Page 3 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Mar 2012, 4:17 pm

Longshanks wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Alexender wrote:
Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.
The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a poop bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.
Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local poop ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.
The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even poop accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.
In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is pooping disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.
Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration poop against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.
And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?
On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.
United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”
“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.
Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president poop approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.
Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.


I am all for the 1st Amendment. Heck, I even defend it - to a point. But I've also had the unenviable duty of helping to protect the current president on two seperate occasions. It's not easy. To begin with, the guy I was protecting has a few attitude problems (one of them being that he doesn't like aspies or other autistics protecting him) among others. Secondly, there are a lot of crack-pots in the world - period. Heck, look at Iran! And yes - these idiots are on BOTH sides of the aisle. You have to look around, with the rest of the tarmac force doing the same, all of the time. You don't just stand at attention. Few people are aware of all the precautions that have to be taken to protect the campaigner-in-chief. I wish I could talk about them. It's an impressive operation. It costs us over $875,000.00 an hour just to fly the guy around. That I can talk about because it's a matter of public record. Just check the Congressional Quarterly or call the General Accounting Office.

I can understand the added laws to protect public officials. I can also understand the right to protest. We need a balance. But we also need well - behaved protests. I haven't seen any of those on either end of the spectrum. Until that happens, the laws will get tougher. So, in the end, the protesters have brought it on themselves. And the more outrageous they behave, the worse it will get. People need to start growing up.

Longshanks


Since when is growing up and conforming to BS the same f*cking thing?


Okay. I'll bite. Since when is assaulting police officers, shooting public officials, throwing things into windoows, and sexually assaulting women during "Occupy Wall Street" and other prostests not bull@$&%???? How is that grown up???? :huh:

Longshanks


As a matter of fact, here in Spokane, the local Occupy movement had saved a woman from being attacked.

Really. What's your source? And even so. The fact that the event even happened only illustrates my point.

And just how many of these crimes are actually attributable to the occupy movement, and not just some social misfits floating into the masses of humanity? And just how many perpetrators have been actually charged - you know, who aren't just the products of the right's fevered imagination.

I cite the court and police records of the corresponding cities in which the "occupy" protests occurred. I thnik that mayor in Oakland CA certainly got her eyes opened.Those aren't products of anyone's imagination. Of course, remembering your responses to my posts where I have cited irrefutable sources, I do recall you have a tendancy to selectively ignore things.

By the way, James O'Keefe had been arrested on the charge of rape, but was only released due to insufficient evidence. I'm sure the young woman he didn't allow to leave his apartment and attacked thought the evidence was pretty sufficient. But where was the late Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, and that Mormon loon, Glenn Beck, when this needed reporting?

I find Glenn Beck to be no more or less of a loon than you are.

Longshanks

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But there are loons, and there are loons. :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Mar 2012, 4:25 pm

Longshanks wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Alexender wrote:
Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.
The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a poop bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.
Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local poop ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.
The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even poop accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.
In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is pooping disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.
Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration poop against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.
And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?
On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.
United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”
“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.
Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president poop approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.
Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.


I am all for the 1st Amendment. Heck, I even defend it - to a point. But I've also had the unenviable duty of helping to protect the current president on two seperate occasions. It's not easy. To begin with, the guy I was protecting has a few attitude problems (one of them being that he doesn't like aspies or other autistics protecting him) among others. Secondly, there are a lot of crack-pots in the world - period. Heck, look at Iran! And yes - these idiots are on BOTH sides of the aisle. You have to look around, with the rest of the tarmac force doing the same, all of the time. You don't just stand at attention. Few people are aware of all the precautions that have to be taken to protect the campaigner-in-chief. I wish I could talk about them. It's an impressive operation. It costs us over $875,000.00 an hour just to fly the guy around. That I can talk about because it's a matter of public record. Just check the Congressional Quarterly or call the General Accounting Office.

I can understand the added laws to protect public officials. I can also understand the right to protest. We need a balance. But we also need well - behaved protests. I haven't seen any of those on either end of the spectrum. Until that happens, the laws will get tougher. So, in the end, the protesters have brought it on themselves. And the more outrageous they behave, the worse it will get. People need to start growing up.

Longshanks


Since when is growing up and conforming to BS the same f*cking thing?


Okay. I'll bite. Since when is assaulting police officers, shooting public officials, throwing things into windoows, and sexually assaulting women during "Occupy Wall Street" and other prostests not bull@$&%???? How is that grown up???? :huh:

Longshanks


I don't believe I said I condoned anything like that, and it is no surprise to me that.....things like that would be their excuse. I mean either as usual there are a few extremists within any group of people, not to mention of course there are going to be more cases of violent crime reported when you have large amounts of people in the same area. But yeah they want to basically repeal the first amendment because some people break laws...sounds like they are slowly trying to turn this into a police state, I mean they are going to try and take away the right to peaceably assemble, they've been trying to get rid of the right to bear arms......so I don't see how anyone can still trust the government we have.

As for the extremists though what is to say they where not hired by certain people? just one other theory I have.


Okay. As I have said in my post - there are a lot of crack-pots in the world - and it's these crack-pots that are causing the stricter laws to be put into effect. Yes, it is, in the legal sense more restrictive on the 1st Amendment. Solution - Don't let the crack-pots run the protest. Do some vetting. And yes, while I am military, I don't trust the government either - especially after the antics of the current campaigner - in - chief!

Longshanks


a few crack pots is reason to take everyones rights away? that's a BS excuse.......also i am pretty sure its not the crack pots that organize the protests.


Oh, but I've seen quite of few of them do so in my day. But then again, I've been around a little longer than you. So, I'll agree to disagree on that one. As far as the rights go, again, I am for balance. I merely stated the cause of the abridgment.


Well the more they try and oppress the citizens, the more deviance they are going to have.


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Mar 2012, 4:42 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Alexender wrote:
Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.
The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a poop bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.
Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local poop ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.
The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even poop accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.
In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is pooping disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.
Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration poop against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.
And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?
On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.
United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”
“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.
Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president poop approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.
Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.


I am all for the 1st Amendment. Heck, I even defend it - to a point. But I've also had the unenviable duty of helping to protect the current president on two seperate occasions. It's not easy. To begin with, the guy I was protecting has a few attitude problems (one of them being that he doesn't like aspies or other autistics protecting him) among others. Secondly, there are a lot of crack-pots in the world - period. Heck, look at Iran! And yes - these idiots are on BOTH sides of the aisle. You have to look around, with the rest of the tarmac force doing the same, all of the time. You don't just stand at attention. Few people are aware of all the precautions that have to be taken to protect the campaigner-in-chief. I wish I could talk about them. It's an impressive operation. It costs us over $875,000.00 an hour just to fly the guy around. That I can talk about because it's a matter of public record. Just check the Congressional Quarterly or call the General Accounting Office.

I can understand the added laws to protect public officials. I can also understand the right to protest. We need a balance. But we also need well - behaved protests. I haven't seen any of those on either end of the spectrum. Until that happens, the laws will get tougher. So, in the end, the protesters have brought it on themselves. And the more outrageous they behave, the worse it will get. People need to start growing up.

Longshanks


Since when is growing up and conforming to BS the same f*cking thing?


Okay. I'll bite. Since when is assaulting police officers, shooting public officials, throwing things into windoows, and sexually assaulting women during "Occupy Wall Street" and other prostests not bull@$&%???? How is that grown up???? :huh:

Longshanks


I don't believe I said I condoned anything like that, and it is no surprise to me that.....things like that would be their excuse. I mean either as usual there are a few extremists within any group of people, not to mention of course there are going to be more cases of violent crime reported when you have large amounts of people in the same area. But yeah they want to basically repeal the first amendment because some people break laws...sounds like they are slowly trying to turn this into a police state, I mean they are going to try and take away the right to peaceably assemble, they've been trying to get rid of the right to bear arms......so I don't see how anyone can still trust the government we have.

As for the extremists though what is to say they where not hired by certain people? just one other theory I have.


Okay. As I have said in my post - there are a lot of crack-pots in the world - and it's these crack-pots that are causing the stricter laws to be put into effect. Yes, it is, in the legal sense more restrictive on the 1st Amendment. Solution - Don't let the crack-pots run the protest. Do some vetting. And yes, while I am military, I don't trust the government either - especially after the antics of the current campaigner - in - chief!

Longshanks


a few crack pots is reason to take everyones rights away? that's a BS excuse.......also i am pretty sure its not the crack pots that organize the protests.


Oh, but I've seen quite of few of them do so in my day. But then again, I've been around a little longer than you. So, I'll agree to disagree on that one. As far as the rights go, again, I am for balance. I merely stated the cause of the abridgment.


Well the more they try and oppress the citizens, the more deviance they are going to have.


Thank you.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

06 Mar 2012, 4:49 pm

Only aliens could have given man the knowledge to build quote pyramids so big


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,777
Location: Over there

06 Mar 2012, 6:59 pm

Guys - a polite request with the aim of fitting more posts on the screen: would you please quote only the specific part of a post you're responding to?


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,098

06 Mar 2012, 7:15 pm

Has anyone noticed that the source of this article is a Russian Website?

No reputable news source is reporting this story, this way. Not even Fox News.

This is not considered a controversial subject, except that one representative in the House of Representatives is making a semantic argument in interpreting that "Knowingly" does not mean knowledge that one has entered a restricted area, instead suggesting it only applies to one's mental state of mind.

It is a semantic argument, but is of no real consequence in the wording of the new bill.

The Russian Website quoted that congressman's interpretation, that no one in the entire senate agrees with, and also made a bunch of claims that are as relevant as to the way the law is currently written as opposed to the HR347 ammendment and the new way the law is written.

Not even the representative that was arguing semantics has aligned himself with the other views of the RT website or even the "infowars" website.

The Russian Website can get away with this, because most are willing to get the information from one source without looking further, and/or reviewing the actual law that is in question.

It's also a common sense type thing; if the Senate has approved a bill without dissent by a voice vote, it would be beyond reasoned thinking to suggest that they are all working together to defile the constitution. However, the RT website, conveniently didn't mention this fact, only mentioning that the Senate passed the bill a couple of months ago.

Here is the current law:

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

Quote:
(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.


And here is the recently ammended version:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

Quote:
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:
‘‘§ 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.’’.


If one takes the time to compare the bolded parts in the old law vs. the new law, it is clear that the concerns expressed in the RT article, if any of them are valid, are as applicable to the current law as they are in the ammended law.

This new bill in no way limits the ability to protest, anymore than the one that came before it. It is clear if one compares the two versions of the law.

Here is the background and the need for the legislation, as reported by congress. The bill basically allows federal code to apply to the grounds of the white house and the Vice President's residence, where to this point DC code applied. There is nothing unreasonable about that; it is clearly a justified change, and no wonder that a voice vote was all that was needed for passage in the Senate:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt9/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt9.pdf

Quote:
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
The United States Secret Service provides protective services to
the President, the First Family, the Vice President, former Presidents,
visiting heads of state, and others. This protection covers not
only the White House and its grounds but also any where a
protectee may be temporarily visiting. The Secret Service also provides
protection at events designated as ‘‘a special event of national
significance.’’

Current law prohibits unlawful entries upon any restricted building
or ground where the President, Vice President or other
protectee is temporarily visiting. However, there is no Federal law
that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its
grounds or the Vice President’s residence and its grounds.
The Secret Service must therefore rely upon a provision in the
District of Columbia Code, which addresses only minor misdemeanor
infractions, when someone attempts to or successfully
trespasses upon the grounds of the White House or Vice President’s
residence or, worse, breaches the White House or Vice President’s
residence itself.


H.R. 347 remedies this problem by specifically including the
White House, the Vice President’s residence, and their respective
grounds in the definition of restricted buildings and grounds for
purposes of Section 1752.


The bill also clarifies that the penalties in Section 1752 of title
18 apply to those who knowingly enter or remain in any restricted
building or grounds without lawful authority to do so. Current law
does not include this important element. The bill makes other technical
improvements to the existing law.
In the 111th Congress, the
House approved similar legislation (H.R. 2780) by voice vote on
July 27, 2010.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

06 Mar 2012, 10:31 pm

America's descent into a fascist police state seems inevitable. I suggest everyone prepares for the worst.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,098

07 Mar 2012, 12:57 am

Jacoby wrote:
America's descent into a fascist police state seems inevitable. I suggest everyone prepares for the worst.


If this bill presents a threat to the constitution/1st Amendment rights, I would think that Rand Paul would have opposed it in the Senate, and Ron Paul would have cast a vote on it in the House.

No one objected to the Bill in the Senate, including Rand Paul, and Ron Paul didn't cast a vote on HR 347 in the house.

Although, all across the Internet it is being falsely reported that Ron Paul voted against the Bill in the House. The only three that opposed it were Justin Amash, Keith Ellison, and Paul Broun.

It is also being reported that Ron Paul is suggesting that it will make 1st amendment rights illegal on his Internet site, which is also a false report. In many of the Ron Paul support sites, bloggers are suggesting it, but Ron Paul hasn't offered any statements on the issue.

If the government is truly doing something dishonest that will hurt the American public, it should be reported, but misinformation, does no one any good. A variety of fringe sources on the Internet are attempting to do this, in suggesting that the bill removes 1st amendment rights, but reputable sources, including Ron Paul are having no part of it.

The sad part of the whole Internet hysteria over the bill, is that some of the very people that have been protesting are among the ones that are convincing themselves that the bill is taking their rights to protest away. Not likely many in the mainstream world are even paying attention to it.

So in effect, it's more likely that those with a right to protest may willingly forfeit their right to protest, because of fear of something that is not real in this amended version of the current law. In effect, it may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Meanwhile, some of the fringe sites and talk show hosts are profitting off the attention that misinformation can bring.

I've visited a variety of these sites, and many people either have no idea that the law has existed in some form since the 70's, or the simple reasons for the changes to the law as it exists now.

At this point it is only a misdemeanor to trespass in the restricted areas of the grounds of the White house and the Vice president's residence, because it is under the Jurisdiction of DC Code, not federal law.

It is reasonable to bring those areas under the protection of federal laws; people's lives are at stake, not just the President and Vice President. The only way to make it happen was to amend current laws, and that is precisely what the amendment does.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Mar 2012, 1:10 am

I'm not just yet going to go running and screaming for the hill.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

07 Mar 2012, 1:10 am

Conspiracy theories never factor in other branches of government.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

07 Mar 2012, 1:13 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
I'm not just yet going to go running and screaming for the hill.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


for some reason that reminds me of this song:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M149WTrkNR8[/youtube]


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Mar 2012, 1:29 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I'm not just yet going to go running and screaming for the hill.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


for some reason that reminds me of this song:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M149WTrkNR8[/youtube]


Very appropriate, indeed.

I very much liked the scene where the Indian Brave comes up behind the guy to scalp him, when it turns out the guy was wearing a toupee. :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,098

07 Mar 2012, 3:22 am

simon_says wrote:
Conspiracy theories never factor in other branches of government.


There is always a motivation of some kind; both for government associated injustices and unfounded conspiracies. Fortunately, we have the different branches of government for effective exposure of those injustices.

The fact that political conspiracy theories exist and can be propagated freely, regardless of the validity of the facts, like this one, is evidence of the extent of our first amendment rights.

The thirty one year old representative, that has drawn some attention to himself by challenging the semantics of the word "knowingly", has a 25 percent approval rating in the district that he represents.

If the controversy had any legs, warranting coverage from reputable sources, he could potentialy benefit from the attention.

It didn't work out that way. So far, he has presented a core argument for sites like "inforwars", and the Russian Website, that have used a quote off his facebook site, as supporting evidence for their claims that the government is taking away our first Ammendment rights.

There is some irony in this reported political conspiracy.

Some of the concerns associated with the National Defense Act were reasonable, and actually addressed by reputable sources. People noticed that the controversial wording of the language of the bill excluded US Citizens on our soil, but did not specify exclusion of US Citizens in other countries.

The Attorney General just recently provided justification that it is lawful for the government to kill American citizens if officials deem them to be operational leaders of Al Qaeda who are planning attacks on the United States and if capturing them alive is not feasible.

This has been an interpretation of the laws as they exist, well before the National Defense Act went into effect; recent events have brought it to the attention of the American Public, including the language of the National Defense Act. And now, it is being specifically clarified by the Attorney General, as quoted in the link below.

One of those things that one would like to never see happen, but deemed as lawful and necessary to protect our freedoms, like the freedom of speech to form political conspiracy theories when there is no clear basis of validity of the claims.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/politics/holder-explains-threat-that-would-call-for-killing-without-trial.html


It's not unlike the federal laws that exist to enhance the protection of individuals that the secret service protects per this topic discussion. The laws that have existed for decades, are being drawn to people's attention by small changes in those existing laws.

How would anyone understand them or be aware of them unless a sign was posted to warn people of the consequence of trespassing in a restricted area or it was explained to them by law enforcement officials? That has always been the standard procedure.

People don't normally read US code as a hobby. :) Probably the biggest reason some have fallen for the conspiracy. But, at least the code is easy to find on the internet, when one wants to pursue the facts. Of course, it is also very likely many have no idea what the phrase US Code means.

It's an ideal area to perpetuate a conspiracy and/or misunderstandings. It is a good thing that many Senators and Representatives have backgrounds in legal practice to understand this stuff. That makes for another check and balance in the system; otherwise some might blindly follow the lead of the representative with a background in law, that made the semantic argument about the word "knowingly".



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

08 Mar 2012, 12:18 am

To run for government office, and be a possible winner, deserves protection, even if some disagree.

The Right of the People to assemble, does not mean mob rule.

Obstruction of the function of a duly elected government is not to be tolerated, if you do not like them, organize, vote, and then demand the same for those you chose.

Freedom of Speech applies to all parties.

OWS had food, medical, a library, but with thousands, lacked Public Safety. There was no one to deal with one person using the cover of a crowd to throw rocks, commit rape or robbery, so they were all guilty.

Breaking windows and looting stores is not protest, assembly, or free speech.

Do not give them excuses to pass more laws.

The issue is that government and the rich get a better deal than the citizens, and we demand equality. Government workers should make private worker income, and pay Social Security. The Law of the Land, should apply to Congress, no insider trading. Elections should not be bought. Taxes should be spread over all income, no Capital gains, no Social Security stops at $115,000, all earned income should be taxed. High incomes should be taxed at higher rates.

We are the Stockholders of a National Corporation, we have the right to say how it is run. We have the Votes.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 112
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

08 Mar 2012, 10:25 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
I guess the first amendment was fun while it lasted.
wtf


Our Masters are wise.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,098

09 Mar 2012, 3:00 am

slave wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I guess the first amendment was fun while it lasted.
wtf


Our Masters are wise.


The Masters, whom are human, are a slave to their culture where ever they live, as are the rest of us. It is part of what makes all of us who we are. And as each year goes by, culture becomes more of a vague concept, because humans have lost their ability to wrap their minds around it.

A human is an animal tethered to it's nature, there is no way to escape it.

Culture has no concern for human limits, nor does nature.

The point of Singularity, for all practical purposes, is already here for many. It means nothing for some in the world who are completely separated from it, living the way humans have lived for thousands of years.

Only time will tell, but they may prove out to be the most advanced among us. Only a slave to each other and the natural environment that encompasses their reality.

The technologies behind Climate controlled households, Hot Water Heaters, Refrigeration and Sanitatation, are likely the apex of Human achievement.

For the most part everything beyond this is icing on the cake or poison. The problem now, is determining what is icing and what is poison.

The larger problem is that humans are no longer in control of the experiment they have created, instead the subject and the slave of that experiment, that has moved well beyond the comprehension of humanity.

One choice has not changed: Adapt or Perish. It's questionable if the Master of Culture is a long term effective adaptation. Only time will tell.