As the article you linked to acknowledges, the furor over the creation of a new "national police force" is totally crap. The first “federal police force” dates back more than 100 years. The Uniformed Division has its origins in the White House Police Force which was created in 1922 and moved under the supervision of the Secret Service in 1930. It has gone under various names over the years, but has been known as the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service since 1977.
http://www.secretservice.gov/ud.shtml Section 202 of title 3 of the US Code currently “creates and establishes” the Uniformed Division. What the Patriot Act amendment does is repeal section 202 (and other sections in the same chapter of title 3) and move it, largely intact, to title 18, which happens to be where the provisions governing the Secret Service in general are located. In other words, it’s a clarifying/technical change, not the creation of a new entity. The likely reason (apart from organizational consistency) is simply the recognition that the functions of the Uniformed Division have, for many many years, involved more than the protection of the President and thus it doesn’t really make sense for the authorizing provision to be in the section of the law dealing with the presidency.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_se... I will acknowledge that the new law makes a few other changes in the provision creating the Uniformed Division. But these changes are essentially clarifying and/or technical. In particular, the new law specifies that the Uniformed Division’s protection extends to the President and VP elect, former presidents, the next in line to the presidency in times where there is no VP, and to visiting heads of state. These “additions” aren’t really substantive expansions in the Uniformed Division’s powers since they already are covered by the current provision spelling the powers of the Secret Service (of which the Uniformed Division is, uh, a division) in general.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/index.html Some people seem to be all hot and bogthered by a provision that allegedly allows the Secret Service to "comandeer" local police forces. Two little problems. The provision(which simply allows the Uniformed Division to utilize local law enforcement resources (with their consent and with reimbursement, which doesn’t fit my idea of “commandeering”)) is not new and only applies in very limited circumstances. Specifically, the proposed language merely provides that the Uniformed Division can utilize local law enforcement in two situations: to protect foreign missions located outside Washington DC and to protect visiting foreign officials when they visit cities other than DC. The reason for this provision is obvious – its not cost effective to fly dozens of Secret Service agents all over the country every time a foreign official visits. So, if Prince Charles visits LA, the Secret Service can ask LA police to provide security and the US government will pick up the tab. Moreover, this isn’t a new provision. The exact same authority exists today in section 208 of title 3. That section, like section 203, is being moved to title 18. Whoop-de-doo.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_se... There is one new provision that might be viewed as a substantive expansion of the law. Under current section 1752 of title 18, it is illegal to “willfully and knowingly” enter or remain in a cordoned off, posted, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where a person under the protection of the Secret Service (not just the Uniformed Division) “is or is temporarily visiting.” It also is illegal to willfully and knowingly and with intent to impede or disrupt official government functions, for someone to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted area where a protected person is present IF such conduct “in fact” impedes or disrupts. (In other words, just threatening to disrupt doesn’t cut it, you have to actually do so). Also illegal under current law: willfully or knowingly impeding entry or exit from a restricted area where a protected person is present or engaging in any act of physical violence against any person or property in a restricted area where a protected person is present.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_se... Finally under current law (section 3056(d) of title 18), its illegal to interfere with the Secret Service when they are carrying out their protective duties under section 1752. So, if the President of France visits the US and goes to the theater and he wants to go to the bathroom, the Secret Service can cordon off the bathroom and if you attempt to bust in to relieve your bladder, you can be arrested. Shocking.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/index.html What the new law does that might be considered an “expansion” of current law (but probably isn’t really) is as follows. The current law applies to areas when a protected person is present. The new law adds a section that makes it illegal to do any of the things described above in an area designated by the President as a “national event of special significance” even if a protected person isn’t actually there. By the way, the authority to designate NSSEs isn't new. It originated with Bill CLinton and existing law authorizes the secret service to participate in the planning, coordination, and implementation of security operations at NSSEs.
So, lets review: not the first federal police force; not a new federal police force; no new significant expansion in power (and to the extent there is an expansion, it applies not just to the uniformed division, but to the secret service in general as well as to any law enforcement official with authority to enforce violations of federal criminal law). Is a new “Gestapo” being created. Only in the fantasies of bloggers who don’t seem to realize that when they dream up this bullshit they undermine the credibility of those of us who are trying to point out the real problems with the Patriot Act.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
