So, Bush's bodyguards are bucking for a bigger bubble

[bigtree]

Secret Service Proposes PATRIOT Act Provisions

http://eatthestate.org/10-11/SecretServiceProposes.htm

Tim Edgars, National Security Policy Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, claims that the Secret Service has misled Senator Arlen Specter, resulting in the inclusion of unconstitutional provisions into the Conference Committee report on the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. The ACLU claims that they were included in the report after the Secret Service convinced Senator Specter that the proposed provisions would not change current federal law.

The issue revolves around the Secret Service's ability to create "exclusionary zones" around national events. Current US law allows the agency to create these restricted zones whenever the President is expected to attend a public event. Proposed additions to the USA Patriot Act would allow the Secret Service to impose these restrictions around any "event of national significance," regardless of whether the Commander In Chief is expected to be in attendance. The language in the Conference Committee report concerning "exclusionary zones" is so vague that it represents an enormous loophole which federal authorities could easily exploit for political purposes.

According to ACLU attorney Tim Edgars, "The Secret Service went to Senator Arlen Specter, who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and persuaded him that they needed this change, claimed that it was a minor technical change ... and without any hearing or debate or review of this, Senator Specter got this bill included in the Patriot Act report. And of course, that Patriot Act reauthorization bill is controversial for all sorts of reasons."

The ACLU opposes these proposals on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment. ACLU lawyers have already filed lawsuits against the US government for denying people entrance to Bush's public appearances, sweeping up protesters, and for conducting unwarranted surveillance on its own citizens. People have been turned away from political events for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts and pro-Kerry bumper stickers. These incidents have been clear examples of political repression on the part of the government and they should not be tolerated by the American people. Now the possibility exists that the Secret Service could be given the power to follow these kinds of exclusionary practices without limitation. Attorneys from the ACLU are worried that the legislation could potentially allow federal agents to impose restricted areas at public sporting events, music concerts or festivals.

article: http://eatthestate.org/10-11/SecretServiceProposes.htm


related:

New Patriot Act Provision Creates Tighter Barrier to Officials at Public Events
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183147,00.html

The Senate voted 95-1 Thursday night to extend the current law unchanged through March 10 and give negotiators more time to reach a deal. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., a longtime opponent of the Patriot Act, cast the sole vote against the extension.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act

Protesters weren't allowed anywhere near the Grand Ole Opry House, where President Bush spoke
http://www.fairviewobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/NEWS01/602020404

Pentagon spy list classifies UC Santa Cruz anti-war protest as "credible threat"
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/7511

Crawford protest vigil this weekend Feb. 4-5
http://wacofriendsofpeace.blogspot.com/2006/02/crawford-protest-vigil-this-weekend.html

[napi21]

1. Not only THAT! It creats a National Secret Service Police Unit!

I first heard about this 3 days ago, and I FREAKED!

I've told everyone I know about this, and the first thing they say is "It reminds me of Germany...a LONG time ago!!!!

[onenote]

6. It doesn't create anything new. Now tell everyone you know that.

The uniformed division of the secret service has existed in one form or another for decades. The act simply moves the provision that created the UD to the same portion of the United States Code as the provision that deals with the rest of the secret service. Here is a link to a detailed discussion that debunks the totally bogus notion that this law creates some new secret service unit:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=201297#209673

[OneBlueSky]

2. BushCo is systematically stripping US citizens of each and every . . .

one of the rights they are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights . . . this country damn well better wake up PDQ, before we all find ourselves being hauled off to "re-education" camps -- or worse . . . (you know, the camps that Halliburton just got a huge contract to start building) . . .

[Benhurst]

3. RIghts?

The is BushAmerica. Mere citizens have no rights?

How pre-December 12, 2000.

[fooj]

4. WTF?

The Secret Service is meant to protect the President and his family. Their purpose is not to create "exclusionary zones" for Americans. They are not to be used as a tool for Little Lord Pissypant's propaganda. This is bullshit. The Secret Service WORKS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
WE PAY THEIR FUCKING SALARIES!

Peace.

[givemebackmycountry]

5. I love this quote from the Nashville story....

I used to live in Nashville and I loved it despite being from NYC and completely out of my element.
Tennessee is one beautiful state.

This quote about sums it up:

Some passing motorists honked their car horns in support.
Others honked and made obscene gestures. One young man leaned out of a car window and yelled, "Bush rules! Bush, baby, yeah!"

Bush rules.
Well you see...

That's the fucking problem!!!

[Cleita]

7. It seems to me that if they are making alll the changes

for the office of President, extending powers, creating these extraordinary security measures surrounding the President, and putting the President above any accountability for his actions, they have no intention of leaving in 2009. I doubt if they would risk an election where a Democrat could possibly win and gain all these powers.

It's time to start demanding impeachment and resignation of this President loudly and without relenting in the pressure before this happens.

[onenote]

8. the aclu is about 8 years late on this -- it started under Clinton

The designation of events of national significance for special protection measures was inititated by President Bill Clinton in 1998 with the issuance of presidential Decision Direction Number 62. Since 1999, the Secret Service has led federal security operations at around 14 NSSEs, including the 2000 and 2004 Republican and Democratic National Conventions, the 2001 and 2005 Presidential Inaugurations, the 2001 United Nations General Assembly, the G-8 Summit in Georgia, the World Economic Forum meeting in DC,Reagan's funeral, the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah and Super Bowl XXXVI in New Orleans.

onenote

[bigtree]

9. the provision has been broadened

"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."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/22670leg20051212.html

[onenote]

10. I'll try again

The authority to designate an event as an NSSE even though no protected person is attending originated with Presidential Decision Directive 62 issued by Pres. Bill Clinton in 1998. The Secret Service has played an integral role in coordinating security efforts at events designated as NSSEs (whether or not a protected person is present). Moreover, current law expressly makes it unlawful for anyone to interfere with the Secret Service in the exercise of their duties, which means if they order you out of an area, and you don't leave, you've broken the law. Notwithstanding what the ACLU is now saying, the new law isn't a practical extension of anything. It does make explicit in the law the Secret Service's authority with resepct to NSSEs, but its hard to see where it will result in any practical difference in the way things have been handled since 1998. Here are a couple of links for more information:

http://www.secretservice.gov/nsse.shtml
http://www.aaaah.org/wiki/en/na/National%20Special%20Security%20Event.htm

onenote

[bigtree]

11. I don't agree onenote

neither does the ACLU.

They recognize the broad authority granted in the statute, but they believe that Secret Service power to enact ‘exclusion zones’ even without the attendance of the president or other Secret Service protectee will curtail the free speech rights of protesters.

ACLU:

"If the bill passes, the Secret Service could shut down areas throughout the conference and arrest any pro-life protester who violates the zone for a felony. This could happen even at times when the president is not speaking."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/22689prs20051212.html

Is that okay with you, or do you believe this won't happen? That's the crux of their argument about this provision in the Patriot Act which is on the docket for extension.

[onenote]

12. my point is that it could happen whether or not the law passes

Under already existing authority, the president (directly or by delegated authority) can designate any event they want as an NSSE even if no protected person is in attendance. Once the event is designated as an NSSE, the Secret Service then coordinates security. (This already has happened at a number of events, including at least one Super Bowl 36 and the Olympics. If the Secret Service sets up a security perimeter at such an event and you try to enter notwithstanding their telling you not to, you can be arrested for interfering the the Secret Service in the conduct of their duties. If the ACLU want to object to the change in the law...fine. But even without it passing, exactly what they say they fear could happen.

Do I believe it won't happen? Well, it has happened yet, even though it could. Might it happen? Sure, but that's the case whether the law is changed or not.

Finally, if this provision is of such great concern, why isn't it one of the provisions Russ Feingold is demanding be changed?


onenote