The fact that we have increasingly done what you propose — make lots of things illegal so that everybody is guilty of a crime and let the prosecutors decide who goes to jail — does mean it is a good thing.

That is almost the definition of a police state — pass laws that makes everybody a criminal and then just pick and choose who to throw in jail based on whim.

“The FBI has common sense … you sound like an 8th grader…” No, I just have spent a good part of my career cleaning up after people who haven’t shown that good sense you claim. You want to talk about common sense? Google on Fred Whitehurst, where the FBI did its best to destroy a good man’s reputation in order to cover up its poor quality control. There’s a reason they ended up paying Fred a million bucks — and it wasn’t because he was wrong. Or the FBI’s “common sense” in the handling of Richard Jewell in the Atlanta bombing. You think we should apply this kind of common sense to everybody. Or the treatment of Hatfield in the anthrax case. Or, or, or.

Abandoning your civil liberties to law enforcement on the grounds that their “common sense” should substitute for good law and due process is not a way to ensure liberty in this country.

“So make the marks where everyone can see it” Fine. Put that in the law. Then get back to me.

“Not all conservatives believe that the best way to combat terrorism is to establish a police state.”

That is one of the most irresponsible statements ever. Protecting restricted areas in government is no where near a police state. Its wisdom. We do make exceptions all the time, even if its not written in the law. People that inadvertantly violate our air space are NOT shot down, even though the law doesn’t distinguish between those that do it deliberatly and those that don’t. The same goes with this law. The FBI does have common sense, no matter how many libs want to trash it. You make it sound like a child on an 8th grade field trip that wonders into the wrong room will get hauled away to jail.

“It would seem that a high security area would be marked well enough…”
Another assumption

So make the marks where everyone can see it and end this debate for good. Then violaters will be without excuse.

“It would seem that a high security area would be marked well enough…”
Another assumption.

Sure. If the law were written that people who “purposefully” broke the law after being warned off of a “well marked” area, then that is one thing. The *fact* however, is that these areas are often not marked, and that people inadvertently go into them. The law would make these people felons.

One might as well say we should be shooting down all the civil aircraft that inadvertently wander into secure air space.

Here’s an example I ran into while on Pennsylvania Ave. a few years ago. The area was normally completely open to visitors. However, it is closed as a “high security” area when the President or other official flies into the White House by helicopter. I and an associate were eating lunch in the area, and had been overlooked when the area was first evacuated. We were not noticed, and did not notice that the area was secured, until an FBI agent rousted us. Happily, the person I was eating lunch with was also an FBI agent, but by this law, I should be a felon.

You make the assumption that the only people who would be liable as felons are protestors. Leaving aside your distaste for such expression, the fact is that they are not the only people who would be liable for prosecution. Many well-intentioned, and otherwise innocent people would be as well.

And don’t, please, beg off to prosecutorial discretion. That reduces the nation to a country in which there are no innocent, only the untargeted. Tacitus was right when he wrote, 2000 years ago “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

Not all conservatives believe that the best way to combat terrorism is to establish a police state.

The same is true with these thoughtless blanket laws that make everything felonies. The *fact* is that it is trivially easy to inadvertently break a rule like that, and anybody who has spent a lot of time in the halls of government as a staffer or equivalent in DC knows it. It’s easy to pretend this is not so if you don’t work there, or if you are in a position where you have your staffers do all your work, but in the real world, blanket statements that don’t recognize practical considerations do a lot more harm than good.

It is a big deal. Do not step into a restricted area, do not commit a felony, and you have no problem. Security is a vital issue. Just follow the law and stay out of prison. Want to protest in a restricted area, oh well.