pageok
pageok
pageok
Actual Title of a Washington Post Story,
Tuesday, December 13, 2005, on page A03, by Dan Eggen:
ACLU OPPOSES PATRIOT ACT PROVISION
  The story suggests that the ACLU may just misunderstand the obscure provision at issue (one I have never heard of before), and that even the ACLU doesn't think the provision is a big deal. Slow news day at the Post, perhaps?
eric (www):

"It's cementing the trend of the Secret Service basically acting to arrest or harass or control dissenters, and now not just at presidential events but at other events," said Timothy H. Edgar, the ACLU's national security counsel.

He sounds kind of concerned to me. As he should. What does arresting protesters and imprisoning them for 6 months to a year have to do with national security?
12.13.2005 1:59am
ahmanrah (mail) (www):

The bill adds language prohibiting people from "willfully and knowingly" entering a restricted area "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." The measure also applies to security breaches "in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance," according to the bill.


Sounds like the perfect fix to make it even harder to show political dissent at presidental functions. Is that for national security purposes, or political ones. You be the judge.
12.13.2005 4:17am
SomeJarhead (mail):
The double standard is amazing - were this a Democratic administration the Patriot Act would be "simple and sensible law-and-order measures." Like the Brady Bill.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is a big legal difference, and an increasingly fine line, between dissent and riot. This is especially true when we're talking about dirty, long-haired, dope-smoking leftists.

Gathering together a few hundred of your closest unemployed friends and dipping into your trust funds to finance a cross-country trip to assault a city and a President isn't dissent, and it's a far cry from patriotic; it's just onanism.

And that's just a way of saying: they're cowards.
12.13.2005 7:58am
nk (mail) (www):
I think our host's point was the "Dog Bites Man" character of the headline. Is there any provision of the Patriot Act that the ACLU does not oppose?
12.13.2005 8:58am
Smithy (mail):
"What does arresting protesters and imprisoning them for 6 months to a year have to do with national security?"

That sounds like a paranoid left wing fantasy to me -- unless you count John Walker Lindh as a protester.
12.13.2005 10:16am
eric:

The Secret Service is authorized to charge suspects with breaching security or disruptive behavior at National Special Security Events... Penalties for such violations would increase from six months to a year in prison.
12.13.2005 11:04am
Ofc. Krupke (mail) (www):
Tomorrow in the Post:

Ethnic Studies Major Offended

If you don't get it, you don't get it!
12.13.2005 11:25am
xx:
"The double standard is amazing - were this a Democratic administration the Patriot Act would be "simple and sensible law-and-order measures." Like the Brady Bill. "

Sorry, SomeJarHead, but that's utter B.S. There are no doubt plenty of Democrats who are hypocritical. But the notion that organizations like the ACLU wouldn't have complained about the bill during the Clinton Administration is obviously wrong. The organization didn't exactly shut down for 8 years when he was president.
12.13.2005 11:40am
gbrown:
How is it possible, at this late date, that we do not have already sufficient procedural and substantive laws permnitting the arrest and prosecution of unruly persons at political events?
12.13.2005 11:49am
Fishbane (mail):
This is especially true when we're talking about dirty, long-haired, dope-smoking leftists.

You forgot to mention that they're the type who voted for George McGovern.

Welcome to the '70s!
12.13.2005 12:21pm
Smithy (mail):
The organization didn't exactly shut down for 8 years when he was president.

Give me one example of a Clinton policy they protested. As far as I can tell, they were too busy praising "their man" to protest anything he ever did.
12.13.2005 2:04pm
xx:
Smithy its hard to tell if you're being serious. A quick Lexis search shows that the ACLU was involved in at least 67 published opinions in suits against Janet Reno alone.
12.13.2005 2:19pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
Wow, what a shocking headline. Next, I expect them to shock us even more by writing, "Earth contains oxygen."
12.13.2005 4:39pm
Justin (mail):
Smithty,

Clinton's school dress code initiative, portions of welfare reform, certain immigration policy initiatives, certain issues involving clinton's cpposition to medicinal marijuana laws, several clinton policies involving cybercrime and cyberterrorism, don't ask don't tell, Clinton's wiretapping policies

thats just his second term, off the top of my head.
12.14.2005 1:45am