the uniformed division, us secret service

[Lizardman]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Passions
Good! We need more measures like this to protect our freedom.

I'm all for a secret police carting and hauling away terrorists.

The day that you understand real threat terrorists play in our daily lives, maybe you too will know that our govt is working to PROTECT us, not DESTROY us.

BAAAAAAA!

BAAAAAAA!

Please now, didnt you read the rules of this forum/

 

[shadow9d9]

"maybe you too will know that our govt is working to PROTECT us, not DESTROY us. "

You know this because governments never do wrong? What about Libby being indicted, delay being indicted, etc etc etc... the people are here to control the government.. we give the government its power.. not the other way around... please go and read Animal Farm, read the history of Germany and Hitler's rise to power, etc... then come back.

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Your article is retarded. I'm trying to find the great article I had pointing out all the ways in which the paranoia over this is dumb, but I'll just start with the easiest.

"The proposed law also creates a new federal police force: ?There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ?United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.?? And: ?Under the direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are authorized to?carry firearms; make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence.?


The Secret Service Uniformed Division has existed for thirty years under that name. They have a website.

You're splitting hairs. From the SS website:

They (SS Uniformed Division) now protect the following:

• the White House Complex, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and other Presidential offices;
  the President and members of the immediate family;
  the temporary official residence of the Vice President in the District of Columbia;
  the Vice President and members of the immediate family; and
  foreign diplomatic missions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and throughout the United States, and its territories and possessions, as prescribed by statute.

Now, look at the differences between these duties and the amended duties as proposed by the legislation being discussed. Therein you will find the object(s) of concern.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So the SS becomes the SS?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Lizardman

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Passions
Good! We need more measures like this to protect our freedom.

I'm all for a secret police carting and hauling away terrorists.

The day that you understand real threat terrorists play in our daily lives, maybe you too will know that our govt is working to PROTECT us, not DESTROY us.

BAAAAAAA!

BAAAAAAA!

Please now, didnt you read the rules of this forum/

I know....no bleating.....sorry.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So the SS becomes the SS?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Passions
Good! We need more measures like this to protect our freedom.

I'm all for a secret police carting and hauling away terrorists.

The day that you understand the real threat that terrorists play in our daily lives, maybe you too will know that our govt is working to PROTECT us, not DESTROY us.

And the day that you understand the importance of articles in a sentence maybe we too will be able to understand what you say.

Of course, that won't in any way make you less of a moron, but I'd appreciate it just the same.

Classic rebuttal of an ignoramus. Attacking the grammar, not the argument.

MORON!!!

What are you trying to do, try out for comedy central??? You defamed yourself, there's nothing more for me to do. Nothing could possibly show you to be more ignorant, more absolutely wretched, than what you yourself already said. I felt no need to put neon lights around it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Passions
Good! We need more measures like this to protect our freedom.

I'm all for a secret police carting and hauling away terrorists.

The day that you understand the real threat that terrorists play in our daily lives, maybe you too will know that our govt is working to PROTECT us, not DESTROY us.

And the day that you understand the importance of articles in a sentence maybe we too will be able to understand what you say.

Of course, that won't in any way make you less of a moron, but I'd appreciate it just the same.

Classic rebuttal of an ignoramus. Attacking the grammar, not the argument.

MORAN!!!

fixed.





You have no argument, only blind fear.

COWARD!!!!

Why don't you tell that to the victims of 9/11, the families of fallen soldiers in Iraq? Say to their faces. I dare you. Who is the coward now?

I'll say it. I have before, and I will again. Illusion of security is no security. I am ashamed of the actions our government has taken, before and since. I am ashamed that so many of our friends and loved ones are dying for lies. I am ashamed that so few people in America have the baseline of reason and knowledge to see what is happening. Line em up, and I'll be happy to explain it to all of them.

 

[imported_Aelius]

To sum up thread.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: morkinva

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Your article is retarded. I'm trying to find the great article I had pointing out all the ways in which the paranoia over this is dumb, but I'll just start with the easiest.

"The proposed law also creates a new federal police force: ?There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ?United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.?? And: ?Under the direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are authorized to?carry firearms; make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence.?


The Secret Service Uniformed Division has existed for thirty years under that name. They have a website.

You're splitting hairs. From the SS website:

They (SS Uniformed Division) now protect the following:

• the White House Complex, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and other Presidential offices;
  the President and members of the immediate family;
  the temporary official residence of the Vice President in the District of Columbia;
  the Vice President and members of the immediate family; and
  foreign diplomatic missions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and throughout the United States, and its territories and possessions, as prescribed by statute.

Now, look at the differences between these duties and the amended duties as proposed by the legislation being discussed. Therein you will find the object(s) of concern.

I'm not splitting hairs. The author of hte article is either ignorant or deliberately misleading its readers. He quite clearly claimed that a new police force was being created and that is clearly not true. He either has not bothered to research the most basic background on the subject or is deliberately misleading his readers, and that automatically makes all his claims suspect.

 

[Rainsford]

I don't know about the article, as others have pointed out, the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service has existed for many years. The article itself is not exactly an unbiased piece of journalism, although I am curious just what problem this law is solving...

As far as Passions goes...http://homepage.mac.com/editbox/images/Sheep.jpg

 

[musicc]

Passions, you should live in China or any other Communist countries for a few months. I promise you that you will learn what the government mean when they say want to protect you.

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: morkinva

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Your article is retarded. I'm trying to find the great article I had pointing out all the ways in which the paranoia over this is dumb, but I'll just start with the easiest.

"The proposed law also creates a new federal police force: ?There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ?United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.?? And: ?Under the direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are authorized to?carry firearms; make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence.?


The Secret Service Uniformed Division has existed for thirty years under that name. They have a website.

You're splitting hairs. From the SS website:

They (SS Uniformed Division) now protect the following:

• the White House Complex, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and other Presidential offices;
  the President and members of the immediate family;
  the temporary official residence of the Vice President in the District of Columbia;
  the Vice President and members of the immediate family; and
  foreign diplomatic missions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and throughout the United States, and its territories and possessions, as prescribed by statute.

Now, look at the differences between these duties and the amended duties as proposed by the legislation being discussed. Therein you will find the object(s) of concern.

I'm not splitting hairs. The author of hte article is either ignorant or deliberately misleading its readers. He quite clearly claimed that a new police force was being created and that is clearly not true. He either has not bothered to research the most basic background on the subject or is deliberately misleading his readers, and that automatically makes all his claims suspect.

Okay I will admit to not totally understanding this legalese crap However, the language

(a) There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the `United States Secret Service Uniformed Division'. Subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division shall perform such duties as the Director, United States Secret Service, may prescribe in connection with the protection of the following:..."

IS there in the S1967 Sec. 3056a - Secret Service Authorization and Technical Modification Act of 2005

Here is an ACLU letter to the Senate wrt this topic:

Hon. Arlen Specter
Chairman
Senate Judiciary Committee
Dirksen 224
Washington, DC 20505

Hon. Patrick Leahy
Ranking Member
Senate Judiciary Committee
Dirksen 152
Washington, DC 20505

Dear Chairman Specter and Senator Leahy:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union and its more than 550,000 members, we are writing to call to your attention a little-noticed provision in the Conference Report on H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act, that could pose a significant danger to free speech.

These changes are buried in title VI of the Conference Report, the ?Secret Service Authorization and Technical Modification Act of 2005,? which was not a part of either the House or the Senate version of the bill. Despite its title, the new language does not merely make technical corrections, but rather makes major changes to the criminal statutes administered by the Secret Service that could seriously damage the free speech rights of all Americans.

18 U.S.C. § 1752 currently provides criminal penalties for entrance into ?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 . . . .? Section 602 of the Conference Report would broaden this provision, giving the Secret Service effective power to create ?exclusion zones? even without the expected attendance of the President or other Secret Service protectee.

Even under current law, the Secret Service has participated in harassment of individuals who have appeared at taxpayer-funded forums with the President if they are perceived to disagree with the administration?s position. For example, on March 21, 2005, two Denver students were expelled from a ?town hall? forum with President Bush because they had an anti-war bumper sticker on their car. The students had obtained tickets from their Congressman. Officials, including an official who identified himself as a Secret Service agent, told the students that the event was limited to audience members who shared the President?s views and they would have to leave, even if they had no intentions of disrupting the event. Apparently it made no difference that the topic of the forum was Social Security reform, not the war in Iraq. Similar incidents have occurred at Presidential visits throughout the country.

Expanding 18 U.S.C. § 1752 could seriously worsen the impact on free speech of these heavy handed tactics. The amendment would allow the Secret Service to cordon off areas and enforce exclusion zones at any event deemed a ?special event of national significance,? even if no Secret Service protectee were scheduled to speak or attend. Such an expansion could have a dire impact on free speech.

Consider these hypothetical examples:
The Secret Service declares a four-day international population conference sponsored by the UN an ?event of national significance.? The President speaks one evening. Anti-abortion groups plan peaceful protests, including a candlelight vigil. Under current law, the Secret Service can arrest anyone if they enter a protected zone at the venue for the Presidential speech, while other security issues would be covered by local trespass statutes. If the bill passes, the Secret Service could shut down areas throughout the conference and arrest any protester who violates the zone.
The Secret Service declares a four-day summit on the war in Iraq in Chicago to be an ?event of national significance.? While the Secretary of Defense is scheduled to speak, he will only be present for one event. Protesters plan to engage in nonviolent and non-disruptive, silent ?street theater.? Under current law, the Secret Service could arrest the protesters if they enter a protected zone during the event at which the official is speaking, but otherwise the event would be governed by local trespass statutes. If the bill passes, the Secret Service could impose exclusion zones during the entire conference.

Any changes to the Secret Service?s authority should not be enacted without hearings on the impact to free speech of its abuse of its existing authority. They certainly should not be included without debate in a Conference Report on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office


Timothy H. Edgar
National Security Policy Counsel

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Passions
Good! We need more measures like this to protect our freedom.

I'm all for a secret police carting and hauling away terrorists.

The day that you understand real threat terrorists play in our daily lives, maybe you too will know that our govt is working to PROTECT us, not DESTROY us.

You're kidding right????


Terrorists play very little real threat to our daily lives... the occasional catastrophic event is the real concern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Passions
Good! We need more measures like this to protect our freedom.

I'm all for a secret police carting and hauling away terrorists.

The day that you understand real threat terrorists play in our daily lives, maybe you too will know that our govt is working to PROTECT us, not DESTROY us.

You're kidding right????


Terrorists play very little real threat to our daily lives... the occasional catastrophic event is the real concern

I have not been able to determine if he is far right of Attila the Hun, is someone posing as an extreme right winger for laughs or is merely mad.

 

[OrByte]

so this change of duties to the existing SS allow for a harder security bubble around SS protectees?

it basically gives power to the SS to remove anyone that is protesting (peaceably, or otherwise.)

Anyone who is considered a threat can be removed from these "exclusion zones" and detained.

wow.

who put this in the Patriot act reauth language?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Anyone who is considered a threat can be removed from these "exclusion zones" and detained.

And charged with a felony

WASHINGTON ? A new provision tucked into the Patriot Act bill now before Congress would allow authorities to haul demonstrators at any "special event of national significance" away to jail on felony charges if they are caught breaching a security perimeter.

New Patriot Act Provision Creates Tighter Barrier to Officials at Public Events

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: OrByte

Anyone who is considered a threat can be removed from these "exclusion zones" and detained.

And charged with a felony

WASHINGTON ? A new provision tucked into the Patriot Act bill now before Congress would allow authorities to haul demonstrators at any "special event of national significance" away to jail on felony charges if they are caught breaching a security perimeter.

New Patriot Act Provision Creates Tighter Barrier to Officials at Public Events

Thank you for the link and the answer to my question is right in there. Sen Arlen Specter..the very same senator who is supposedly against this new surveillance program is sponsoring a provision to limit free speech. Go figure.

It just goes to show this congressional hearing over the surveillance program is a farce, the congressional "leadership" is not as concerned about civil liberties as they claim. We are not being represented effectively by our congress.

Well, then again I suppose if you like living in fear then these cowboys are the right guys for you. :roll:

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Thank you for the link and the answer to my question is right in there. Sen Arlen Specter..the very same senator who is supposedly against this new surveillance program is sponsoring a provision to limit free speech. Go figure.

It just goes to show this congressional hearing over the surveillance program is a farce, the congressional "leadership" is not as concerned about civil liberties as they claim. We are not being represented effectively by our congress.

Well, then again I suppose if you like living in fear then these cowboys are the right guys for you. :roll:

Exactly!

 

[Kadarin]

The proposed law also creates a new federal police force: ?There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ?United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.?? And: ?Under the direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are authorized to?carry firearms; make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence.?

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) should be brought before a firing squad for even proposing such a law.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

The proposed law also creates a new federal police force: ?There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ?United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.?? And: ?Under the direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are authorized to?carry firearms; make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence.?

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) should be brought before a firing squad for even proposing such a law.