** PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY **
Outside of a single article in the Post, this alarming threat to protesters has
gone almost *entirely* un-noticed in both the print and broadcast media --
apparently lost in the uproar over NSA surveillance and the fight over those
better known provisions of the PATRIOT Act. (The Post piece has turned up
on a number of websites, but that's pretty much it.)
In light of the appalling track record of Secret Service abuses that have
already been documented over the past 4+ years, these expanded powers
have to be considered a *clear and present danger* to the rights of every
person who might ever want to publicly express dissent during an event
covered by this provision.
The letter from the ACLU (see below) is written in measured language --
but the scenarios it lays out are extremely disturbing. As someone who
has carried vehement protest signs in fairly close proximity to some
previous occupants of the White House, I can hardly find the words
to express my outrage over this despicable attempt to trample on our
constitutional rights.
Craig Gingold
(near) Midpines CA
++++++++++++++++++++++++
WASHINGTON POST
ACLU Opposes Patriot Act Provision
Secret Service's Reach Questioned
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 13, 2005; A03
The American Civil Liberties Union raised objections yesterday to a
little-noticed provision of the latest version of the USA Patriot
Act bill,
arguing that it would give the Secret Service wider latitude to
charge
protesters accused of disrupting major events including political
conventions and the Olympics.
But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who sponsored the provisions, and
his
aides said the concerns are misguided. The changes are meant to
clear
up legal confusion about the Secret Service's role at major events
and
to ensure that venues are fully secure before the president or
other top
officials arrive, they said.
"I'm a little surprised at the concern," Specter said in an
interview,
adding later, "The venue needs to be subject to their jurisdiction
to
make
sure it's okay."
The measure is the latest point of contention in a GOP-approved
conference bill that would make permanent most parts of the Patriot
Act
anti-terrorism law and would renew two other provisions for four
years.
A bipartisan group has vowed to fight the proposal, and several
lawmakers proposed legislation yesterday that would give Congress
an
additional three months to negotiate.
The Secret Service is authorized to charge suspects with breaching
security or disruptive behavior at National Special Security
Events, but
only if the president or another person under the protection of the
service is in attendance, according to a legislative summary.
The bill adds language prohibiting people from "willfully and
knowingly"
entering a restricted area "where the President or other person
protected
by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." The
measure
also applies to security breaches "in conjunction with an event
designated
as a special event of national significance," according to the bill.
Penalties for such violations would increase from six months to a
year
in
prison.
To the ACLU, the changes would open the door to even tighter
security
restrictions at major events and would subject protesters to
harassment
from federal law enforcement officers. The Bush administration has
come under sharp criticism from liberal and civil-liberties groups
for
disputed arrests and security measures at presidential events.
"It's cementing the trend of the Secret Service basically acting to
arrest
or harass or control dissenters, and now not just at presidential
events
but at other events," said Timothy H. Edgar, the ACLU's national
security counsel.
But Specter and his aides said the first change is meant to close a
loophole in current law, whereas the second is aimed at making clear
that the Secret Service has authority at major events as outlined
in a
Clinton-era presidential directive.
A Secret Service spokesman declined to comment on the issue
because
it involves pending legislation.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/22670leg20051212.html
ACLU Letter to the Senate Regarding the Secret Service Provision
in the USA PATRIOT Act
Hon. Patrick Leahy
Ranking Member
Senate Judiciary Committee
Dirksen 152
Washington, DC 20505
Dear Chairman Specter and Senator Leahy:
On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union and its more than
550,000
members, we are writing to call to your attention a little-noticed
provision
in the
Conference Report on H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act Improvement
and
Reauthorization Act, that could pose a significant danger to free
speech.
These changes are buried in title VI of the Conference Report, the
"Secret Service
Authorization and Technical Modification Act of 2005," which was not a
part of
either the House or the Senate version of the bill. Despite its title,
the
new language
does not merely make technical corrections, but rather makes major
changes to the
criminal statutes administered by the Secret Service that could
seriously
damage the
free speech rights of all Americans.
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.
Even under current law, the Secret Service has participated in
harassment of
individuals who have appeared at taxpayer-funded forums with the
President if
they are perceived to disagree with the administration's position. For
example,
on March 21, 2005, two Denver students were expelled from a "town
hall" forum
with President Bush because they had an anti-war bumper sticker on
their car.
The students had obtained tickets from their Congressman. Officials,
including an
official who identified himself as a Secret Service agent, told the
students
that the
event was limited to audience members who shared the President's
views and
they would have to leave, even if they had no intentions of disrupting
the
event.
Apparently it made no difference that the topic of the forum was Social
Security
reform, not the war in Iraq. Similar incidents have occurred at
Presidential visits
throughout the country.
Expanding 18 U.S.C. § 1752 could seriously worsen the impact on free
speech of
these heavy handed tactics. The amendment would allow the Secret
Service to
cordon off areas and enforce exclusion zones at any event deemed a
"special event
of national significance," even if no Secret Service protectee were
scheduled to
speak or attend. Such an expansion could have a dire impact on free
speech.
Consider these hypothetical examples:
The Secret Service declares a four-day international population
conference
sponsored by the UN an "event of national significance." The
President
speaks one evening. Anti-abortion groups plan peaceful protests,
including a
candlelight vigil. Under current law, the Secret Service can
arrest
anyone if
they enter a protected zone at the venue for the Presidential
speech,
while
other security issues would be covered by local trespass statutes.
If
the bill
passes, the Secret Service could shut down areas throughout the
conference
and arrest any protester who violates the zone.
The Secret Service declares a four-day summit on the war in Iraq in
Chicago
to be an "event of national significance." While the Secretary of
Defense is
scheduled to speak, he will only be present for one event.
Protesters
plan to
engage in nonviolent and non-disruptive, silent "street theater."
Under
current
law, the Secret Service could arrest the protesters if they enter a
protected
zone during the event at which the official is speaking, but
otherwise
the event
would be governed by local trespass statutes. If the bill passes,
the
Secret
Service could impose exclusion zones during the entire conference.
Any changes to the Secret Service's authority should not be enacted
without
hearings on the impact to free speech of its abuse of its existing
authority. They
certainly should not be included without debate in a Conference Report
on the
reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office
Timothy H. Edgar
National Security Policy Counsel
============================================================
====
New Pacifica Working Group
http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica
'Save Our Stations!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NewPacifica-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/