http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL
Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department’s recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists.
For an article that uses so many quotes, it is woefully short on references. Here’s how the most publicized case turned out (Neel in Pittsburgh, my hometown):
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=232
While I don’t like the fact that local police are told to remove obvious dissenters from the President’s direct route, it really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense from the “evil governmet” point of view. There really is no security advantage to it - no one intent on doing harm to the Pres. is going to broadcast it ahead of time via signs. Duh. Is the Secret Service worried about a melee among conflicting protester groups, right at the President’s feet? I would be. My guess is that this removal of protest from the Pres. view is more politically motivated, generated by the Pres. staffers, as opposed to the security minded people in the Secret Service.
This practice began during the Clinton era, so it’s not just this administration and John Ashcroft being petty. Also, no one is preventing them from protesting across town, or anywhere else, for that matter. If the folks in Pittsburgh had wanted to hold their rally in Schenley Park (away from the motorcade) no one would have batted an eye. Also, no one prevents them from talking to the news media or prevents the news media from covering the alternative demonstrators. I’m not defending the practice. I’d call it bad politics and perhaps a misuse of force, but I wouldn’t call it a free speech violation. It seems the judge agreed. So, America still works, as a district judge can throw out the “orders” of the Secret Service and Attorney General. And if it really is Presidential staffers giving orders to local law enforcement (who seem to do all of the “dirty work”), then they should be prosecuted under abuse of power statutes.
Finally, about the dude who wrote the article - check out the title of his book - this looks like it is his particular axe to grind. As for the pulled quote from this thread: he doesn’t actually give a reference, and I’m coming up blank looking for anything like that. The author needs to put up or shut up.
The Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, means the US will have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the former East Germany through the infamous Stasi secret police. The program would use a minimum of 4 per cent of Americans to report “suspicious activity”.
TIPS was scrapped when Congress (via Dick Armey) not only decided they wouldn’t support it, but put language into legislation specifically preventing it.
Here’s a link for documentation, and I can’t believe I’m linking the freaking Village Voice, but other more friendly sources are expired, so oh well:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0251/hentoff.php
Next:
-Wiretapping authority (secs. 120, 121)
-Civil asset forfeiture powers (sec. 427, 428)
-New death penalties (sec. 411)
-Unprecedented power of the government to revoke American citizenship even of native-born Americans and detain them indefinitely (sec. 501)
Once again, this is did NOT become law. Patriot II was dead before it even hit the ground. More useful would have been links to the portions that were “snuck into” later legislation. If you have them, please post them. I’d like to take a look at them.
I’ve read a lot of the text of Patriot myself. Mostly, it deals with updating current law to reflect changing technology, giving federal law enforcement powers in the electronic realm equivalent to those that they had in the surveillance of the US Mail and analog communication devices. Also, it broke a lot of the FISA walls between criminal and counterintelligence investigations. Previously, for example, someone working a criminal case who found info on someone under a CI investigation was strictly prohibited from sharing that info with the CI investigators. This was a self-imposed restriction, never spelled out in law. After reading Patriot, I did not feel threatened or infringed.
“Anyone who would trade their freedom for safety
deserves neither freedom or safety.”
-Ben Franklin
One of my favorite quotes, by one of my favorite people.
