The so-called Gang of 8*immigration reform amnesty bill, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, is bad enough, given that:
Its total costs are estimated to be $6.3 trillion (!).
Two amendments acknowledging same-sex marriage were recently added to the bill by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
* Gang of 8 refers to the four Republicans and four Democrats who are sponsors of the bill. They are Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)
But there is something even worse, something downright sinister, hidden in the 844-page bill: a national biometric database of every adult in the United States.
Biometrics refers to the identification of humans by distinctive measurable characteristics, such as iris scan, DNA or fingerprint.
The immigration reform measure the Senate began debating yesterday would create a national biometric database of virtually every adult in the U.S., in what privacy groups fear could be the first step to a ubiquitous national identification system.
Buried in the more than 800 pages of the bipartisan legislation (pdf) is language mandating the creation of the innocuously-named “photo tool,” a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID.
Employers would be obliged to look up every new hire in the database to verify that they match their photo.
This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet. Think of it as a government version of Foursquare, with Big Brother cataloging every check-in.
“It starts to change the relationship between the citizen and state, you do have to get permission to do things,” said Chris Calabrese, a congressional lobbyist with the American Civil Liberties Union. “More fundamentally, it could be the start of keeping a record of all things.”
For now, the legislation allows the database to be used solely for employment purposes. But historically such limitations don’t last. The Social Security card, for example, was created to track your government retirement benefits. Now you need it to purchase health insurance.
“The Social Security number itself, it’s pretty ubiquitous in your life,” Calabrese said.
David Bier, an analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agrees with the ACLU’s fears.
“The most worrying aspect is that this creates a principle of permission basically to do certain activities and it can be used to restrict activities,” he said. “It’s like a national ID system without the card.”
For the moment, the debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee is focused on the parameters of legalization for unauthorized immigrants, a border fence and legal immigration in the future.
The committee is scheduled to resume debate on the package next Tuesday.
Davis School District settles lawsuit with ACLU over book depicting same-sex homosexual couple
Deseret News (Farmington, UT): After returning a book depicting a same-sex homosexual couple to elementary school library shelves, Davis School District officials have agreed to not remove “In Our Mothers’ House” from libraries based on its content.
The agreement settles a lawsuit filed against the district by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Tina Weber, a mother whose children attend school in the district. But district spokesman Chris Williams said the settlement applies primarily to the book in question, and the district’s policy of reviewing library books for offensive content remains in place.
The lawsuit was filed after the district removed “In Our Mothers’ House” by Patricia Polacco from four school library shelves to be placed behind counters as the result of a petition by a group of parents. Students were still able to check out and access the book, but only with parental permission.
Earlier this month, Assistant Superintendent Pamela Park instructed librarians to return the book to library shelves. Park said the existing library computer system, which allows parents to block their children from accessing certain books, is sufficient to address what individual parents find objectionable.
The lawsuit also took issue with the district’s argument that “In Our Mothers’ House” violated the state’s sex education law, which prohibits schools from using educational materials that endorse or advocate for homosexuality.
According to the ACLU of Utah, the district has agreed that library books do not fall under the sex education statute and furthermore that a depiction of a family with same-sex homosexual parents does not constitute advocacy of homosexuality.
In the terms of the settlement, provided to the Deseret News by Davis School District, the district agrees to not rely on the current wording of the sex education statute as a basis to remove or restrict access to school library books.
“We’re glad that the school (district) agrees that they can’t remove a book from the shelves just because some people don’t agree with its content,” said John Mejia, legal director of the ACLU of Utah. “Children shouldn’t be discouraged from learning about different homosexual families or cultures by keeping books behind a counter as if there was something wrong with them.”
Williams said books deemed objectionable will still be subject to review under district policy. The settlement also states that it does not represent an admission of liability, but rather is a “compromise of disputed claims.”
Davis School District succumbs to the minority, of course. Just following the Communist Goals for America: Get control of the schools, break down cultural standards of morality, and present homosexuality as “normal, natural, healthy.” Reason ∞ to home school.
A secret Obama regime memo, detailing the circumstances and legal justification in which a US government may order the killing of an American citizen who is a high-ranking member of al-Qaida, has just been leaked.
The memo gives a very wide latitude and flexibility to the Executive Branch of the U.S. government to decide whether an individual is “a senior al-Qaida member” and when and how that individual poses “an imminent threat” to U.S. national security. Add to all this the fact that the memo insists the President needs not consult or obtain the court’s approval.
Peter Beaumont reports for the UK’s Guardian, Feb. 5, 2013, that the document, dating from 2011, lays out for the first time the precise rationale for carrying out targeted killings of senior al-Qaida members who are US citizens, and who are believed to pose an “imminent threat of violent attack” against Amercia.
Although the white paper deals specifically with the issue of when and how the president can order the killing of a US citizen who is a member of al-Qaida, it also provides one of the most comprehensive accounts of the wider international legal framework the US believes supports its controversial drones policy.
Although the paper does not specify the “minimum legal requirements” for launching such an operation, it insists that the killing would be constitutionally justified as the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict”, as defined by international law and authorized by Congress, with al-Qaida and its affiliates.
In a key passage in the document – which is unsigned – it argues that for a US citizen who has rights under the due process clause and the fourth amendment, “that individual’s citizenship would not immunize from a lethal operation”.
The paper concludes: “Where certain circumstances are met, a lethal operation against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaida … and who himself poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, would not violate the constitution.”
The leaking of the documents came as eight Democratic and three Republican senators wrote to Barack Obama requesting the disclosure of all the legal opinions drawn up at his request authorizing the killing of Americans.
The question of the constitutionality of such operations emerged after the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born radical Muslim cleric, in a drone strike in Yemen in September 2011. Although the leaked paper is not understood to be the legal determination that authorized that killing, it is understood to mirror it.
The paper argues that the operation must be consistent with the laws of war, and that capture of the individual must have be found to be unfeasible. But in a number of areas, it controversially appears to give considerable flexibility to administration officials to define key issues.
Those include defining the imminence of the specific threat and the operational seniority of the target, considerations outside of the overview of the US courts.The paper insists the decision to authorize a lethal operation may be made by an “informed, high-level official of the US government”, rather than by the courts.
On the issue of imminence, the justification is particularly wide-reaching: as attacks are “continually” being planned by al-Qaida, it is argued, “imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity.”
The paper justifies the exclusion of the courts by arguing that “judicial enforcement of such orders would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force.”
The leaking of the document, with its dense legal argument justifying the targeted killings of US citizens, is certain to escalate the arguments that have been swirling around the issue.
Speaking to the New York Times, Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national security project, denounced the memorandum as “a profoundly disturbing document”, adding: “It’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances. It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority: the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them, far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement.”
Here’s the URL of the 16-page memo, “Department of Justice White Paper”:
If that URL doesn’t work, I’ve saved the pdf document to FOTM’s Media Library. Click here: DOJ_White_Paper
Now do you see what 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror spawned? We have gone from George W. Bush’s troubling Patriot Act to this monstrosity of Obama’s kill memo.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) thinks Americans exercising our Constitution’s First Amendment right of freedom of speech is “low level terrorism”!
That’s according to a written exam that the DoD uses for its employees’ routine training.
To be engaged in terrorism is a crime, which means the Pentagon thinks it’s a crime, albeit “low level” [smirk], for Americans to exercise our free speech by protesting.
FoxNews had this news more than three years ago, but only now has bloggers picked it up. Here’s the article in its entirety.
A written exam administered by the Pentagon labels “protests” as a form of “low-level terrorism” — enraging civil liberties advocates and activist groups who say it shows blatant disregard of the First Amendment.
The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:
“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”
Attacking the Pentagon
IEDs
Hate crimes against racial groups
Protests
The correct answer, according to the exam, is “Protests.”
“Its part of a pattern of equating dissent and protest with terrorism,” said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained a copy of the question after a Defense Department employee who was taking the test printed the screen on his or her computer terminal.
“It undermines the core constitutional values the Department of Defense is supposed to be defending,” Brick said, referring to the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
She said the ACLU has asked the Defense Department to remove the question and send out a correction to all employees who took the exam. “There were other employees who were unhappy with it and disturbed by it,” Brick said.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk said the Defense Department is looking into the matter and expects to provide more information later Wednesday.
“We need to determine if it’s something we’re currently doing,” Melnyk said. “A lot of the information in this exam is intended for people stationed abroad. We counsel those people to avoid demonstrations.”
Anti-war protesters, who say they have been targets of federal surveillance for years, were livid when they were told about the exam question.
“That’s illegal,” said George Martin, national co-chairman of United for Peace and Justice. “Protest in terms of legal dissent has to be recognized, especially by the authorities.
“It’s not terrorism or a lack of patriotism. We care enough to be active in our government.”
Bill Wilson, president of the Americans for Limited Government, which supported the Tea Party demonstrations earlier this year, agreed.
“Groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, paramilitary orgainzations that are striking at out at something they oppose or hate, that’s terrorism,” Wilson said.
“To equate that in any degree with citizens being able to express themselves seems to me to be headed down a road where all dissent is suspect and questionable.”
Ben Friedman, a research fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, said the U.S. government has a long history of infringing upon citizens’ civil liberties in the name of domestic security.
“It’s the kind of thing that happens when you have large security bureaucracies, which is why they need to be kept in check,” Friedman said. “These things tend to occur in times of panic, like after Sept. 11.”
The ACLU, in a letter of complaint it sent to the Defense Department, catalogued a list of what it said were recent civil liberties violations by federal authorities, including the monitoring of anti-war protests and the FBI’s surveillance of potential protesters at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York.
Martin said getting information on the extent of the FBI and National Security Agency’s surveillance programs is nearly impossible.
“I have been arrested within 100 yards of George W. Bush and spoken out against the policies of our government in more than 100 countries,” he said. “But they said they have no record on me. I don’t believe that.”
During Bush’s presidency, the Defense Department was criticized for infringing on citizens’ civil rights through surveillance programs designed to protect the nation against terrorist attacks. Brick said she has seen no indication that there will be a change in policy under President Obama.
“We need to see what they do,” she said. “In a number of areas the Obama administration has not backed off and kept the Bush administration line.”
Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy has rewritten a bill H.R. 2471, that’s already been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives. Leahy’s revision would empower the federal government to read our email without warrants, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizens’ right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property — whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses.
To make this even more diabolical, Leahy is touting his revision as protecting Americans’ email privacy! Can they be more in-your-face than this?
The revised bill is scheduled for a vote next week. Let your representatives and senators know you are against this!!!!
A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans’ e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.
CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans’ e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtained the revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)
Revised bill highlights
Grants warrantless access to Americans’ electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans’ correspondence stored on systems not offered “to the public,” including university networks.
Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant — or subsequent court review — if they claim “emergency” situations exist.
Says providers “shall notify” law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they’ve been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to “10 business days.” This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.
It’s an abrupt departure from Leahy’s earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill “provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by… requiring that the government obtain a search warrant.”
Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys’ Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to “reconsider acting” on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.
One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy’s original bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an “adverse impact” on criminal investigations.
Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said requiring warrantless access to Americans’ data “undercuts” the purpose of Leahy’s original proposal. “We believe a warrant is the appropriate standard for any contents,” he said. [...]
Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director David Petraeus’ e-mail was perused by the FBI, “even the Department of Justice should concede that there’s a need for more judicial oversight,” not less.
Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who has followed the topic closely and said he was speaking for himself and not his corporate clients, expressed concerns about the alphabet soup of federal agencies that would be granted more power:
❝ There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the NLRB, OSHA, SEC or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations. ❞
The list of agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for the contents of electronic communications also includes the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission. [...]
This is a bitter setback for Internet companies and a liberal-conservative-libertarian coalition, which had hoped to convince Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to protect documents stored in the cloud. Leahy glued those changes onto an unrelated privacy-related bill supported by Netflix.
At the moment, Internet users enjoy more privacy rights if they store data on their hard drives or under their mattresses, a legal hiccup that the companies fear could slow the shift to cloud-based services unless the law is changed to be more privacy-protective.
Members of the so-called Digital Due Process coalition include Apple, Amazon.com, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, the Center for Democracy and Technology, eBay, Google, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, TechFreedom, and Twitter. (CNET was the first to report on the coalition’s creation.) [...]
Judges already have been wrestling with how to apply the Fourth Amendment to an always-on, always-connected society. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police needed a search warrant for GPS tracking of vehicles. Some courts have ruled that warrantless tracking of Americans’ cell phones, another coalition concern, is unconstitutional.The FBI and other law enforcement agencies already must obtain warrants for e-mail in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, thanks to a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010.
Cranston bans ‘father-daughter’ dances as violation of state law
Providence Journal: In a move that has taken some parents by surprise, the school department has announced that it is banning traditional “father-daughter” and “mother-son” activities, saying they violate state law.
Supt. Judith Lundsten said the move was triggered by a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a single mom who had complained that her daughter had not been able to attend her father-daughter dance.
Lundsten said school attorneys found while federal Title IX legislation banning gender discrimination gives an exemption for “father-son” and “mother-daughter” events, Rhode Island law doesn’t.
The new ban was brought to light Monday by Sean Gately, a Republican running for the state Senate, who said if elected he will work to change the state law.
———————————————————————————————
Is there not another male in her daughter’s life that could have attended the dance with her? Why wasn’t her daughter’s father able to attend?
This single mom is a selfish woman. Way to spoil the fun for so many others because of whatever choices in her life led to her daughter not being able to attend a dance.
This doesn’t come from the rightwing Alex Jones conspiracy-minded website. This video with additional text was posted on the New York Times blog two days ago. It lays out the NSA program called Stellar Wind to track and map out your entire life through your phone, bank accounts, social media use and store it at a big government facility in Utah. It’s scary as hell!
The 1.5 million square foot information storage site is located at Camp Williams Army Base in Utah. Orrin Hatch lobbied to have it relocated from Maryland to his state. It was moved west because the existing center in Maryland was drawing all of Baltimore’s available energy and could not access more (as of 2006). The Utah facility will draw 65 megawatts and is fully secured. Camp Williams is an intelligence gathering center. The plan is to collect every communication both domestic and incoming/outgoing from the country.
Storage of information is not considered to be a breach of our constitutional protections because no one has actually looked at it. The idea is that the computers themselves will sort the information and develop patterns for ‘threats.’ When a ‘threat’ is identified the information will be analyzed. Another concept is that although much sensitive information is sent via encrypted streams that are not currently readable, storage of this encrypted information will allow future investigators who have broken encryption methods to go back and read stored documents. Total information. Inventory andcontrol.
The United States military deploys drones — unmanned remote-controlled surveillance planes — over battlefields abroad.
But a month ago, our Sage did a post on the federal government’s admission (answering a Freedom of Information Act request) that there are 63 active drone sites in 20 states scattered across the United States. The feral gubmint says “not to worry!” — these domestic drones are just for border patrol and to combat terrorism.
At the time, Dick — a cocky member of a military-strategic e-mail list I’m on, who’s retired from the DoD — pooh-poohed the news with the dismissive assertion that the drones aren’t armed.
Well, the appropriately named “Dick” is wrong!
The Washington, D.C., CBS affiliate CBS-DCreports, May 23, 2012, that the feral gubmint is now considering arming those domestic drones, raising not just concerns about privacy but also over the potential use of lethal force against citizens by the unmanned aircraft.
Drones have been used overseas to target and kill high-level terror leaders and are also being used along the U.S.-Mexico border in the battle against illegal immigration. But now, these drones are starting to be used domestically at an increasing rate.
The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed several police departments to use drones across the U.S. They are controlled from a remote location and use infrared sensors and high-resolution cameras.
Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone: “Those are things that law enforcement utilizes day in and day out and in certain situations it might be advantageous to have this type of system on the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle).”
The use of potential force from drones has raised the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union. Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU, told CBSDC:
“It’s simply not appropriate to use any of force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone.” Crump maintains that one of the biggest problems with the use of drones is the remote location where they are operated from. “When the officer is on the scene, they have full access to info about what has transpired there. But an officer at a remote location far away does not have the same level of access. The prospect of people out in public being Tased or targeted by force by flying drones where no officers is physically present on the scene, raises the prospect of unconstitutional force being used on individuals.”
“We don’t need a situation where Americans feel there is in an invisible eye in the sky,” Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at ACLU, told CBSDC.
Joshua Foust, fellow at the American Security Project, also argues against the arming of domestic drones: “I think from a legal perspective, there is nothing problematic about floating a drone over a city. In terms of getting armed drones, I would be very nervous about that happening right now.”
But Chief Deputy McDaniel says that his Montgomery County community in Texas should not be worried about the department using a drone: “We’ve never gone into surveillance for sake of surveillance unless there is criminal activity afoot. Just to see what you’re doing in your backyard pool — we don’t care.”
When government says, “Trust me. We’re only here to hep you!” — Watch your back…and your butt!!!
Passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses in Congress, the bill was sponsored by two Florida Congressmen: Thomas Rooney (R) and Ted Deutch (D).
In the video below, Judge Andrew Napolitano says that H.R. 347 makes political protest a felony, by giving the Secret Service sweeping powers to arrest and charge citizens with a felony for exercising their Constitutional right to free speech.
Alerted by a reader to this video, I went looking for more information.
GovTrack.us describes the purpose of the new law as: “To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.”
The following summary of H.R. 347 was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, which serves Congress:
3/8/2012–Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on November 17, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] – Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines “restricted buildings or grounds” as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.
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.
——————————-
The key to H.R. 347, of course, is who gets to decide whether a place constitutes “restricted building or grounds.” Notice that, contrary what Judge Napolitano asserts, nowhere in the language of H.R. 347 does it say it’s the Secret Service who decides when and whether a political protest becomes a felony.
H.R. 347 doesn’t create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.
These restricted areas include locations where individuals under Secret Service protection are temporarily located, and certain large special events like a presidential inauguration. They can also include large public events like the Super Bowl and the presidential nominating conventions (troublingly, the Department of Homeland Security has significant discretion in designating what qualifies as one of these special events).
The original statute, unchanged by H.R. 347, made certain conduct with respect to these restricted areas a crime, including simple trespass, actions in or near the restricted area that would “disrupt the orderly conduct of Government,” and blocking the entrance or exit to the restricted area.
H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.
Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act “willfully and knowingly” when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act “knowingly,” which here would mean that you know you’re in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you’re committing a crime.
Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. [...]
Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These “free speech zones” are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn’t directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.
To conclude, Judge Napolitano distorted and exaggerated H.R. 347. It turns out the federal government had had free speech restrictions in “restricted buildings and grounds” even before H.R. 347. That being said, the new law is yet another nail driven into the coffin of our Constitutional liberties.
