. Good to know, I guess.
posted by JeremyT at 1:28 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by JeremyT at 1:28 PM on January 30, 2006
1600 days without a terrorist attack on American soil. They must be doing something right!
Did I adequately capture the sentiment of those that are blindly going along with this bullshit?
posted by psmealey at 1:35 PM on January 30, 2006
Did I adequately capture the sentiment of those that are blindly going along with this bullshit?
posted by psmealey at 1:35 PM on January 30, 2006
And Specter is supposed to lead the investigation into the NSA domestic spying program?
Great. I'm sure he'll do a "heckuv'a job".
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 1:37 PM on January 30, 2006
Great. I'm sure he'll do a "heckuv'a job".
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 1:37 PM on January 30, 2006
. . . the arbitrary restricted areas . . .
I'm sorry, what makes you think the restricted areas are arbitrary?
posted by JekPorkins at 1:43 PM on January 30, 2006
I'm sorry, what makes you think the restricted areas are arbitrary?
posted by JekPorkins at 1:43 PM on January 30, 2006
JekPorkins:
definition 2 of arbitrary. i don't think this is a committee thing, i think it'll be done for very specific political goals.
posted by taumeson at 1:45 PM on January 30, 2006
definition 2 of arbitrary. i don't think this is a committee thing, i think it'll be done for very specific political goals.
posted by taumeson at 1:45 PM on January 30, 2006
Really? What leads you to believe that the secret service will base its decisions on the political goals of the people it's protecting?
posted by JekPorkins at 1:50 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 1:50 PM on January 30, 2006
What leads you to believe that the secret service will base its decisions on the political goals of the people it's protecting?
• Snopes - A former Secret Service agent gives his unvarnished opinion of the Clinton, Gore, and Bush families.
• Sikh detained by SS, post 9/11
posted by Rothko at 1:58 PM on January 30, 2006
• Snopes - A former Secret Service agent gives his unvarnished opinion of the Clinton, Gore, and Bush families.
• Sikh detained by SS, post 9/11
posted by Rothko at 1:58 PM on January 30, 2006
Jek, you might as well ask why anyone thinks the NSA will use warrantless wire taps on anti-war organizations. They may not be doing it now,* but that isn't the issue. They simply should not have that power. Limits to government power should not be based on the government's desire to abuse it.
*Right.
posted by brundlefly at 1:59 PM on January 30, 2006
*Right.
posted by brundlefly at 1:59 PM on January 30, 2006
They simply should not have that power. Limits to government power should not be based on the government's desire to abuse it.
But this is not like NSA wiretaps. You say that the Secret Service simply shouldn't have the power to secure a restricted area during an event where a principal will be present. The only reasoning I see for that is the assumption that they will somehow expand the restricted areas in order to somehow curtail the free speech rights of protesters who would like to be protesting in the restricted areas.
Are there no guidelines, policies or regulations that dictate the manner in which the restricted areas are determined? I assume (yes, I assume) that the restricted areas would include such areas as the stage or podium area, areas immediately adjacent to it where the principal may walk or stand, and an area where a motorcade may park. Why should protesters, or anyone else, be afforded the unfettered right of access to those areas? What guarantees freedom to protest unlimited by time, place and manner restrictions?
Honestly, is there any real reason that "they simply should not have that power" other than "they might abuse it?"
posted by JekPorkins at 2:09 PM on January 30, 2006
But this is not like NSA wiretaps. You say that the Secret Service simply shouldn't have the power to secure a restricted area during an event where a principal will be present. The only reasoning I see for that is the assumption that they will somehow expand the restricted areas in order to somehow curtail the free speech rights of protesters who would like to be protesting in the restricted areas.
Are there no guidelines, policies or regulations that dictate the manner in which the restricted areas are determined? I assume (yes, I assume) that the restricted areas would include such areas as the stage or podium area, areas immediately adjacent to it where the principal may walk or stand, and an area where a motorcade may park. Why should protesters, or anyone else, be afforded the unfettered right of access to those areas? What guarantees freedom to protest unlimited by time, place and manner restrictions?
Honestly, is there any real reason that "they simply should not have that power" other than "they might abuse it?"
posted by JekPorkins at 2:09 PM on January 30, 2006
And Spector is a "moderate" Republican.
posted by octothorpe at 2:09 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by octothorpe at 2:09 PM on January 30, 2006
Honestly, is there any real reason that "they simply should not have that power" other than "they might abuse it?"
Sure - quid pro quo. They obviously don't trust the public, so why should the public trust them?
posted by davelog at 2:14 PM on January 30, 2006
Sure - quid pro quo. They obviously don't trust the public, so why should the public trust them?
posted by davelog at 2:14 PM on January 30, 2006
And Spector is a "moderate" Republican.
Well, he is pro-choice, after all. He and Harry Reid are the reason that no abortion legislation will happen for the next several years.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:14 PM on January 30, 2006
Well, he is pro-choice, after all. He and Harry Reid are the reason that no abortion legislation will happen for the next several years.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:14 PM on January 30, 2006
Arlen Spector is really an "old right" Conservative. That makes him look moderate, because the "old right" believe in archaic concepts like personal honor and fairness.
posted by lodurr at 2:17 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by lodurr at 2:17 PM on January 30, 2006
You say that the Secret Service simply shouldn't have the power to secure a restricted area during an event where a principal will be present.
From the ACLU link:
'18 U.S.C. § 1752 currently provides criminal penalties for entrance into “any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting . . . .” Section 602 of the Conference Report would broaden this provision, giving the Secret Service effective power to create “exclusion zones” even without the expected attendance of the President or other Secret Service protectee.'
That's the issue at hand.
posted by brundlefly at 2:20 PM on January 30, 2006
From the ACLU link:
'18 U.S.C. § 1752 currently provides criminal penalties for entrance into “any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting . . . .” Section 602 of the Conference Report would broaden this provision, giving the Secret Service effective power to create “exclusion zones” even without the expected attendance of the President or other Secret Service protectee.'
That's the issue at hand.
posted by brundlefly at 2:20 PM on January 30, 2006
How is Spector pro-choice if he's supporting Alito? I think that he's lost any claim he ever had to that attribute.
posted by octothorpe at 2:20 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by octothorpe at 2:20 PM on January 30, 2006
Honestly, is there any real reason that "they simply should not have that power" other than "they might abuse it?"
posted by JekPorkins at 2:09 PM PST on January 30
There doesn't need to be.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:21 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 2:09 PM PST on January 30
There doesn't need to be.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:21 PM on January 30, 2006
Nutshell: this makes leaving the designated free speech zone (which may be miles from the event) a Federal felony rather than a local misdemeanor. Instead of having the charges quietly dropped a few days after the event, you'll be imprisoned for a year or more.
I don't see any problem with it. Historically, peasants haven't had any right to appeal to the king and I don't see why the USA should be any different. Dissent is simply wasteful - in a country like ours, where government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, that consent needs to be manufactured on a just-in-time basis for proper functioning of the society. I think Bush has a right to television coverage that shows only adoring, pre-selected supporters and that any dissenters who try to get into the camera frame are doing something that deserves at least one year of their lives spent in prison. If protestors can be seen on TV, the terrorists have already won. We have to destroy our freedom in order to save it.
posted by jellicle at 2:21 PM on January 30, 2006
I don't see any problem with it. Historically, peasants haven't had any right to appeal to the king and I don't see why the USA should be any different. Dissent is simply wasteful - in a country like ours, where government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, that consent needs to be manufactured on a just-in-time basis for proper functioning of the society. I think Bush has a right to television coverage that shows only adoring, pre-selected supporters and that any dissenters who try to get into the camera frame are doing something that deserves at least one year of their lives spent in prison. If protestors can be seen on TV, the terrorists have already won. We have to destroy our freedom in order to save it.
posted by jellicle at 2:21 PM on January 30, 2006
where are the Bush supporters in this thread?
oh, he called in, said he was sick.
posted by Hanover Phist at 2:25 PM on January 30, 2006
oh, he called in, said he was sick.
posted by Hanover Phist at 2:25 PM on January 30, 2006
Jek: Here's how I would put it: It ain't broke; it don't need fixed.
Seriously, what is wrong with their current level of authority? No matter how much control you give them, they'll always want more. Not because the Secret Service are themselves despotic, but because they are really, really serious about that Presidential protection thing.
The problem is that they can essentially function as Public Relations muscle for the administration. Given that the camera tends to focus in certain predictable directions*, the admin knows that it can effectively control the image by controlling the area around the President.
There's a fear in the air -- I don't feel it as intensely as some other folks, but I think it's legit -- that the SS can be used as more than just "protective" (or PR) muscle. They could be used to actually sweep and lock up dissenters more or less indefinitely. Is that going to happen tomorrow? No, not likely. But given the demonstrated tendency of the Bushites to stroke their own pleasure centers, we can expect them to grow increasingly self-righteous under increasing scrutiny.
--
*Again, it's not necessary to posit a political motive for this. Where the camera points and how many of them are pointing are both driven by money: By budgets, and by what drives income. The latter does tend to end up being related ot politics.
posted by lodurr at 2:25 PM on January 30, 2006
Seriously, what is wrong with their current level of authority? No matter how much control you give them, they'll always want more. Not because the Secret Service are themselves despotic, but because they are really, really serious about that Presidential protection thing.
The problem is that they can essentially function as Public Relations muscle for the administration. Given that the camera tends to focus in certain predictable directions*, the admin knows that it can effectively control the image by controlling the area around the President.
There's a fear in the air -- I don't feel it as intensely as some other folks, but I think it's legit -- that the SS can be used as more than just "protective" (or PR) muscle. They could be used to actually sweep and lock up dissenters more or less indefinitely. Is that going to happen tomorrow? No, not likely. But given the demonstrated tendency of the Bushites to stroke their own pleasure centers, we can expect them to grow increasingly self-righteous under increasing scrutiny.
--
*Again, it's not necessary to posit a political motive for this. Where the camera points and how many of them are pointing are both driven by money: By budgets, and by what drives income. The latter does tend to end up being related ot politics.
posted by lodurr at 2:25 PM on January 30, 2006
lodurr -- I think that's a good statement of the issue. Thanks.
Optimus Chyme -- so government should never have any power at all, ever?
How is Spector pro-choice if he's supporting Alito? I think that he's lost any claim he ever had to that attribute.
Believing that government should not pass laws outlawing abortion need not include a belief that the Constitution contains an implicit ban on such government action.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:28 PM on January 30, 2006
Optimus Chyme -- so government should never have any power at all, ever?
How is Spector pro-choice if he's supporting Alito? I think that he's lost any claim he ever had to that attribute.
Believing that government should not pass laws outlawing abortion need not include a belief that the Constitution contains an implicit ban on such government action.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:28 PM on January 30, 2006
jellicle, duuuude.... you've gone all, like, fascist on us. Dude.
posted by lodurr at 2:30 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by lodurr at 2:30 PM on January 30, 2006
I was at a party once where Bill Clinton was expected. His SS guys were there (this was after Bush was elected). The party was on the second floor. I needed to go downstairs (where my office was) to have a smoke or something. The secret service guy at the top of the stairs said, Don't go down there. I said, Dude (okay maybe I didn't say dude), I work here, no worries. He said, I can't be responsible for what happens to you if you go down those stairs.
Wasn't quite sure if he was worried I was going to trip. I think not, though.
posted by Hobbacocka at 2:31 PM on January 30, 2006
Wasn't quite sure if he was worried I was going to trip. I think not, though.
posted by Hobbacocka at 2:31 PM on January 30, 2006
Honestly, is there any real reason that "they simply should not have that power" other than "they might abuse it?"
posted by JekPorkins at 2:09 PM PST on January 30
The biggest mistake anyone can make in a democratic-ish society is to give anyone in power the benefit of the doubt.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:16 PM PST on January 28
posted by EarBucket at 2:35 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 2:09 PM PST on January 30
The biggest mistake anyone can make in a democratic-ish society is to give anyone in power the benefit of the doubt.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:16 PM PST on January 28
posted by EarBucket at 2:35 PM on January 30, 2006
And rather than giving the benefit of the doubt, I'm asking what the reasons are.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:38 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 2:38 PM on January 30, 2006
Because American citizens shouldn't be arrested for exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful speech and assembly?
posted by EarBucket at 2:42 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by EarBucket at 2:42 PM on January 30, 2006
Because American citizens shouldn't be arrested for exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful speech and assembly?
Time, place and manner restrictions are generally constitutional. Just because you're protesting doesn't mean you can legally or constitutionally go wherever you want to do so. Furthermore, the first amendment's protection of free speech applies to anyone within the U.S., not just American citizens.
I can see how you have made the massive jump from "arresting people for trespassing in a restricted area" to "arresting people for exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful speech and assembly," but it's a giant jump, frankly.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:49 PM on January 30, 2006
Time, place and manner restrictions are generally constitutional. Just because you're protesting doesn't mean you can legally or constitutionally go wherever you want to do so. Furthermore, the first amendment's protection of free speech applies to anyone within the U.S., not just American citizens.
I can see how you have made the massive jump from "arresting people for trespassing in a restricted area" to "arresting people for exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful speech and assembly," but it's a giant jump, frankly.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:49 PM on January 30, 2006
JekPorkins writes "And rather than giving the benefit of the doubt, I'm asking what the reasons are."
OK, I'm a bit hazy on what exactly you're asking for. Are you asking for specific evidence that the SS would abuse these new powers? A memo saying, "With these new-found powers we shall squash all dissent?" If so, uh... no. I guess there are no reasons at all.
posted by brundlefly at 2:50 PM on January 30, 2006
OK, I'm a bit hazy on what exactly you're asking for. Are you asking for specific evidence that the SS would abuse these new powers? A memo saying, "With these new-found powers we shall squash all dissent?" If so, uh... no. I guess there are no reasons at all.
posted by brundlefly at 2:50 PM on January 30, 2006
I can see how you have made the massive jump from "arresting people for trespassing in a restricted area" to "arresting people for exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful speech and assembly," but it's a giant jump, frankly.
Maybe. But given that this administration is already illegally surveilling citizens without warrants, the DoD is spying on anti-war groups, and the president maintains that he has the power to throw anyone in prison indefinitely without charges, trial, or oversight, is it really massively unreasonable to suspect that maybe, just maybe, they might abuse this power too?
posted by EarBucket at 2:54 PM on January 30, 2006
Maybe. But given that this administration is already illegally surveilling citizens without warrants, the DoD is spying on anti-war groups, and the president maintains that he has the power to throw anyone in prison indefinitely without charges, trial, or oversight, is it really massively unreasonable to suspect that maybe, just maybe, they might abuse this power too?
posted by EarBucket at 2:54 PM on January 30, 2006
JekPorkins writes "I can see how you have made the massive jump from 'arresting people for trespassing in a restricted area' to 'arresting people for exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful speech and assembly,' but it's a giant jump, frankly."
Again, the SS already has the ability to arrest people for trespassing in restricted areas. That isn't what we're objecting to.
posted by brundlefly at 2:54 PM on January 30, 2006
Again, the SS already has the ability to arrest people for trespassing in restricted areas. That isn't what we're objecting to.
posted by brundlefly at 2:54 PM on January 30, 2006
That isn't what we're objecting to.
You're objecting to them having the ability to do so when the president or other principal isn't around or expected to be around. They already have the authority to do so when the president or other principal is around.
Or is there something else that you're objecting to?
posted by JekPorkins at 3:01 PM on January 30, 2006
You're objecting to them having the ability to do so when the president or other principal isn't around or expected to be around. They already have the authority to do so when the president or other principal is around.
Or is there something else that you're objecting to?
posted by JekPorkins at 3:01 PM on January 30, 2006
No, you got it.
posted by brundlefly at 3:02 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by brundlefly at 3:02 PM on January 30, 2006
The SS is equating "tresspassing" with "protesting." Did you read the third link?
posted by EarBucket at 3:07 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by EarBucket at 3:07 PM on January 30, 2006
No, the ACLU is pointing out that protesters often trespass during the course of their protests, and that they are often then arrested for trespassing. It appears that the ACLU's fear is that the boundaries of restricted areas will be drawn so restrictively as to make trespassing by protesters unavoidable and simply facilitate arrests.
The ACLU is the one equating "trespassing" with "protesting."
Or were you referring to the Washingtonpost article where protesters were arrested for disorderly conduct (not trespassing)?
posted by JekPorkins at 3:15 PM on January 30, 2006
The ACLU is the one equating "trespassing" with "protesting."
Or were you referring to the Washingtonpost article where protesters were arrested for disorderly conduct (not trespassing)?
posted by JekPorkins at 3:15 PM on January 30, 2006
Yes. I was referring to the fact that free speech is being designated as disorderly conduct and confined to "free speech zones" surrounded by fences, barbed wire, and armed guards. It's hideous.
posted by EarBucket at 3:17 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by EarBucket at 3:17 PM on January 30, 2006
Because of the way this administration conducts itself, and backed up by plenty of anecdotes about overzealous security, I can easily believe these new arrest powers will be abused.
Scenario A:
1. administration wants you to sign a loyalty oath before an event.
2. you don't, and slip past the guy at the door checking for your oath.
3. the SS follows you as you wander around the auditorium looking for your seat. you accidentally entered the expanded "restricted zone" near the front of the auditorium.
4. you are arrested and were legitimately trespassing (by their definition. doesn't matter if you had a ticket) at this point.
5. you are sentenced to a year in federal prison.
scenario B:
1. the G8 summit is brought back to the US.
2. they decide to hold it in NYC..much like they did the RNC.
3. they declare 4 blocks to be a restricted area, along with the street leading from the area to the hotels where the folks are staying at.
4. any protestors lining the street can be arrested and incarcerated for a year.
5. any tourist who doesn't give a shit about the G8 summit and is just in town for a week and wanders the street can get arrested.
I find both of these scenarios to be unacceptable.
posted by taumeson at 3:18 PM on January 30, 2006
Scenario A:
1. administration wants you to sign a loyalty oath before an event.
2. you don't, and slip past the guy at the door checking for your oath.
3. the SS follows you as you wander around the auditorium looking for your seat. you accidentally entered the expanded "restricted zone" near the front of the auditorium.
4. you are arrested and were legitimately trespassing (by their definition. doesn't matter if you had a ticket) at this point.
5. you are sentenced to a year in federal prison.
scenario B:
1. the G8 summit is brought back to the US.
2. they decide to hold it in NYC..much like they did the RNC.
3. they declare 4 blocks to be a restricted area, along with the street leading from the area to the hotels where the folks are staying at.
4. any protestors lining the street can be arrested and incarcerated for a year.
5. any tourist who doesn't give a shit about the G8 summit and is just in town for a week and wanders the street can get arrested.
I find both of these scenarios to be unacceptable.
posted by taumeson at 3:18 PM on January 30, 2006
Jek:
from the first link:
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.
so...it has nothing to do with protesting at all, really...though it's obviously aimed at them. no, this new law has to do with merely existing somewhere the SS doesn't want you to be.
posted by taumeson at 3:22 PM on January 30, 2006
from the first link:
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.
so...it has nothing to do with protesting at all, really...though it's obviously aimed at them. no, this new law has to do with merely existing somewhere the SS doesn't want you to be.
posted by taumeson at 3:22 PM on January 30, 2006
And the SS wants what ______ wants ...fill in the blank !
posted by elpapacito at 3:27 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by elpapacito at 3:27 PM on January 30, 2006
taumeson: I think you may have missed these two important words: "willingly or knowingly."
Both of your hypothetical scenarios are invalid, since the hypothetical arrestee in both of them did not "willingly or knowingly" enter a restricted area.
Additionally, your jump from arrest to sentencing is interesting. What makes you think that everyone arrested would immediately be sentenced to the maximum sentence, without any due process?
In your second hypothetical, you posit that any protesters lining the street can be "arrested and incarcerated for a year." This is both false and deceptive. Any protesters knowingly or wilfully entering the restricted area can be arrested and, if tried and convicted of the crime that they willingly or knowingly committed, may be sentenced to a maximum of one year.
Furthermore, even if scienter was not an element, do you really think it would be easy to "accidentally" stumble into a clearly marked restricted area patrolled by secret service agents where there are no civilians at all while protesting? Now add to that the scienter element, and are you seriously worried about it? Under the language of the proposed statute, protesters can still go anywhere that any other civilian can go. Note that in your first hypothetical, the intentional gate crasher at the republigestapo event cannot even be arrested until he willingly or knowingly breaches an additional line of security, after sneaking into the event.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:33 PM on January 30, 2006
Both of your hypothetical scenarios are invalid, since the hypothetical arrestee in both of them did not "willingly or knowingly" enter a restricted area.
Additionally, your jump from arrest to sentencing is interesting. What makes you think that everyone arrested would immediately be sentenced to the maximum sentence, without any due process?
In your second hypothetical, you posit that any protesters lining the street can be "arrested and incarcerated for a year." This is both false and deceptive. Any protesters knowingly or wilfully entering the restricted area can be arrested and, if tried and convicted of the crime that they willingly or knowingly committed, may be sentenced to a maximum of one year.
Furthermore, even if scienter was not an element, do you really think it would be easy to "accidentally" stumble into a clearly marked restricted area patrolled by secret service agents where there are no civilians at all while protesting? Now add to that the scienter element, and are you seriously worried about it? Under the language of the proposed statute, protesters can still go anywhere that any other civilian can go. Note that in your first hypothetical, the intentional gate crasher at the republigestapo event cannot even be arrested until he willingly or knowingly breaches an additional line of security, after sneaking into the event.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:33 PM on January 30, 2006
Just want to offer a general “thank you” to folks for the politeness and attention to detail for not using “conservative” to mean “Bush supporter”
Honestly, is there any real reason that "they simply should not have that power" other than "they might abuse it?"
I’d go with amendments 9 & 10 in the bill of rights first. Ultimately - yes, the real reason is that the mechanics of governance should not be subject to political whim. That is - while any party in power has the right to dictate policy they should not have the right to use the apparatus of government to increase their influence over the people.
They are free to do so through political methods - not through the mechanisms of the government.
The post article cites that people are required to sign oaths of support before attending events with Bush or Vice President Cheney. This is a denial of free speech. One should not have to sign such an oath - not have to support the POTUS politically in order to gain acess to an event. Certainly the would be expected to adhere to some degree of decorum - such as not flinging feces or some such, but they should not deny someone a right to speak or listen based on their political position.
There should not be a “different set of rules" for reporters who did not seek out the activists.”
There is, and should be, a division between the party and the administrative government offices.
That division is being erased and that is not how the government should work.
This being arrested for protesting thing is a lousy fashion. But it’s pointless anyway. If they were smart they’d organize and strike (the stuff in Poland comes to mind).
posted by Smedleyman at 3:33 PM on January 30, 2006
Honestly, is there any real reason that "they simply should not have that power" other than "they might abuse it?"
I’d go with amendments 9 & 10 in the bill of rights first. Ultimately - yes, the real reason is that the mechanics of governance should not be subject to political whim. That is - while any party in power has the right to dictate policy they should not have the right to use the apparatus of government to increase their influence over the people.
They are free to do so through political methods - not through the mechanisms of the government.
The post article cites that people are required to sign oaths of support before attending events with Bush or Vice President Cheney. This is a denial of free speech. One should not have to sign such an oath - not have to support the POTUS politically in order to gain acess to an event. Certainly the would be expected to adhere to some degree of decorum - such as not flinging feces or some such, but they should not deny someone a right to speak or listen based on their political position.
There should not be a “different set of rules" for reporters who did not seek out the activists.”
There is, and should be, a division between the party and the administrative government offices.
That division is being erased and that is not how the government should work.
This being arrested for protesting thing is a lousy fashion. But it’s pointless anyway. If they were smart they’d organize and strike (the stuff in Poland comes to mind).
posted by Smedleyman at 3:33 PM on January 30, 2006
Might I also remind folks that it was Clinton who started this free speech zone crap? (although Bush really took that ball and ran with it).
The question is not will they abuse it, but why wouldn’t they? What’s to stop them from moving the zone to quash dissent? Is there some reason they wouldn’t?
Brett Bursey f’rinstance.
Bursey was standing with thousands of others and held up a sign that said “No more war for oil.” He was ordered to put down the sign and go away. He refused and was arrested for tresspassing. Those charges were dropped.
Courts upheld the right to protest on public property. But Bursey was indicted by the federal government for violation of the federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the president. Bursey is looking at up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine.
How does this differ - in practical effect - from limiting free speech?
posted by Smedleyman at 3:49 PM on January 30, 2006
The question is not will they abuse it, but why wouldn’t they? What’s to stop them from moving the zone to quash dissent? Is there some reason they wouldn’t?
Brett Bursey f’rinstance.
Bursey was standing with thousands of others and held up a sign that said “No more war for oil.” He was ordered to put down the sign and go away. He refused and was arrested for tresspassing. Those charges were dropped.
Courts upheld the right to protest on public property. But Bursey was indicted by the federal government for violation of the federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the president. Bursey is looking at up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine.
How does this differ - in practical effect - from limiting free speech?
posted by Smedleyman at 3:49 PM on January 30, 2006
Put another way - this is the worst form of privilege - private law. It’s Goddamn un-American. We’re equals - period. The President is not inherantly superior to me or anyone else. He does not and should not have the right to apply law with specific intents. Someone is dangerous to him - solid. Someone is too close - ok - but singling out one guy among thousands of people and saying that guy can’t be there when he is no different from anyone else is wrong.
The issue - legally I suppose - isn’t the exclusion zone -but it’s application to single individuals and in it’s political ramifications. It’s de facto segregation.
/Man, I gotta get my thoughts together and make one post. ugh. sorry.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:59 PM on January 30, 2006
The issue - legally I suppose - isn’t the exclusion zone -but it’s application to single individuals and in it’s political ramifications. It’s de facto segregation.
/Man, I gotta get my thoughts together and make one post. ugh. sorry.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:59 PM on January 30, 2006
Smedleyman: If the proposed statute were applied to the Brett Bursey situation, Mr. Bursey could not have been arrested for willfully or knowingly entering the restricted area unless everyone else was also arrested for willfully or knowingly entering the restricted area. This would not permit the secret service to arrest a protester standing in the midst of a crowd of other people unless they were all illegally standing in the restricted area.
Note also that it is not unconstitutional to limit free speech by way of a time place and manner restriction.
Why wouldn't they abuse it? Because making it so that everyone is in the restricted area would kinda defeat the point of public events, wouldn't it?
posted by JekPorkins at 4:03 PM on January 30, 2006
Note also that it is not unconstitutional to limit free speech by way of a time place and manner restriction.
Why wouldn't they abuse it? Because making it so that everyone is in the restricted area would kinda defeat the point of public events, wouldn't it?
posted by JekPorkins at 4:03 PM on January 30, 2006
"Bursey could not have been arrested for willfully or knowingly entering the restricted area unless everyone else was also arrested for willfully or knowingly entering the restricted area."
Except for - that's what happened.
"Because making it so that everyone is in the restricted area would kinda defeat the point of public events, wouldn't it?"
Given altruistic motives? Yes.
There are laws that say the police can’t arbitrarialy beat people and get away with it. Good thing that never happens.
I grew up in Chicago. The government ain’t altruistic.
The degrees in the law are so fine the cops used to keep people in the cooler (and awake) for days before letting them go - why? Because there was no specific mandate to tell people that they had the right to leave if they were only being 'questioned'.
This creates that kind of wiggle room.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:17 PM on January 30, 2006
Except for - that's what happened.
"Because making it so that everyone is in the restricted area would kinda defeat the point of public events, wouldn't it?"
Given altruistic motives? Yes.
There are laws that say the police can’t arbitrarialy beat people and get away with it. Good thing that never happens.
I grew up in Chicago. The government ain’t altruistic.
The degrees in the law are so fine the cops used to keep people in the cooler (and awake) for days before letting them go - why? Because there was no specific mandate to tell people that they had the right to leave if they were only being 'questioned'.
This creates that kind of wiggle room.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:17 PM on January 30, 2006
Once again: Time, place and manner restrictions are generally not unconstitutional.
There are laws that say the police can’t arbitrarialy beat people and get away with it. Good thing that never happens.
So all laws are pointless? Hmm.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:21 PM on January 30, 2006
There are laws that say the police can’t arbitrarialy beat people and get away with it. Good thing that never happens.
So all laws are pointless? Hmm.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:21 PM on January 30, 2006
JekPorkins writes "If the proposed statute were applied to the Brett Bursey situation, Mr. Bursey could not have been arrested for willfully or knowingly entering the restricted area unless everyone else was also arrested for willfully or knowingly entering the restricted area. "
Sure. And cops always arrest everyone who speeds past their trap, and never target those with out-of-state plates.
posted by clevershark at 4:29 PM on January 30, 2006
Sure. And cops always arrest everyone who speeds past their trap, and never target those with out-of-state plates.
posted by clevershark at 4:29 PM on January 30, 2006
JekPorkins: If the proposed statute were applied to the Brett Bursey situation, Mr. Bursey could not have been arrested for willfully or knowingly entering the restricted area unless everyone else was also arrested for willfully or knowingly entering the restricted area.
This is completely and utterly false, a canard that the justice system will happily smash for you the very first time you attempt to bring it up. If you're going 80 mph, along with everyone else on the freeway, and YOU get a ticket, the fact that the guy right next to you going 95 mph didn't get a ticket is completely immaterial. The lack of law enforcement action against anyone else is never, ever a defense in your case.
Many people in this thread are also laboring under the misapprehension that these restricted areas are somehow small. They are not limited in size, and can be miles in diameter (and can last, as noted, for the entire duration of any event and surround all venues for that event). The Secret Service considers anywhere within rifle range of a protected area to be an area of concern to them. As protestors are finding out, it often means wherever you happen to be standing.
"At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area."
The combination of the above two items means that very large areas around any event can be officially restricted, but plenty of people can be allowed in those areas: Bush supporters. Disruptive people, such as Bush opponents, can be deemed to be trespassing, arrested, and given felony convictions which will prevent them from voting.
posted by jellicle at 4:34 PM on January 30, 2006
This is completely and utterly false, a canard that the justice system will happily smash for you the very first time you attempt to bring it up. If you're going 80 mph, along with everyone else on the freeway, and YOU get a ticket, the fact that the guy right next to you going 95 mph didn't get a ticket is completely immaterial. The lack of law enforcement action against anyone else is never, ever a defense in your case.
Many people in this thread are also laboring under the misapprehension that these restricted areas are somehow small. They are not limited in size, and can be miles in diameter (and can last, as noted, for the entire duration of any event and surround all venues for that event). The Secret Service considers anywhere within rifle range of a protected area to be an area of concern to them. As protestors are finding out, it often means wherever you happen to be standing.
"At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area."
The combination of the above two items means that very large areas around any event can be officially restricted, but plenty of people can be allowed in those areas: Bush supporters. Disruptive people, such as Bush opponents, can be deemed to be trespassing, arrested, and given felony convictions which will prevent them from voting.
posted by jellicle at 4:34 PM on January 30, 2006
Well, if that's the way it's carried out, it's crap.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:38 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 4:38 PM on January 30, 2006
“Once again: Time, place and manner restrictions are generally not unconstitutional.”
Not what I’m arguing. Want to argue whether it’s constitutional? - go right ahead.
“So all laws are pointless? Hmm.”
No, arguments are pointless when someone making the counterproposition refuses to take your point.
“the fact that the guy right next to you going 95 mph didn't get a ticket is completely immaterial.”
It is if you are pulled over instead of him because you’re black or republican or gay....etc.
“Well, if that's the way it's carried out, it's crap.”
*tap tap* didn’t I say “It’s de facto segregation”?
*tap* *tap* is this thing on? Man I gotta take a writing class.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:54 PM on January 30, 2006
Not what I’m arguing. Want to argue whether it’s constitutional? - go right ahead.
“So all laws are pointless? Hmm.”
No, arguments are pointless when someone making the counterproposition refuses to take your point.
“the fact that the guy right next to you going 95 mph didn't get a ticket is completely immaterial.”
It is if you are pulled over instead of him because you’re black or republican or gay....etc.
“Well, if that's the way it's carried out, it's crap.”
*tap tap* didn’t I say “It’s de facto segregation”?
*tap* *tap* is this thing on? Man I gotta take a writing class.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:54 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by interrobang at 5:21 PM on January 30, 2006
We could ask presidential aide Blake Gottesman what he thinks of the new law. (Although a guy who digs Judy Jetson can’t be all bad.)
posted by Smedleyman at 5:25 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by Smedleyman at 5:25 PM on January 30, 2006
Why is JekPorkins so trusting of the government and so distrustful of the people?
JekPorkins labors and strains to squeeze out the argument that this statute could never be abused -- despite the abuse of less sweeping law in the Bursey case --, but JekPorkins doesn't even explain (as a good conservative would) why this expansion of government power is necessary.
My conclusion: JekPorkins is a troll or a tool or a sockpuppet. He's either pushing an agenda, or playing dhoyt-like games. I suggest ignoring him.
posted by orthogonality at 6:22 PM on January 30, 2006
JekPorkins labors and strains to squeeze out the argument that this statute could never be abused -- despite the abuse of less sweeping law in the Bursey case --, but JekPorkins doesn't even explain (as a good conservative would) why this expansion of government power is necessary.
My conclusion: JekPorkins is a troll or a tool or a sockpuppet. He's either pushing an agenda, or playing dhoyt-like games. I suggest ignoring him.
posted by orthogonality at 6:22 PM on January 30, 2006
odinsdream: perhaps you missed the "incarcerated for one year" part. AFAIK, the people arrested in NYC during the last RNC weren't incarcerated for a year. Maybe I'm wrong. I do think the government violated those people's human rights, and probably their constitutional ones, too.
orthogonality: I'm not trusting of the government. I am distrusting of everyone. I'm not arguing that the statute could never be abused -- I could and probably would be. And I don't think the expansion is necessary (nor did I say it was). I thought it odd that the only ground for opposing it seems to be the possibility of abuse, which exists with all laws.
I'm not trying to be dhoyt-like, and I apologize if that's how I've come across.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:27 PM on January 30, 2006
orthogonality: I'm not trusting of the government. I am distrusting of everyone. I'm not arguing that the statute could never be abused -- I could and probably would be. And I don't think the expansion is necessary (nor did I say it was). I thought it odd that the only ground for opposing it seems to be the possibility of abuse, which exists with all laws.
I'm not trying to be dhoyt-like, and I apologize if that's how I've come across.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:27 PM on January 30, 2006
*it* could and probably would be. Blast.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:30 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 6:30 PM on January 30, 2006
JekPorkins writes "I thought it odd that the only ground for opposing it seems to be the possibility of abuse, which exists with all laws."
Ah, I understand what you're saying now. However, you also say that you don't think the expansion is necessary. It's unnecessary and lends itself to abuse. Aren't those two perfectly good reasons to oppose something?
posted by brundlefly at 6:39 PM on January 30, 2006
Ah, I understand what you're saying now. However, you also say that you don't think the expansion is necessary. It's unnecessary and lends itself to abuse. Aren't those two perfectly good reasons to oppose something?
posted by brundlefly at 6:39 PM on January 30, 2006
“the possibility of abuse, which exists with all laws”
Certainly a possibility, but for the most part doesn’t law restrict the government as well as the people. Or is supposed to?
Honest question: is interpreting this as having too much latitude in enforcement out of line?
At least given previous practice?
(ceding your contstitutional arguments of course)
posted by Smedleyman at 6:43 PM on January 30, 2006
Certainly a possibility, but for the most part doesn’t law restrict the government as well as the people. Or is supposed to?
Honest question: is interpreting this as having too much latitude in enforcement out of line?
At least given previous practice?
(ceding your contstitutional arguments of course)
posted by Smedleyman at 6:43 PM on January 30, 2006
(given that I can't even spell constitutional)
posted by Smedleyman at 6:44 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by Smedleyman at 6:44 PM on January 30, 2006
brudlefly, yes, those two are good enough reasons. I think "unnecessary" is good enough reason to oppose it, actually.
Certainly a possibility, but for the most part doesn’t law restrict the government as well as the people. Or is supposed to?
Some laws restrict the government, yes. That the government can grant further authority to itself at all is revealing with regards to the existence of governmental restraint -- It's amazing, if they can give themselves more authority, that they don't just give themselves all the authority that's constitutional to begin with.
Honest question: is interpreting this as having too much latitude in enforcement out of line?
At least given previous practice?
Not necessarily. But I think there's an important question to be asked here: Why do they want the secret service to be able to patrol events where neither the president nor any other protected individual is even anticipated to be present? Why the secret service, and not the FBI or some law enforcement agency? The secret service's mission seems incongruous with the idea of patroling events not attended by protectees. I mean, basically, the secret service has a counterfeit money task force and a bodyguard service. Why would they be running political events outside of that context?
posted by JekPorkins at 6:51 PM on January 30, 2006
Certainly a possibility, but for the most part doesn’t law restrict the government as well as the people. Or is supposed to?
Some laws restrict the government, yes. That the government can grant further authority to itself at all is revealing with regards to the existence of governmental restraint -- It's amazing, if they can give themselves more authority, that they don't just give themselves all the authority that's constitutional to begin with.
Honest question: is interpreting this as having too much latitude in enforcement out of line?
At least given previous practice?
Not necessarily. But I think there's an important question to be asked here: Why do they want the secret service to be able to patrol events where neither the president nor any other protected individual is even anticipated to be present? Why the secret service, and not the FBI or some law enforcement agency? The secret service's mission seems incongruous with the idea of patroling events not attended by protectees. I mean, basically, the secret service has a counterfeit money task force and a bodyguard service. Why would they be running political events outside of that context?
posted by JekPorkins at 6:51 PM on January 30, 2006
JekPorkins writes "The secret service's mission seems incongruous with the idea of patroling events not attended by protectees. I mean, basically, the secret service has a counterfeit money task force and a bodyguard service. Why would they be running political events outside of that context?"
You're right, it does seem incongruous. That's what makes me nervous. We have an administration that feels there should be few, if any, limits to executive power. Then we're seeing extensive new powers being given to a security force that has few qualifications... other than having a close relationship with the executive branch. I'm always hesitant to cry "fascist," but this is creepy.
posted by brundlefly at 7:04 PM on January 30, 2006
You're right, it does seem incongruous. That's what makes me nervous. We have an administration that feels there should be few, if any, limits to executive power. Then we're seeing extensive new powers being given to a security force that has few qualifications... other than having a close relationship with the executive branch. I'm always hesitant to cry "fascist," but this is creepy.
posted by brundlefly at 7:04 PM on January 30, 2006
"Fascist". There, I said it.
posted by interrobang at 8:46 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by interrobang at 8:46 PM on January 30, 2006
Using an obscure, or new, law to give a subsection of Law Enforcement the ability to do anything at all is a sneaky way to introduce fascism to the existing laws.
This isn't about how the secret service can suddenly do something—it's about allowing the thing in itself to happen.
posted by interrobang at 8:49 PM on January 30, 2006
This isn't about how the secret service can suddenly do something—it's about allowing the thing in itself to happen.
posted by interrobang at 8:49 PM on January 30, 2006
*gasps at interrobang's boldness*
Two questions. One comment.
Question: Well, it's wakko's question. Where are all the Bush-supporters in this thread (unless you are one, Jek... couldn't tell)? Could it be that this is the real-life equivalent of the "kitten question." Is this indefensible even for the diehards? Are they starting to see the writing on the wall? ParisParamus? Are... are you there?
Comment: This had been a really interesting thread. Oh, and for what it's worth, I don't think you're a troll, Jek. You're far too willing to concede points. And, you know, civil and stuff.
Question 2: Why is this not getting more play in the various media? Am I just missing it? There's a fucking FOX News article about it, but nobody else it touching it, including the liberal blogosphere! Am I wrong about that?
posted by brundlefly at 11:01 PM on January 30, 2006
Two questions. One comment.
Question: Well, it's wakko's question. Where are all the Bush-supporters in this thread (unless you are one, Jek... couldn't tell)? Could it be that this is the real-life equivalent of the "kitten question." Is this indefensible even for the diehards? Are they starting to see the writing on the wall? ParisParamus? Are... are you there?
Comment: This had been a really interesting thread. Oh, and for what it's worth, I don't think you're a troll, Jek. You're far too willing to concede points. And, you know, civil and stuff.
Question 2: Why is this not getting more play in the various media? Am I just missing it? There's a fucking FOX News article about it, but nobody else it touching it, including the liberal blogosphere! Am I wrong about that?
posted by brundlefly at 11:01 PM on January 30, 2006
My conclusion: JekPorkins is a troll or a tool or a sockpuppet. He's either pushing an agenda, or playing dhoyt-like games. I suggest ignoring him.
I never heard of JekPorkins until relatively recently, and since I started noticing him a lot in threads, I haven't seen much of ParisParamus....coincidence?
posted by alumshubby at 8:37 AM on January 31, 2006
I never heard of JekPorkins until relatively recently, and since I started noticing him a lot in threads, I haven't seen much of ParisParamus....coincidence?
posted by alumshubby at 8:37 AM on January 31, 2006
Interesting points I hadn’t thought of by lots of folks. Thanks all!
/I wholely disagree that JekPorkins is a troll. (But then the only reason I castigate PP is because his admitted purpose is to disrupt discussion.) JekPorkins has contributed quite a bit to discussions in general and this one in particular. I think he does play the devils advocate a bit, but that’s no failing.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:41 AM on January 31, 2006
/I wholely disagree that JekPorkins is a troll. (But then the only reason I castigate PP is because his admitted purpose is to disrupt discussion.) JekPorkins has contributed quite a bit to discussions in general and this one in particular. I think he does play the devils advocate a bit, but that’s no failing.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:41 AM on January 31, 2006
Disruptive people, such as Bush opponents, can be deemed to be trespassing, arrested, and given felony convictions which will prevent them from voting. -- jellicle
I hadn't even thought about the voting rights perspective. Good point.
posted by dejah420 at 12:48 PM on January 31, 2006
I hadn't even thought about the voting rights perspective. Good point.
posted by dejah420 at 12:48 PM on January 31, 2006
« Older Print human skin | RIP, Cody the Buffalo Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:26 PM on January 30, 2006