This message was self-deleted by its author

[castnet55]

This message was self-deleted by its author (castnet55) on Tue Mar 6, 2012, 05:16 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[gateley]

1. WTF? "...virtually unanimous support..."???? How the fuck did this happen? nt

[castnet55]

2. That's a 1000 dollar question

How many times has this happened in this congress but what's wworse is the implications of it. I don't think it can be challenged until someone is arrested and convicted for it. That suxs big time.

[gateley]

4. They always seem to slip through crap like this under the radar. There is SO MUCH

going on it's impossible to stay on top of it all. Regardless, I just don't understand the support from Dems. I can almost guess off the top of my head the Representatives and Senators who voted against this. They're the few who always do the right thing.

We're screwn.

[TreasonousBastard]

60. Because possibly, just possibly...

this bill is not as hair-on-fire bad as some think it is and not the end of civilization as we know it.

It looks like it simply codifies and defines what is already law, so the worst it could be accused of is a waste of Congressional time.

[gateley]

104. You know, I always start to wonder that AFTER I've flown off the handle and knee-jerk

reacted. There are hardly any bills that are ALL good or ALL bad. Thanks for the dose of sanity.

[midnight]

118. They distracted us with a bunch of white christian men who said a lot of crazy

stuff about women.....

[dixiegrrrrl]

120. It happened because current Congressional Dems seem to be in name only, not deed.

Something to keep in mind in the voting booth.

[Dont call me Shirley]

124. It happened while the Rush media frenzy was occuring, smokescreen 101.

[onenote]

129. You need a new calendar.

The bill was introduced in January 2011. It was passed by the House in February 2011 and sent to the Senate. The Senate, which doesn't move quickly on much of anything, sent it to the Judiciary Committee, which finally got around to reporting the bill out in November 2011. Congress had some other pressing business and then a recess at the end of 2011 so, not surprisingly, this didn't get acted on until February 7. Because of a minor amendment, the bill had to go back to the House, which passed it on February 27 -- two days before Rush opened his piehole and spouted his disgusting shit.

So much for your theory.

Its a restatement of existing law with a relatively innocuous amendment to close what should be considered the Salahi loophole -- the fact that sneaking into a closed White House event that you are not authorized to attend wasn't a violation of this law until this amendment was passed (even though it would have been against the law for the Salahis to sneak into a closed dinner attended by the President outside the WH).

[graywarrior]

3. Seriously?

WTF?

[lunasun]

5. just in time for chicago this spring!

[99th_Monkey]

50. Rahm Emmanuel no doubt helped write the damn bill re: G8

I keep hearing scary stories about how Rahm is planning with his hired thugs,
aka Chicago Police, about using an elaborate array of abusive tactics to attempt
to deny citizens their constitutional rights and have some kind of semi-plausible
deniability when it comes to liability for his crimes against US citizens.

[onenote]

70. That's a demonstrably false statement.

The "damn bill" merely recodifies and makes a couple of minor changes to a law that dates back to 1982 and that has existed in essentially its current form since 2006.

But, hey, what are the Internets for but to spread hysterical and made up stories.

[Leopolds Ghost]

81. Well, if it was passed under Reagan, it must be a good bill.

After all, there were NO major protests against Reagan in his first two years of office... at least none that most people care to remember.

[onenote]

99. Well, if it was supported by Kucinich, Sanders, Waters, etc. it must be evil

[99th_Monkey]

92. Well excuse me for being vigilant about our 1st Amendment rights to assemble & speak.

I've been involved enough with Occupy to know, with no shadow of doubt,
that we're scaring the shit out of exactly the right people, i.e. the 1% are 100%
intent on preemptively crushing anything that looks like Occupy the American
Spring. You know .. the G8 thing in Chicago and such.

AKA "National Security Events" ... in the words of this horrendous piece of
shit legislation called "H.R. 347". Oh, and never-mind expressing your voice
at any national party convention, because the vague wording of H.R. 347
fits nicely with such events.

And I also know that H.R. 347 is just one more in a long string of vague "anti-
terrorist" (i.e. anti-1st Amendment) legislation that have been slipping through
the US Congress over the past decade or two, so "no big deal?". Is that what
you are saying?

And the whole shwarmy lying murderous linage runs well back into the Bush
years, with remarkably few "interruptions" to the criminal cabal take-over
that is well-underway.

And even as I type this I have to laugh, because I hope to hell I'm 100%
wrong

[onenote]

100. The concept of designated national security events dates back to 1997 and Bill Clinton

HR 347 itself is merely a technical corrections bill that fills a gap in the existing law by making it clear that it covers not only places where the President and VP are "temporarily visiting" but also the White House and the VP's residence. If HR 347 hadn't been passed the law today would be exactly as it is under HR 347 but without that additional bit of protection for the President and VP (and without another small change that actually makes it harder to prosecute someone for entering and remaining in a protected area).

So laugh away since you are 100% wrong about this bill and the motives of Congress (including such notable 1 percenters as Sanders and Kucinich) in passing it.

[think]

6. K&R

[snagglepuss]

7. WTF Yelling boo at Santorum could land you in jail for 1 year.

uneffingbelievable.

[NRaleighLiberal]

8. Isn't Friday Brunch with Bernie day on Thom Hartmann? someone must call in

and ask him specifically about this....

[ProSense]

9. Here's the link

to the original article: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/prot-m03.shtml

Here are the votes on the bill:

House Vote On Passage: H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-149

House Vote #73 (Feb 27, 2012)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2012-73

S. 1794: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
Feb 6, 2012: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1794

[geek tragedy]

11. Either people here are fixing to attack a presidential candidate

Or Joe Biden, or they haven't read the bill.

[geek tragedy]

10. Not this stupid dishonest shit again.

If the secret service blocks off an area for security purposes, people can't enter it without permission.

That's all the bill says.

Jesus Christ.

[ProSense]

12. Well,

people love a good WSWS conspiracy being pushed by Ron Paul supporters.

Run for the hills!

[MannyGoldstein]

13. One can only wonder how the Republic lasted

this long with our rights to protest intact.

Scary.

[ProSense]

15. That

One can only wonder how the Republic lasted this long with our rights to protest intact.

Scary.

...sarcastic nonsense has no impact on me. Stick to facts. Here is the text:

H.R.347 -- Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)


--H.R.347--

H.R.347



One Hundred Twelfth Congress



of the



United States of America



AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

An Act

To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
-`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever--
`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--
`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
`(c) In this section--
`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--
`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;
`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Links to the votes here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=18913

[MannyGoldstein]

16. It

had enough impact to make you respond, although you avoided my implicit question.

Night night.

[ProSense]

17. I

It

had enough impact to make you respond, although you avoided my implicit question.

Night night.

...see you're running away again after starting a hair-on-fire thread based on nonsense.

"Night night."

[MannyGoldstein]

18. I

didn't start this thread. Research your facts before posting, please.

Sleep tight. Don't let the bedbugs bite!

[ProSense]

19. Oh

"I didn't start this thread. Research your facts before posting, please. "

...you know what I'm talking about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002384377

[Leopolds Ghost]

82. Yeah, if it's socialists, it must be Ron Paul supporters n/t

[Incitatus]

20. It's strange there wasn't already a law for that

[geek tragedy]

34. Hence the unanimity of support.

Only ones opposing were three wing nuts who probably hope Obama gets shot.

[onenote]

72. It would have been strange. Except that there already was a law. The same law.

The bill that is so grossly misrepresented in the OP merely recodified a statute that has been around for 30 years (last changed in 2006). It adds the Vice President's residence to the specifically protected areas -- oooh, scary!!!!

And it adds a requirement that to be charged with unlawfully entering and remaining in a restricted area, the government has to show that the accused was there without 'lawful authority' -- something was not previously expressly required.

Maybe that's why folks like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich had no problem with this bill. Unless you think they're either stupid or evil.

[castnet55]

21. reread it

It says plainly about blocking access to or from the building as well as going inside with the intent to disrupt so I stand by the original article and I guess you can say it's all a matter of interpitation

[geek tragedy]

24. It SHOULD be illegal to interfere with the secret service when it's

protecting the president's life.

What part of that do people not understand?

[Leopolds Ghost]

83. Except that Rahm says the Secret Service will have jurisdiction over the entire event in Chicago.

[kysrsoze]

33. yeah, going inside with the intent to disrupt... just like the protestors did in Wisconsin...

I really don't want to rely on our government to do the interpretation anymore. This is just stunning.

[geek tragedy]

35. There is no free speech right to take the President hostage.

There is no free speech right to compromise his safety. Or interfere with his movement.

[limpyhobbler]

68. Nobody here thinks that.

do they?

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. No, it's called argumentum ad absurdum and is a fallacy.

BTW, apparently impeding the movement of public officials is now equated to kidnapping.

[jeff47]

39. The Wisconsin Captol building isn't under Secret Service protection

And I assure you protesting the White House in a similar manner wasn't possible before this law.

However, if you want to do the same thing at the US Capitol, this law doesn't apply.

[Leopolds Ghost]

84. Actually, peons like you aren't allowed in the Capitol any more.

Peons like you and me, although I assume most people here aren't upset about that because they grew up in the last 30 years ASSUMING that they weren't allowed in, when in fact they WERE -- until the past couple years.

Frog in pot syndrome, I calls it.

Mind you Thomas Jefferson specifically said the People's House must remain open to individual citizens, for petition or otherwise, because it is their property.

[jeff47]

106. So...what exactly do you think you gain from lying?

http://www.aoc.gov/cc/visit/index.cfm

The only restriction is making a reservation in advance. Ooooooooo.

Btw, if your goal is to actually petition the government, the Capitol building isn't a good place to do it - Virtually no representatives or senators are there. They're in the House and Senate office buildings.

[limpyhobbler]

22. Doesn't it increase the penalty of political protest though?

So instead of getting charged with the usual "disorderly conduct", protesters at these designated events can now be charged with this new law and receive a tougher fine and up to a year in jail time.

A year in jail for standing in the wrong spot holding a cardboard sign. Too harsh.

This will have the effect of of discouraging participation in protests, because it now takes a bigger personal risk to participate.

[jeff47]

23. Only if your political protest involves charging at the President, VP or a presidential candidate

It's not like they let people into the security cordon before this law.

As the law says:

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

It isn't possible to accidentally " standing in the wrong spot holding a cardboard sign" and violate this law.

[limpyhobbler]

28. I guess we'll find out in Chicago. nt

[geek tragedy]

29. Anyone who tries to charge past a Secret Service barricade belongs in jail.

There is no right or legitimate interest in threatening the safety of the President.

[limpyhobbler]

32. Of course, who says otherwise ??

[geek tragedy]

36. Everyone complaining about this bill.

Apparently they think they have the right to glitter bomb the President without legal consequences.

[limpyhobbler]

41. News flash: that already was illegal. This law goes a little beyond and

establishes penalties for being caught in a "no protest" zone around a designated event.

[jeff47]

46. No, it does not create "no protest" zones.

The bill's up there in the thread. To be charged under it, you have to breach a well established security cordon. To which you already would have been denied access before this law.

[limpyhobbler]

62. We must have both read that and came to different interpretations of the meaning somehow.

"the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area-- "

I interpret that to mean that if you are in an area, and the authorities come by and order you to disperse, saying "This is a restricted area, disperse now", and you don't leave, or if you try to leave but your way is blocked, you may be charged under the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, and receive up to one year in jail.

Do you disagree with that interpretation of the law?

[think]

64. That is the section that is very vague and is what should cause people concern

I interpret this like you do especially under a Republican president!

[jeff47]

65. You didn't read far enough.

The A) B) and C) below that point modify it.

They don't get to declare any random patch of ground restricted. So they can't come by and declare your 2 square feet restricted and arrest you.

[limpyhobbler]

66. They can restrict the area after you get inside it.

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--
`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;
`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

Item (C) is not fine.

Read it out like this:
(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

So that would probably be like the grounds of the political conventions or the WTO or G20 summits, etc.
They do need to be protected. We can't just let people run all over the summit occupying everything.

But where does it say they have to clearly restrict the area ahead of time?
They can restrict the area after you get inside it. If your exit path is blocked, or sit down and lock arms, you may be charged under the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, and face a year in jail.

Did you see something about them having to restrict the area ahead of time? If so, please do point it out.

[geek tragedy]

71. It requires knowledge or intent.

If they decide to cordon off an area, you have to move.

But, they can't arrest you for being there without giving you a chance to leave.

[limpyhobbler]

75. I don't know what's up with it.

I might be switching sides. I think there must be some good reasons for it, looking at everybody in congress that voted for it.

Those protest kids get caught in areas sometimes where they can't make an orderly exit because the crowds are too big. Sometimes they even get caught in kettle nets, or surrounded by police. I like the peaceful protesters and don't want them to get in trouble. Or they should be in trouble, but it should just be disorderly conduct or something.

There must be a good explanation for this law, despite the fact that I do not 100% understand it.
I have to learn more about it.

[geek tragedy]

78. Most of the language is already on the books.

Do asshole cops arrest people for mouthing off and then make up something about trespassing? Every day.

But, this is drafted such that accidentally being in the wrong place won't run afoul of the statute--a federal prosecutor would have to prove intent or knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing they 'd be interested in.

[jeff47]

107. Think this through

How, exactly, would it work?

You are proposing that they would declare an area restricted ad-hoc in order to abuse protesters. How, exactly, would the 20 square feet where protesters happen to be standing qualify under C? You're talking about a random spot that is not at all attached to the rest of the security cordon. You'll have a hell of a time explaining to a judge why that particular patch of ground was suddenly restricted, when the acres surrounding it were not.

The way it works in the real world is long before the event, barriers are put up, doors are locked and then the area is swept for people and "suspicious devices". Then the area is considered restricted. They don't restrict on-the-fly because you can't actually secure anything that way - you don't know what's in there.

[dixiegrrrrl]

122. "declare an area restricted ad-hoc in order to abuse protesters."

which is exactly what the NYPD did, in telling protesters to they to stand on the sidewalks
and then, once everyone obeyed, they kettled them and teargassed them.
Remember?


[IMG][/IMG]

[jeff47]

126. NYPD is not the Secret Service

NYPD was enforcing NY law. If you don't like that law, talk to NY.

This law has actually been on the books since 1971. If it could be used to do what you claim, Nixon would surely have done so. Or Reagan. Or W.

[geek tragedy]

47. Do you think there's a right to interfere with efforts to secure

the physical safety of foreign dignitaries?

[limpyhobbler]

63. No

[onenote]

97. News flash: this law doesn't change any the existing law

except that the existing law, oddly, could be interpreted as not covering the Vice President's residence. So that's been added to the definition of a restricted area.

And it adds an element of "without lawful authority" to the portion of the bill that makes it unlawful to enter or remain in a restricted area.

Whoop-de-fucking-do.

[treestar]

103. Well that hardly "screws OWS and the rest of us"

There are people going through bills passed in Congress to stir up shit - lying about the bill. Just watch. If the POTUS signs it, they'll start flaming him, too. Or he'll back off because of the hailstorm of shit they've stirred up - yet they won't give him any credit for that.

These liars are just like the right wing ones, except they don't have their own personal Faux Noise.

[Leopolds Ghost]

87. According to Rahm Emanuel, Secret Service will have jurisdiction over the entire G8 event.

So I guess anyone who mobs a barricade outside the event deserves to go to federal prison.

[think]

37. Secret Service is NOT limited to those functions:

A National Special Security Event (NSSE) is an event of national or international significance deemed by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be a potential target for terrorism or other criminal activity. These events have included summits of world leaders, meetings of international organizations, presidential nominating conventions and presidential inaugurations. NSSE designation requires federal agencies to provide full cooperation and support to ensure the safety and security of those participating in or otherwise attending the event, and the community within which the event takes place, and is typically limited to specific event sites for a specified time frame. An NSSE puts the United States Secret Service in charge of event security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in charge of intelligence, counter terrorism, hostage rescue and investigation of incidents of terrorism or other major criminal activities associated with the NSSE, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in charge of recovery management in the aftermath of terrorist or other major criminal incidents, natural disasters or other catastrophic events. NSSE designation is not a funding mechanism, and currently there is no specific federal "pot of money" to be distributed to state and local governments within whose jurisdiction NSSEs take place.

More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Special_Security_Event

Section C of this new law applies to these situations like the event coming up in Chicago in May when the G8 & G20 meet. We'll see how the law is applied at that time.

[geek tragedy]

42. There is a right to protest. There is not a right to interfere with secret service

efforts to protect people.

[jeff47]

43. Are you operating under the delusion that G8/G20 protesters weren't already being arrested/charged?

[think]

44. Are you saying protesting the G8 or G20 automatically makes you a criminal?

And that if you do protest you should expect to face a year in jail for protesting?

[geek tragedy]

54. No, so long as one doesn't try to violate security lines. nt

[jeff47]

57. This bill can't be used to create "no protest" zones.

Because you can't exclude just protesters. It has to be an established security perimeter.

So the kinds of G8/G20 protesters we're talking about are the ones trying to storm past security. Protesters in the streets who aren't trying to breach security aren't covered.

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. Which kinds of protesters are those?

There is no other kind of "no protest" zone other than the established security perimeters you mention.

[jeff47]

108. Meaning you can't use this bill against protesters and ignore non-protesters in the same area. (nt)

[castnet55]

52. Amen

Think that's what I 've been trying to get across to some here it's not just presidential events . It can cover alot of things , anything that DHS says it covers I would think.

[geek tragedy]

26. Only if they physically interfere with the secret service

If the secret service secures an area in order to protect the President's safety, it should be a crime to interfere with that.

[limpyhobbler]

38. That already is a crime.

[geek tragedy]

40. Apparently not.

This law makes it clear: there is no right to Occupy Obama.

[limpyhobbler]

53. This law expands the penalty for peaceful protest when just standing in the wrong location.

I'm 100% sure that is was already illegal to interfere with the work of the Secret Service.

And of course that is quite appropriate.

I think some people are using outlandish rhetoric to make it seem like this law only outlaws attacking the president, or charging a barricade.

But even a quick look at the section of the law will show that it makes it illegal to be standing in the wrong spot, if you accidentally find yourself standing in a designated area where you were not supposed to be.

It says if you are caught standing in a designated area, you can be charged with this law and get up to 1 year in jail.

Instead of the disorderly conduct and jaywalking charges protesters usually get. It makes it a little riskier to be out there peacefully protesting.

Forget whether it's a good thing or a bad thing for a minute. At least admit what it does.
I understand the motivation for passing the law, and there may be some legitimate reasons for passing it. But there are some side affects of it that I don't like.

[geek tragedy]

58. No, if you're accidentally in the wrong place, it's not a crime.

The crime specified is one of knowledge or intent. Also, how does one accidentally penetrate security zones?

[jeff47]

59. Read. The. Damn. Bill.

The secure area must be clearly marked.

You can not find yourself accidentally inside a security perimeter. You will have to climb over a fence, or push past barricades, or knock over security people, or break through a door.

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. This law allows them to declare an entire downtown area off-limits.

There is no other kind of security perimeter other than the type you mention, as anyone who's been to a protest in the Nation's Capital (where extended perimeters of this sort have always been thrown up in recent years) will know. The rules applied are the same used to create a security perimeter in a single building. There's no "partial" security perimeter where only non-protesters can enter. People get passes, and in the case of streets that can't be blocked off, sometimes they will even set up auto checkpoints. See, non-protesters are generally cool with being excluded with entire swathes of the downtown area, since they are (a) not upset about what's going on in this country and have no reason to protest, and/or (b) blame the protesters for "forcing" the gov't to create those extended security cordons, since the less risk of a disruptive protest, the smaller the security cordon.

[geek tragedy]

94. They could do that before. nt

[onenote]

98. +1

[treestar]

102. I knew it.

As soon as I started reading this. Geez, they look for shit to be offended about and twist it into something victimizing.

[jeff47]

14. STOP LYING

This bill does virtually nothing which you claim.

The bill says you can't charge past a Secret Service barricade.

Oooooooooooooo. Spooooooky! Clearly those evil authoritarians are out to silence us!!!!!!!

[castnet55]

25. wrong

You need to reread the bill and remember it's the government you're dealing with. It sates in pretty plain language that if you enter into a building with the intent to disrupt (glitter bomb etc) or if you block access to or from the event as in a impassable picket line or if you (throw rocks/ molitov cocktails or anything else that can cause personal injury that might be construde as a deadly weapon.)
Now think of the cops in New York and Oakland and how they've handled OWS and I can see how they can apply it to almost any function that Homeland Security wants to.

[geek tragedy]

27. Not any government building.

Only one that the secret service has secured.

Read the entire bill.

[jeff47]

30. No, I'm afraid you're the one that's wrong

First, the area or building must be cordoned off or otherwise marked. Such as the White House fence. One can not suddenly declare a park to be such an area. Or a random federal building. It also can not be applied to any random non-federal government buildings.

Second, it only applies to people/buildings/areas under Secret Service protection. So it would do nothing to OWS in New York or Oakland.

Third, The cops who "dealt with" OWS aren't Secret Service. They can't use this law at all. In fact, they're not federal officers, so there's another reason they can't use this law.

Fourth, blocking the Secret Service already got you arrested before this law. You either got some involuntary mental health care, or you got charged with other crimes.

[castnet55]

45. Po Feller

OK Jeff let me explain it this way, If a presidental canidate is giving a speech in a building . Occupy starts to chant to disrupt th event that IMHO quailfys under this new law. Now you take the conventions coming up and some folks slip in and do the same thing , that qualifys. Turn around and at the convention people try to march thru the streets close to the buildings where the convention is they too are busted under this law the G20 summitt coming up gets the same thing.
Now at on of the conventions during the protest march the polic use tear gass to disperce the crowd and low and behold rocks or a brick gets thrown. IT applies under this new law.
I'm not saying that it will happen I'm just stateing what can . Homeland security can come in and say that the area is what ver they deam it and close it down to protesting they can put a two block barrier and anyone that violates it is gone to jail.
In any event what concerns me is they are shutting things down in advance by taking away the right to protest close by where it counts.
Only time will tell what happens.

[geek tragedy]

49. Disrupting with noise isn't covered by this bill. The bill covers

people going where they're explicitly not allowed to for security reasons.

Do you want pistol-packing Teahadists to be able to crash the DNC convention without facing criminal charges?

[jeff47]

55. Read. The. Damn. Bill.

Occupy starts to chant to disrupt th event that IMHO quailfys under this new law

Would only work if they were inside the building and in the vicinity of the event....meaning they had already breached security. Also, yelling isn't sufficient to be covered by this bill.

Now you take the conventions coming up and some folks slip in and do the same thing , that qualifys

Nope.

If you slip into backstage where the candidates are, it applies. If you slip into the "regular" parts of the convention and don't block the exits from the "secure" part, it doesn't apply.

Turn around and at the convention people try to march thru the streets close to the buildings where the convention is they too are busted under this law

Are you operating under the delusion that they would not be "busted" before this law?

Also, read the damn law. "Close to" doesn't count.

Now at on of the conventions during the protest march the polic use tear gass to disperce the crowd and low and behold rocks or a brick gets thrown. IT applies under this new law.

Did you really think assaulting a federal agent would not result in an arrest before this law? Such a person would hope to only be charged under this new law - the penalty is much, much lower.

Homeland security can come in

Wrong. "Homeland Security" can't do squat with this bill. Only the Secret Service can.

say that the area is what ver they deam it and close it down to protesting they can put a two block barrier and anyone that violates it is gone to jail.

Again, wrong. They can't only close it down to protesting, because it has to be part of the security cordon. So you can't use this to create "no protest" zones and allow non-protesters in. It's all or nothing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

89. "Are you operating under the delusion that (marchers) would not be "busted" before this law?"

>>say that the area is whatever they deem it and close it down to protesting they can put a two block barrier and anyone that violates it is gone to jail.
>Again, wrong. They can't only close it down to protesting, because it has to be part of the security cordon. So you can't use this to create "no protest" zones and allow non-protesters in. It's all or nothing.

That is exactly how no-protest zones operate. The entire area is declared a security cordon and anyone living or working in the area gets passes for the day.

[jeff47]

109. Read that again, maybe you'll get it this time.

Here, let me add a word to my sentence to make it a little more clear.

So you can't use this bill to create "no protest" zones and allow non-protesters in. It's all or nothing.

[LiberalLovinLug]

125. Its all about how you read it

You choose to read it through rose colored glasses.

You assume quite a bit of liberal minded leeway in the authorities interpretations.
It is they that determine what is a "secure" part and what is a "regular" part of a convention, or what is part of the "security cordon".

And you seem to be defending the idea that if even ONE black block anarchist, or even perhaps an undercover police provocateur (which seems to be standard practice now), throws a rock in an otherwise peaceful protest - tear gas and bludgeon 'em all? Wow.

The other point is that if this is such a redundant and benign bill, why is the House even wasting their time with it with so many other pressing issues? IMO its all about the new vague wording that can be interpreted in whatever way by the law enforcement agency that feels the need to use it.

[jeff47]

127. The parts you don't like have been law since 1971

So my reading is not just an assumption of goodness and light on the part of government officials. It's also the 40+ years that the law has been in effect.

And you seem to be defending the idea that if even ONE black block anarchist, or even perhaps an undercover police provocateur (which seems to be standard practice now), throws a rock in an otherwise peaceful protest - tear gas and bludgeon 'em all?

Nope. Try reading more closely, and with less assumption of evil. I don't have sympathy for the people breaking down the barricades, because there's real danger to the people behind those barricades. Instead of thinking of it as an OWS or G8 protest, think of it as a teabagger protest. I don't want morons with firearms charging at President Obama.

The people not breaking down the barricades are exercising their Constitutional rights.

IMO its all about the new vague wording

That vague wording became law in 1971. So your opinion is noted, but facts don't seem to support it. Mostly because the wording is not new.

can be interpreted in whatever way by the law enforcement agency that feels the need to use it.

The law explicitly states that only the Secret Service can use it.

[onenote]

128. As previously explained, the reason that Congress amended the law was to close a gap

under which the President and VP were covered only when they were temporarily visiting a location and did not cover areas of the White House or the VP's residence. Think of it as the Salahi loophole -- because the Salahi's gained unauthorized entry to a restricted White House part of the White House (the area where a state dinner is held is not open to the public, duh) they couldn't be charged under the existing law (they could've been charged had the state dinner been held at some location outside the White House). With the change in the law, the next bozo to think its a good idea to sneak into a White House event without authority to be there can be charged with a felony -- and I have absolutely no problem with that.

As for why the entire provision had to be re-enacted to make this change -- its principally because the way the existing statute was organized it would have been very clumsy from a drafting standpoint to add a reference to the WH and VP's residence over and over in each section. So instead, the areas that already were covered were combined with the newly added areas under a single definition, which allows for a simpler statute. As someone who has drafted legislation in the past, I will tell you that trying to avoid a bunch of repetitious provisions is pretty common, even if that goal isn't always accomplished in the end.

[onenote]

96. Most of what you described has been covered by this same statutory provision for years

For example, Romney was given secret service protection on January 31. There was an attempt to glitter bomb him in Denver on February 8. The secret service stopped it and took the person who made the attempt into custody. HR 347 was not presented to the President for signature until March 1. Now, I don't know if the attempted glitter bomber was charged with a violation of US Code 1752 or not. What I do know is that the law was exactly the same as applied to that attempt both before March 1 as it will be after the President signs HR 1752.

[geek tragedy]

31. Also, do you think it should be legal for a mob to take

the President hostage by preventing him from leaving a building?

Or to throw Molotov cocktails at his motorcade?

[castnet55]

48. LOL

Geek you'r pretty far out there with that idea. I would hope that no one would try any such thing my friend but again time will tell how this is going to be applied to upcoming events. You shouldn't just focus on the president but instead look at all of the political events to come.

[geek tragedy]

51. The secret service isn't going to care about demonstrations at city hall. nt

[castnet55]

56. Ya just can't see the forrest for the trees

Geek you're not looking at the hole picture my friend. and it's kinda hard to explain it to someone that can't see the forrest for the trees being in the way.

[geek tragedy]

61. I can understand Internet hype. nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. It's OK to protest disruptively as long as they don't do it at an event anyone cares about.

[joshcryer]

67. Nope, this law is better than the one currently on the books:

Current law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

18 USC § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in 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;
(2) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;
(3) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(4) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2); or
(5) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by—
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if—
(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118 (e)(3); and
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.
(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.
(e) As used in this section, the term “other person protected by the Secret Service” means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection.

[castnet55]

73. Change

It now makes it a felony

[joshcryer]

74. I don't know who you are, but this is bullshit, the law has been around since 1971:

Old law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

18 USC § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in 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;
(2) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;
(3) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(4) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2); or
(5) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by—
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if—
(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118 (e)(3); and
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.
(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.
(e) As used in this section, the term “other person protected by the Secret Service” means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection.

Amended law:

`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever--
`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--
`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
`(c) In this section--
`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--
`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;
`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.

It doesn't change anything from a legal standpoint.

[Leopolds Ghost]

86. Does that make it a good law?

the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

This is the key change people are concerned about, especially in light of Rahm's very deliberate announcement in advance of this bill that the Secret Service would have ultimate jurisdiction over policing the G8 event, for instance.

[joshcryer]

93. There is no change: "such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2)"

Paragraphs (1) and (2) are the same as (B) and (C).

They just added the Vice President and "intent" which is notoriously hard to prove.

[bvar22]

111. The sponsors and authors of this bill believed that there are significant "changes",

....otherwise, they would not have written a bill that changes nothing.
They also believed that the changes were significan enough to offer this bill up for a vote
and make it NEW LAW.

Perhaps you should look a little closer.
They really don't waste their time passing LAWS that change nothing.


[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[jeff47]

115. This is Congress we're talking about.

Congress spends an awful lot of time naming things, declaring their love for motherhood and apple pie, and other insignificant crap.

In this case, other posters have thoughtfully provided both the old law and the new bill. So you can see the exact changes.

[joshcryer]

133. This is the 112th United States Congress, more importantly. The most impotent I've ever seen.

See here to see why: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002190502

[joshcryer]

132. They wanted to add intent. Have fun proving that in court.

[onenote]

69. No, Congress hasn't. The description of the bill in the OP is BS.

HR 347 essentially restates existing law with two changes: it adds the Vice President's residence to the specifically named locations entitled to protection and it adds a requirement to the existing prohibition against entering and remaining in a restricted area that such action be "without lawful authority."

It has nothing to do with Occupy, having been introduced in early 2011 long before Occupy existed.

The underlying law dates back to 1982; the provision that addresses designated events of national significance was added 6 years ago.

So this "unprecedented" attack has been around for 30 years.

How innocuous is this bill? It was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, which means that even Bernie Sanders didn't object to it. And in the House, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters and others voted for it.

I've stopped being surprised when hyperbolic, hysterical posts about the end of protest or the end of the first amendment are made without the poster making any effort to learn the substance and history of the subject they are posting about. But I haven't stopped being sad about it.

[joshcryer]

76. Clarify something? I'm seeing 1971 on findlaw:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

click notes

Is is 1971 or 1982?

[onenote]

95. You are correct

The 1971 version was narrower in that it was focused on the President. The 1982 amendment added language covering other persons protected by the Secret Service

[castnet55]

79. Interesting

Interesting commint Onenote, as I am the one that posted the original I astand in amasement that you have the goo fortune of knowing my state of mind . Let me correct you one somethings. I didn't write the article but merely reposted and the headlines got people attention as it was intended to.
With good weather right around the corner in many parts of the country I expect to see protest pick up again and I felt that many people are not aware of the possible consequences of protesting. The G8and G20 are coming up along with the conventions and times are going to be getting rough.
This new law makes some actions felonies and I thought there is a need to let others know about the government possibly preparing for a more forceful legal action against them.
I'm not interested in inciting anyone nor anything but what the heck, at least now the thought is outthere that they need to be careful at the protest and not get sucked into something that they may regret later on in life.
Yall have a good one.

[joshcryer]

80. You copy-pasted a WSWS propaganda piece without actually looking at the details yourself.

WSWS is a lying, piece of shit, evil, totalitarian, dishonest, fabricating propaganda outlet.

[JNathanK]

77. In terms of the Doomsday bill, I guess they feel states have the right to be as fascist as they want

The constitution, of course, only applies to the federal government.

[jeff47]

105. Nope

The Constitution applies to the states too. Think about it: If they didn't have to there wouldn't be search warrants.

[SidDithers]

101. wsws.org. LOL...nt

Sid

[bvar22]

110. Certainly shows what side "they" are on.

This is a demonstration of how badly the deck is stacked against us,
and how much POWER the 1% has in our government.
The message was delivered to Congress by their owners,
and every single Democrat bent over to their masters.

"The virtually unanimous passage of H.R. 347 starkly exposes the fact that, despite all the posturing, the Democrats and the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the corporate and financial oligarchy, which regarded last year’s popular protests against social inequality with a mixture of fear and hostility."

It chaps my ASS to have to STAND with an asshole like Ron Paul & 2 other "Republicans",
but if no "Democrat" will stand to oppose this,
what other option is there?
Just quietly go along with this madness?

I am looking for a statement from Senator Sanders and Rep Kucinich on this bill,
but so far, no luck. I would much rather STAND with THEM in OPPOSITION to this insanity.



Maybe we can get President Obama to VETO this attack on the 99%,
and send it back?

(Gallows Humor)



[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[ProSense]

112. Except

the OP is utter nonsense.

The bill has nothing to do with OWS, it was introduced months before, and was a slight revision to an existing law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002385100

[bvar22]

113. Hmmm...."a slight revision"?

...but significant enough to write and pass a New Law that further encroaches on Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Liberties.
I don't consider the addition of THIS clause to be "slight":
&quot C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;"

THAT is very, VERY, FRIGHTENINGLY broad for anyone paying attention.

One MORE step,
But look away everybody.
Nothing happening here.
"They're just venting a little steam."




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[ProSense]

114. I guess

...but significant enough to write and pass a New Law that further encroaches on Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Liberties.
I don't consider the addition of THIS clause to be "slight":
&quot C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;"

THAT is very, VERY, FRIGHTENINGLY broad for anyone paying attention

...I'm not easily frightened. I mean, the bill is very specific

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--
`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;
`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.

What's interesting though is how a bill introduced in early February 2011 (to update a 1971 law) is being used to spin fear related to OWS, which wasn't launched until September 2011.

It's absurd, but have at it.

[jeff47]

116. That language that terrifies you is from 1971.

From the previous version of this law, passed in 1971:

(2) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

So clearly OWS never happened, since this was already on the books. Either that, or you might be wrong on the effect of this law.

[midnight]

117. K&R

[polichick]

119. The GOP is the ugly side of the coin, but it's still one coin...

...doled out by the same powers-that-be.

[dsharp88]

121. Is this a reaction to the Gaby Giffords shooting???????

If so, it's reasonable to see why it has such overwhelming support in Congress.

[onenote]

123. No. Its a minor modification to a longstanding provision of law.

I'm sorry that I have to keep repeating this, but it seems that a lot of folks haven't read through the thread. HR 347 restates existing law, but enlarges it in one respect: at present section 1752 of title 18 of the us code covers the cordoned off, posted, or otherwise non-public restricted areas of buildings and grounds where the president and VP are "temporarily visiting." It doesn't cover cordoned off, posted, or otherwise restricted areas of the WH or VP's residence. The revised law closes that loophole and, in order to simplify the provision, it combines the existing areas covered by the law with the newly added areas under a single definition, avoiding the need to repeat everything over and over again.

That's it. I suppose if anything, it might be regarded as a reaction to the Salahi's unauthorized attendance at a WH state dinner, which wouldn't have violated current law (because it was at the WH) but would be a violation of the amended law.

[rbnyc]

130. Why yes, yes they have. nt

[DirkGently]

131. Not only is money protected speech, it's the ONLY protected speech.

[SwampG8r]

134. to all the people who are constantly going on about ron paul

even though he has zero chance og gaining any office higher than he is now....since every "democrat" voted for it and paul voted against it who was right?
paul....or the complete democratic congresscritters?
who damaged the country the most?
i am no paul lover but at least he did vote in the interests of the american people and not in favor of their masters.

[onenote]

135. actually all he did was vote against protecting the White House and VP's residence

If everyone had joined Paul in voting against HR 347, the result would be that 18 USC 1752 would still be in effect. The only difference is that it would not be expanded to cover trespass and other actions taken inside cordoned off, posted, or restricted areas of the White House or VP's residence.

Funny - I haven't seen legislation from Mr. Paul that would repeal 18 USC 1752.

[SwampG8r]

136. he is smarter than that

writing legislation leaves a paper trail of what you believe
paul prefers to wait until an outcome is known and then to "vote his conscience"
as i said i am no fan but in this case who voted right is the question and in this case and maybe in this case only he was one of 3 who voted for the people over the needs of the elites

[onenote]

137. How was voting against covering the WH and VP's residence a vote for the people?

I guess I have incorrectly assumed that people understand the legislative process.

18 USC 1752 currently is law (indeed, its been the law of the land in one form or another for over 40 years).

HR 347 proposed amending 18 USC 1752.

When a bill that would amend an existing law is defeated, it doesn't have the effect of repealing or changing in any way the underlying law. If Paul wanted to vote his conscience, he could have proposed legislation to repeal 18 USC 1752 or could have offered amendments to HR 347 that would have changed the underlying law.

Paul did nothing but vote against HR 347. He didn't make any attempt to change the underlying law or to speak out against it. All he did was vote against changing the existing law so that it would cover the WH and VP's residence - you think that "voting his conscience"?

Paul is showboating buffoon and his vote on HR 347 is prime evidence of that fact.

[SwampG8r]

138. I guess I have incorrectly assumed that

you read what i wrote

you are more interested in slamming paul than anything else
slam away
as i said i am no fan
just dont use me as the pulpit you do it from
"he did nothing but vote against it "your right, he did not, as the democratic congress delegation did, bend and spread
which is how much more than every other congressturd did? not much but something.
and since even a tiny tiny qualified positive statement about paul has you so "involved" here
nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader nader naderv nader nadernader nader nader nader nader nader nader

[onenote]

139. You are right

The Democratic members of Congress did not propose to repeal any portions of 18 USC 1752 or to otherwise suggest other changes in HR 347.

In that regard, the Democratic members of Congress and Ron Paul behaved identically. The only difference is that the Democratic members did vote to protect te WH and VP's residence and Ron Paul voted against doing that.

You apparently think that while Ron Paul is nothing to write home about (and I agree), he did something good by voting against protecting the WH and the VP's residence. On that point, I will respectfully disagree.