Olice-pay Ate-stay: What to do if you feel you live in one?

I like the bit where the cop basically said "It's a free country, I can do what I want. Give me your ID or I will arrest you."

There will be no further dissent allowed -- the anti-Occupy Wall Street law passes without a single Democratic no vote.

This law basically allows Homeland Security to designate anywhere as a 'restricted area', and entering a restricted area is punishable as a felony, with a year of imprisonment, even if they don't know the area is restricted. It also applies to areas around 'persons of interest', again to be declared by Homeland Security, with the same penalties. So, by the text of the law, they can declare a zone illegal to be in, or a person illegal to be near, and then arrest and imprison everyone either there or nearby, one minute later.

Lack of knowledge of the law is no excuse, citizen.

There will be no further serious protests in this country. Nothing like the 60s will be tolerated.

From the article:

Under the ancien regime in France, steps were taken to ensure that the “unwashed masses” were kept out of sight whenever a carriage containing an important aristocrat or church official was passing through. Similarly, H.R. 347 creates for the US president and other top officials a protest-free bubble or “no-free-speech zone” that follows them wherever they go, making sure the discontented multitude is kept out of the picture.

How'd that work out for the French?

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

How'd that work out for the French?

I don't know, they're still around and arguably in a lot better shape then we are. Overall, I'd say they're doing fine.

Bear wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

How'd that work out for the French?

I don't know, they're still around and arguably in a lot better shape then we are. Overall, I'd say they're doing fine.

So you're saying that once this law pushes the US to adopt the guillotine, this country will be on the right track?

Malor wrote:

This law basically allows Homeland Security to designate anywhere as a 'restricted area', and entering a restricted area is punishable as a felony, with a year of imprisonment, even if they don't know the area is restricted. It also applies to areas around 'persons of interest', again to be declared by Homeland Security, with the same penalties. So, by the text of the law, they can declare a zone illegal to be in, or a person illegal to be near, and then arrest and imprison everyone either there or nearby, one minute later.

You probably should research the law before you go on a rant about what it does or doesn't do. Here's the body of the bill as passed.

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—

There's NO provision for people to be imprisoned even if they didn't know. I don't think it's a great law, or probably even necessary but it's not anywhere near as ominous as you've represented. Of note, this law means no more firearms at Tea Party rallies.

No more firearms at rallies? But I'm angry NOW!!

Paleocon wrote:

No more firearms at rallies? But I'm angry NOW!!

You're not that far from DC. Head to the White House, try to jump the fence and start screaming about secrit mooslims.

I'll look for you on the evening news.

Bear wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

No more firearms at rallies? But I'm angry NOW!!

You're not that far from DC. Head to the White House, try to jump the fence and start screaming about secrit mooslims.

I'll look for you on the evening news.

LOL. I am sure I've told you that one of my very good buddies is the chief dog handler there. I've met his personal work dog and we get along great, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't stop him from taking off my arm with his mouthful of titanium teeth if I hopped that fence.

Paleocon wrote:

LOL. I am sure I've told you that one of my very good buddies is the chief dog handler there. I've met his personal work dog and we get along great, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't stop him from taking off my arm with his mouthful of titanium teeth if I hopped that fence.

Dude, if you could get a dog to sever your arm, you would DEFINITELY make the evening news. You might make the top story. Hell, you'd be HUGE on YouTube!

Bear wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

LOL. I am sure I've told you that one of my very good buddies is the chief dog handler there. I've met his personal work dog and we get along great, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't stop him from taking off my arm with his mouthful of titanium teeth if I hopped that fence.

Dude, if you could get a dog to sever your arm, you would DEFINITELY make the evening news. You might make the top story. Hell, you'd be HUGE on YouTube!

Don't bet on it. That sort of thing happens about 2-3 times/month nowadays from what my buddy tells me. Apparently this Obama guy really pisses off crazy white dudes.

But they can still get on a megaphone, declare a place unlawful to assemble, and then arrest and jail anyone at that location for a year.

They don't have to actually let them go. The police have already been doing this -- declaring unlawful assemblies, refusing to give protestors anywhere to go, and then arresting them after they failed to disperse. (which they physically could not do.)

Now you can get a year in jail for it, and you don't need any court oversight for the declarations and arrests, just a TSA goon plus some police.

And let me assure you, glossing over the French Revolution is extraordinarily ignorant. There's still a country there CALLED France, but it's not the same government, and a LOT of people died horrible deaths getting there.

That argument is very much, "Well, Libya is still there! Syria is still there!" Not for the dead people, it's not.

Malor wrote:

And let me assure you, glossing over the French Revolution is extraordinarily ignorant. There's still a country there CALLED France, but it's not the same government, and a LOT of people died horrible deaths getting there.

That argument is very much, "Well, Libya is still there! Syria is still there!" Not for the dead people, it's not.

Well I guess I could point to the Revolutionary War, Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement etc.

A LOT of people died horrible deaths and we're still here. The only thing that's "ignorant" and your incessant ranting that we're in a police state despite overwhelming evidence that we're not even close. Despite being told ad naseum by people who have actually lived under police state conditions.

Frankly, I'm starting to wish this forum had an ignore feature because your rants have become so detached from reality that they detract from actual debate.

Bear wrote:
Malor wrote:

And let me assure you, glossing over the French Revolution is extraordinarily ignorant. There's still a country there CALLED France, but it's not the same government, and a LOT of people died horrible deaths getting there.

That argument is very much, "Well, Libya is still there! Syria is still there!" Not for the dead people, it's not.

Well I guess I could point to the Revolutionary War, Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement etc.

A LOT of people died horrible deaths and we're still here. The only thing that's "ignorant" and your incessant ranting that we're in a police state despite overwhelming evidence that we're not even close. Despite being told ad naseum by people who have actually lived under police state conditions.

Frankly, I'm starting to wish this forum had an ignore feature because your rants have become so detached from reality that they detract from actual debate.

I believe there's a GreaseMonkey script you can use to block posters on here.

Bear wrote:

Frankly, I'm starting to wish this forum had an ignore feature because your rants have become so detached from reality that they detract from actual debate.

Not to pile on, but, well, I want to back up this sentiment. I'm actually very wary about the many increases and changes in police powers lately. But the overcharged raving here feels less like someone similarly worried about No Knock Warrants and ambivalent about balancing liberty with security, and feels more like a teenager reading 1984 for the first time.

Way back when in one of these threads, I think it was Jayhawker who expressed that calling this a police state is insulting to the many people around the world who live under that terror. I'm displeased with overreaching police power, and don't think I've agreed with much of what Jay has said since, but I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.

Paleocon wrote:
Bear wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

LOL. I am sure I've told you that one of my very good buddies is the chief dog handler there. I've met his personal work dog and we get along great, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't stop him from taking off my arm with his mouthful of titanium teeth if I hopped that fence.

Dude, if you could get a dog to sever your arm, you would DEFINITELY make the evening news. You might make the top story. Hell, you'd be HUGE on YouTube!

Don't bet on it. That sort of thing happens about 2-3 times/month nowadays from what my buddy tells me. Apparently this Obama guy really pisses off crazy white dudes.

This is your chance to become a first, though!

Think of the headlines, like "Lin-definite detention."

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Not to pile on, but, well, I want to back up this sentiment. I'm actually very wary about the many increases and changes in police powers lately. But the overcharged raving here feels less like someone similarly worried about No Knock Warrants and ambivalent about balancing liberty with security, and feels more like a teenager reading 1984 for the first time.

Way back when in one of these threads, I think it was Jayhawker who expressed that calling this a police state is insulting to the many people around the world who live under that terror. I'm displeased with overreaching police power, and don't think I've agreed with much of what Jay has said since, but I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.

The problem is there are varying degrees of concern that we all have about the US becoming or already being a police state and they're equally valid because they're opinions based of perspectives. Some of us (Malor, myself, and a few others) feel more strongly about it then everyone else so our posts are inherently more animated.

At the very least, most of us in here agree that the US is essentially a survelliance state. Perhaps "electronic police state" is a middle point that makes more sense for us all to debate in terms of where this country is headed.

The term electronic police state describes a state in which the government aggressively uses electronic technologies to record, organize, search and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens.

Electronic police states are characterized by government surveillance of telephone traffic, cellular telephone traffic, emails, Internet surfing, video surveillance and other forms of electronic (including fiber optic) tracking. A crucial characteristic of this process is that the data is gathered universally and silently, and only later organized for use in prosecutions in legal proceedings.

The inhabitants of an electronic police state may be almost fully unaware that their communications and activities are being recorded by the state, or that these records are usable as evidence against them in courts of law. Those who are aware of these facts may be restrained in their complaints or actions against their governments, knowing that any embarrassing, juvenile or unlawful actions in their past can be pulled from pre-existing databases, which could lead to humiliation and/or criminal trials.

In addition, there is also a risk[citation needed] of such databases being widely used in civil proceedings, wherein opposing attorneys demand access to all evidence related to an individual, including vast government databases. This issue seems not to have been addressed by the legal system of any nation thus far.

93_confirmed wrote:

At the very least, most of us in here agree that the US is essentially a survelliance state. Perhaps "electronic police state" is a middle point that makes more sense for us all to debate in terms of where this country is headed.

I won't argue that we are a surveillance state. I think part of that is now the result of technology and the rest is paranoia. In the digital age it's far easier to scan thousands of emails than it would be to review millions of letters.

Then there's the other side of the coin, there are cameras EVERYWHERE! The thing is, they aren't just owned by the police or the government. Banks, stores, businesses even individuals have security cameras everywhere. While these cameras might represent an intrusion into personal privacy, there's also a lot of good that comes from the footage they capture. Abducted children, stolen property, assaults, robberies, all manner of crimes are captured on these cameras and the footage is used in an attempt to solve crimes.

I think it's a very slippery slope and one that might not have any clear lines.

Malor wrote:

And let me assure you, glossing over the French Revolution is extraordinarily ignorant. There's still a country there CALLED France, but it's not the same government, and a LOT of people died horrible deaths getting there.

That argument is very much, "Well, Libya is still there! Syria is still there!" Not for the dead people, it's not.

This is, from what I have read, an update to existing law. The current law covers everywhere except for Washington, DC, instead relying on local laws there. The other change is from "willingly and knowingly" to just "knowingly". According to the one analysis I read, this does open up the law to cover people who enter the area without realizing its a restricted area, while before there had to be an intent to do so.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/01/do...

93_confirmed wrote:

The problem is there are varying degrees of concern that we all have about the US becoming or already being a police state and they're equally valid because they're opinions based of perspectives. Some of us (Malor, myself, and a few others) feel more strongly about it then everyone else so our posts are inherently more animated.

I think there is a big difference between privacy concerns, and italic leaden screeds about how the FBI using Twitter is phase 1 of a master plan that ends with jack-booted goons kicking down my door, and sneering that anyone who is skeptical of that scenario. The former fosters discussion, the latter is, again, me at 13 when I first read 1984. And honestly held belief or not, it's tough to back the latter.

I mean, if I let my paranoia become fully animated, I'd have a lengthy, lengthy spew about how this is fear-mongering and scapegoating against the large, frightening, but grossly inefficient and harmless Federal government, vestigial fears of an outmoded pre-20th century view of society, is an effort to drive us into the arms of the really dangerous, evil overlords, Corporations, who have far more power, motive, and means to enslave us and destroy our lives than government ever will. But I'd come off as nutballs, so instead I just say:

Bear wrote:

Then there's the other side of the coin, there are cameras EVERYWHERE! The thing is, they aren't just owned by the police or the government.

Yes, I'm much more concerned by that.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Yes, I'm much more concerned by that.

I just realized the irony that some of the video and footage that is being used in the police state debate is in fact the result of the very same surveillance. What a twisted circle.

Bear wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Yes, I'm much more concerned by that.

I just realized the irony that some of the video and footage that is being used in the police state debate is in fact the result of the very same surveillance. What a twisted circle.

It does seem like the police are trying as hard as they can to break that circle though. Cameras are too ubiquitous at this point to stop it but I think if they could, they would.

Bear, all this is is a simplification of the original law. I do agree with your analysis, but you did leave out the definition of "Restricted Building or Grounds":

(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.

So, basically, the Secret Service has to be involved in the designation, and the area must be part of the White House, the VP's residence, or an area where the President, VP or someone protected by the Secret Service will appear as part of a special event of national significance. DHS cannot designate, say, a town square, or a park, a restricted area by yelling at people in order to have them arrested. They *can* arrest them if they enter an area that has been restricted for a special event of national significance attended by, say, the President. That doesn't seem very controversial.

For reference, here's the original definition:

(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).

Strangely enough, the new phrasing is a lot easier to interpret than the older. Imagine that. It's actually, like, a *simplification* of the original. I invite people to give an interpretation of this which allows the DHS or other Federal agents to simply declare an arbitrary area as restricted and arrest people who entered it. Bonus points if you can show that they can be arrested for not knowing that it was restricted.

Here's the original law in full:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...

And this site has the text of the revised law:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...

Yeah, I'm a liberal, but I've learned that Reason misleads on occasion in order to fit things into it's narrative. Note that the explanation in the Reason article ignores what can be found in a legal dictionary - that after centuries of use in American courts, the definition of "willfully" depends heavily on context. It denotes intentional, deliberate, and/or voluntary. If you look at the context in the original law above, willfully is used in the same sense as knowingly - that the person knew what they were about when they entered the site, and meant to do it. Removing willfully when referring to a trespass does not seem to me to remove any of the force of knowingly, or change the intent of the law.

There's one cite in the Reason article that it says "might" indicate a problematic precedent. The article fails to mention how many cites there are that don't. I suspect the number is much higher. But use your own good judgement.

Robear wrote:

Stuff

Yes, I took a snapshot of the primary changes to the original law. Yours was much more thorough. It also proves that the original article that Malor linked is complete and utter trash and this has absolutely nothing to do with OWS.

Bear wrote:

Well I guess I could point to the Revolutionary War, Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement etc.

A LOT of people died horrible deaths and we're still here.

But you know who isn't still here? The British.

(After seeing yours and Robear's posts I agree that Malor's source far overstepped reality when describing the bill, or if that was an accurate article at the time the offending bits have been changed. This is solely a comment on the derail as to whether the French Revolutionary War actually mattered to France, especially the rulers of France.)

Don't want to get called a nutter or get bogged down in all of that again, but I'll leave this for people to discuss. I'd love to hear people's opinions of it.

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/attorney_general_holder_defends_execution_without_charges/

Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

Emphasis mine.

DSGamer wrote:

Don't want to get called a nutter or get bogged down in all of that again, but I'll leave this for people to discuss. I'd love to hear people's opinions of it.

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/attorney_general_holder_defends_execution_without_charges/

Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

Emphasis mine.

I read a bit, then skimmed, and I couldn't find any discussion of the difference between foreign vs. domestic, or of the difference between someone we have physical control over vs. someone we don't. Without that, such a piece is meaningless.

Oh gee, look who it was again: Glenn Greenwald.

So Glenn Greenwald's take on this is invalid because...?

DSGamer wrote:

So Glenn Greenwald's take on this is invalid because...?

Because like I said: I can't find any discussion of the difference between foreign vs. domestic, or of the difference between someone we have physical control over vs. someone we don't. He writes:

The willingness of Democrats to embrace and defend this power is especially reprehensible because of how completely, glaringly and obviously at odds it is with everything they loudly claimed to believe during the Bush years.

and

It isn’t merely the Democratic Party generally and its hordes of adherents who have performed a complete reversal on these issues as of January 20, 2009. It’s also true of Barack Obama and Eric Holder themselves.

Like I said: I read some, then skimmed, so if I missed it point it out to me, but if he writes a piece claiming there's been a "complete reversal" and then ignores major questions like those, his analysis is useless. He's attacking a strawman, and manipulating his audience. I don't know if it's because he's dishonest, or because he's such a partisan he can't see an issue of fact that would make him challenge his beliefs, but I can't believe it's just because he honestly missed it: he seems too smart to be that dumb unless he's playing dumb.