16 replies to this topic

[Savage Beatings]

Anybody here upset at all that almost all of Congress together with the President (totally bi-partisan) have passed and signed HR 347?  This bill gives the Secret Service the power to outlaw (as a felony offense) free speech protests in their presence at their own discretion.  This goes way beyond setting up their little no-protest zones.

How interesting that Democrats and Repulicans, who can't ever agree on ANYTHING, are fianlly able to come together in a spirit of cooperation to totally SNICKERS us all over.  Maybe we too can come together and tell them all to shove it!

Anyone?  

[Savage Beatings]

Here's a link to the bill.  Short but sweet.

[bushwacked]

I remember reading this on politicalfact.....

Quote

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 was signed by Obama on March 8, 2012. The law is filled with legalese that gives only hints of its potential reach. A summary on THOMAS, the database run by the Library of Congress, suggests the law puts up restrictions for buildings when the president or anyone else protected by the Secret Service is nearby. It says the law:

Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.

The punishment would be a fine or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if it involves a weapon or results in "significant bodily injury." For lesser offenses, the punishment could be a fine and imprisonment for not more than one year.

The critics’ concerns

So what is Napolitano concerned about? Here’s an excerpt from his interview with Fox News’ Eric Bolling. (Napolitano didn’t respond to our interview request made through his website.)

"This is not like a traffic ticket," Napolitano said. "For standing and protesting, the type of thing that for 230 years Americans took for granted because it was protected by the First Amendment - 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech' – has actually been abridged. By legislation the president signed last Thursday, supported overwhelmingly by both parties, with very very little public debate and very little debate in Congress, basically allows Secret Service agents to decide where there are ‘no-free-speech zones’ …. And anybody by the Secret Service, protected by the Secret Service, can ask those agents to ban protests wherever they are. So I can think of three violations (of constitutional protections): speech violations, association violations, the right to petition the government for a redress of your grievances. What good is free speech if the people in the government are so far away from you that they can't hear you?"

The ACLU expressed concerns about the bill as well, but in a more measured fashion.

In a blog post, Gabe Rottman, a legislative counsel and policy advisor in the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, wrote that "it's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures."

Rottman added, "Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU. We will monitor the implementation of H.R. 347 for any abuse or misuse. … Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on how this law will be interpreted and used by law enforcement — especially in light of the coming elections."

It seems to me that Napolitano is doing some serious grandstanding, and if this only covers areas of "heightened Secret Service security measures,"  it doesn't seem to be a big deal.  Furthermore, the ACLU sheds light on every potential breach of civil liberty like PETA does on animals and the NRA on gun rights.   If the ACLU seemingly only has minor concerns related to potential abuses in the interpretation and enforcement; it's hard for me to get too excited for the possibility of this legislation totally SNICKERSING us all over

[Clubfoothead]

I was up in arms.  Then I read the second page and got over it.

[The Irish Doggy]

If this bill was the only thing our leg and exec. branches had done recently, I probably wouldn't pay it any mind.  However, I am very disturbed by the pattern of increasing restrictions upon our liberties and I think the fed gov need a swift kick in the ass on that topic.  Unfortunately neither Romney nor Obama will do that, and too many citizens take the "I have nothing to hide" mentality to be upset.

Edited by The Irish Doggy, 18 April 2012 - 11:06 AM.

[Clubfoothead]

The Irish Doggy, on 18 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

and too many citizens take the "I have nothing to hide" mentality to be upset.

That's horse$hit.  Nobody enjoys a peaceful protest more than I do.  You are just going to have to temporarily take a break or move the protest down the street for a bit while the secret service is busy.  Nobody's rigts are being trampled.

[godtomsatan]

The Irish Doggy, on 18 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

If this bill was the only thing our leg and exec. branches had done recently, I probably wouldn't pay it any mind.  However, I am very disturbed by the pattern of increasing restrictions upon our liberties and I think the fed gov need a swift kick in the ass on that topic.  Unfortunately neither Romney nor Obama will do that, and too many citizens take the "I have nothing to hide" mentality to be upset.

Examples please.

And you forget the basic fact that there are more of "us" than there are of "them", and if enough people want to protest, they will protest.

Edited by godtomsatan, 18 April 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[delusions of grandeur]

godtomsatan, on 18 April 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Examples please.

And you forget the basic fact that there are more of "us" than there are of "them", and if enough people want to protest, they will protest.

Examples? How about the renewal of the Patroit Act (or the repeal-the-4th-amendment act), NDAA that allows you to be indefintely detained without trial or due process (only suspicion is needed), SOPA/ACTA or whatever it is they call it now to try to take control of the internet, the ability to assassinate US citizens if they're believed to be a "threat"... That pretty much covers the incredibly dangerous precedents to your liberty...

And I absolutely agree that it's because peopel think "I don't have anything to hide".. Even if you trust the current administration to not abuse that, will you trust that it won't be abused when someone really corrupt comes into power? Because with the way they're willnigly handing over our rights, I'm guessing the rest of the corrupt politicians aren't exactly going to stand in their way...

[godtomsatan]

delusions of granduer, on 18 April 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Examples? How about the renewal of the Patroit Act (or the repeal-the-4th-amendment act), NDAA that allows you to be indefintely detained without trial or due process (only suspicion is needed), SOPA/ACTA or whatever it is they call it now to try to take control of the internet, the ability to assassinate US citizens if they're believed to be a "threat"... That pretty much covers the incredibly dangerous precedents to your liberty...

And yet it's cool if a six-year old girl is handcuffed by police?

[delusions of grandeur]

godtomsatan, on 18 April 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

And yet it's cool if a six-year old girl is handcuffed by police?

Right, because humanely restraining a child who won't calm down and has already injured someone throwing things, is clearly on par with spying on, indefinitely detaining and even assassinating american citizens without due process

Edited by delusions of granduer, 18 April 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[godtomsatan]

delusions of granduer, on 18 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Right, because humanely restraining a child who won't calm down and has already injured someone throwing things, is clearly on par with spying on, indefinitely detaining and even assassinating american citizens without due process

I just don't understand why you have this grand opposition to the theoretical principles being violated by legislation, but shrug your shoulders when provided with an individual example of over-authoritative behavior by people with "power".

[jetsfan]

[delusions of grandeur]

godtomsatan, on 18 April 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

I just don't understand why you have this grand opposition to the theoretical principles being violated by legislation, but shrug your shoulders when provided with an individual example of over-authoritative behavior by people with "power".

Please leave this in the other thread, because you stil lhaven't said how the police should have responded to a girl injuring someone and potentially more by throwing things and turning over a book case, and refusing to calm down... It doesn't matter what age you are, getting cuffed is going to be the minimum if you're out in public doing that.

So yes, I'm far more concerned about giving authority to police and agencies to not have to follow due process and the constitution, just needing "suspicion", than police using BY FAR the most humane means they could to stop a situation that could get more people injured with her violent tantrum. I can't believe I'm even still debating this...

Edited by delusions of granduer, 18 April 2012 - 04:29 PM.

[Clubfoothead]

delusions of granduer, on 18 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

spying on, indefinitely detaining and even assassinating american citizens without due process

You should try reading HR 347.

[bushwacked]

Again, If you are actually more outraged than the ACLU, it might be time to recalibrate your fight for liberty and justice radar....just saying.

[delusions of grandeur]

Clubfoothead, on 18 April 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

You should try reading HR 347.

My reply was to the larger acts stripping our liberties, as Irish Doggy said... If it was just this act, it would be hardly outrageous, but every time you turn around there are more of these acts providing precedence to ignore due process and constitutional rights. Perhaps you should try reading the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, ACTA, etc...

Again, to be clear, HR 347 is not that big of a concern to me. They've been pushing protestors into designated areas for years, so no, you're not going to find a lot of outrage over just that.

[delusions of grandeur]

bushwacked, on 18 April 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Again, If you are actually more outraged than the ACLU, it might be time to recalibrate your fight for liberty and justice radar....just saying.

The ACLU is obviously taking a wait-and-see approach, not knowing how egregiously the law might be used, but they do pose some significant concerns if you read the full article on their website, such as being able to classify with much discretion "big events" that they can consider non-protest zones, along with easier convictions to unknowing law-breakers.

Outraged? Not so much over this, as I don't like all the precedents that all of these different acts allow for to give the government full discretion and control, without any of our constitutionally-guaranteed safeguards paid any mind to... The principle and precedents being set are far more disturbing than the acts themselves.

Edited by delusions of granduer, 18 April 2012 - 04:59 PM.