ACLU Up and Arms Over New Patriot Act Provision
Posted on January 30, 2006
A new provision tucked into the Patriot Act bill now before Congress would allow authorities to haul demonstrators at any “special event of national significance” away to jail on felony charges if they are caught breaching a security perimeter.
Sen. Arlen Specter , R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sponsored the measure, which would extend the authority of the Secret Service to 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.
The measure has civil libertarians protesting what they say is yet another power grab for the executive branch and one more loss for free speech.
“It’s definitely problematic and chilling,” said Lisa Graves, senior counsel for legislative strategy at the American Civil Liberties Union , which has written letters to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, pointing out that the provision wasn’t subject to hearings or open debate.
This isn’t suprising news, but lets not kid ourselves, the ACLU are not just against this provision, they are against the entire Patriot Act. I don’t know what is wrong with Bob Barr, but the ACLU have successfully turned him into a tool, touting him out every chance they get in hopes of convincing Conservatives that Bush is out to strip them of their rights, and put us into a police state.
But not everyone agrees that rights are being trampled on by the additional provision. In fact, some say the ACLU is the problem when it comes to protecting national security.
Rocco DiPippo, a freelance writer for the conservative FrontPageMagazine.com and editor of The Autonomist Web log , said the ACLU has fought the government every step of the way over security measures following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
“Its opposition to Specter’s reasonable proposal is simply more of the same,” he said. “I can understand the concern that we should be suspicious of government, but we shouldn’t adopt this mindset: ‘government is evil.’ This is just more hatred of (President) Bush.”
Amen to that! If it comes to National Security you can bet the ACLU will be against it! If you can name one effort by the government to protect America that the ACLU has not opposed I would be suprised. Yet they are quick to defend the very enemy we are fighting.
Under current law, the Secret Service can arrest anyone for breaching restricted areas where the president or a protected official is or will be visiting, but the new provision would allow such arrests even after those VIPs have left the premises of any designated “special event of national significance.” The provision would increase the maximum penalty for such an infraction from six months to one year in jail.
In a post-Sept. 11 world many non-political events have been designated National Special Security Events and would rise to the higher status. Examples of possible NSSEs are the Olympics or the Super Bowl. In 2004, the presidential inaugural balls and President Ronald Reagan’s June funeral procession in Washington, D.C., were designated NSSEs.
According to government sources with knowledge of the legislation, Secret Service protection and law enforcement authority would extend beyond protecting a specific person, rather the event itself would become the “protectee.”
Currently, non-violent demonstrators who enter restricted areas at such events previously would be arrested and charged by local law enforcement with simple trespassing, said Graves. Under the provision included in the new law, they will be charged with felonies by the Secret Service.
Sounds like good common sense to me. Many of these so called “peaceful” protesters have shown themselves to be quite dangerous, and extending protection beyond VIP’s to the general public seems like a natural step in the right direction. The provision is not stopping anyone from protesting or speaking out. The ACLU have sued the FBI over the Patriot Act, and have just recently brought a lawsuit against another provision that bars foreign aliens that endorse or espouse terrorist activity. They attack it piece by piece any chance they get. The ACLU have no concern for the safety of America, and they will use any scare tactic they can to gain your dollar. What we should really fear is how “Safe and Free” America would be if the ACLU had its way.
Debra Burlingame has an excellent post on this today at Opinion Journal
Another example of opportunistic coverage concerns the Patriot Act’s “library provision.” News reports have given plenty of ink and airtime to the ACLU’s unsupported claims that the government has abused this important records provision. But how many Americans know that several of the hijackers repeatedly accessed computers at public libraries in New Jersey and Florida, using personal Internet accounts to carry out the conspiracy? Al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi logged on four times at a college library in New Jersey where they purchased airline tickets for AA 77 and later confirmed their reservations on Aug. 30. In light of this, it is ridiculous to suggest that the Justice Department has the time, resources or interest in “investigating the reading habits of law abiding citizens.”
The public has listened to years of stinging revelations detailing how the government tied its own hands in stopping the devastating attacks of September 11. It is an irresponsible violation of the public trust for members of Congress to weaken the Patriot Act or jeopardize the NSA terrorist surveillance program because of the same illusory theories that cost us so dearly before, or worse, for rank partisan advantage. If they do, and our country sustains yet another catastrophic attack that these antiterrorism tools could have prevented, the phrase “connect the dots” will resonate again–but this time it will refer to the trail of innocent American blood which leads directly to the Senate floor.
Others:
Captain’s Quarters
In The Bullpen
Also read this Op-Ed by Phillip Bobbitt
Michelle Malkin
» Filed Under ACLU, Border Control/Homeland Security, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
9 Responses to “ACLU Up and Arms Over New Patriot Act Provision”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Currently, non-violent demonstrators who enter restricted areas…
They are already subject to arrest by local authorities. So what is the problem. The Federal Government decides to up the ante, making it a Federal crime and a felony to enter an already RESTRICTED AREA.
The goal of most of these demonstators is not the noble and cherished right to protest and express disagreement. Demonstators now consider disruption, intrusion, and attempts to shut down events as forms of legitimate protest and dissent. They want to enjoy their rights while vilating the rights of others.
Now they want to complain further. Me thinks the ACLU and the disrupters are really off on some type of induced hallucigenic tangent.
It’s a horrible law. As a person who lived in Washington, DC, I have accidentally wandered into restricted areas on many occasions — particularly on Pennsylvania Ave. These restricted areas appear and disappear by the minute depending on who is leaving or arriving or moving. Those of us who work in the area often don’t get the memo. Often there is no memo.
A felony conviction is a big deal. You lose your right to vote, to own a firearm, it destroys your career, makes you unemployable, etc. At worst it should be a misdemeanor unless there is something else going on — and that something else would entail the felony, not just wandering into the wrong place at the wrong time.
There is no particular reason to turn the US into a police state where everything is a felony.
I love this site almost as much as my own. However, just because Bush pushes a law through Congress doesn’t mean it’s a good one. The Patriot Act is at best a redundant recitation of fourth and fourteenth amendment due process law established over the past two hundred years. At best, it’s a heavy handed attemt to short-circuit time-tested statutory due process protections. The addition cited by the ACLU seems over the top even by the most conservative standards.
A felony conviction is a big deal. You lose your right to vote, to own a firearm, it destroys your career, makes you unemployable, etc…
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.
The problem with these “do not…” statements is that they ignore practical reality. One might as well make all campaign finance technical violations felonies. They are not, because if you did so, then *every* politician would be a felon, no matter how hard they tried to be in compliance.
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.
And for those who purposefully break this law it will be obvious. I don’t understand where you are coming from Bill, it would seem that a high security area would be marked well enough for common sense. If they are not, then they should be, and I would suggest fixing that as the problem. If it is some kind of hard to see line, then I will agree with you until they fix that problem.
Well, you have already made some caveats. “Those who purposefully break the law..” That’s a lot different than “Those who break the law” isn’t it?
“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.
Until I read cases of civilians being hauled away to prison after “unknowingly” entering a restricted area, I’d say its an assumption that every single person that “oops” will get slapped with a felony.
“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.
Once again, I suggest you take a look at history — American history– of the abuse of sweeping legislation that makes crimes of innocent things under the assumption that prosecutorial discretion will take the place of writing good law. You think it’s OK to make a law that turns innocent people into felons on the grounds that the police will decide who should and should not be prosecuted — after all, *all* will be guilty, the only difference is in who is prosecuted.
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.