USA Secret Police

The USA Has their own gestapo now.  This is an Orwellian nightmare.  Ever read 1984?

The Secret Police and Political Dissent

by John W. Whitehead
2/6/2006

Once upon a time, a handful of colonists, fed up with being arrested and jailed for speaking out, decided to take on the British Empire. These great dissenters won the war. And when it came time to write the Constitution, they made sure that they included the rights to free speech and to protest by enshrining these essential freedoms in the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, many of us have not learned the lessons that our forefathers tried to teach us. Indeed, as we move further into the new millennium, the American government increasingly resembles the empire against which our ancestors fought.

This fact was made abundantly clear with the passage of the USA Patriot Act and more recently with the revelation that President Bush bypassed federal law in approving warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans. And a new bill, sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), gives the Secret Service unbridled authority to suppress political dissent—one of the most basic and essential elements of democracy.

The proposed law, with the Orwellian title “Secret Service Authorization and Technical Modification Act of 2005,” states: “It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons to willfully and knowingly enter 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.” Without defining what a “special event of national significance” is, the provision continues: “It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons to willfully, knowingly, and with intent…engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds designated a special event of national significance.” The phrase “engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct” is not defined, either. This means that whatever constitutes an event of “national significance” or “disruptive conduct” is left entirely to the discretion of the secret police.

And the penalty for breaking this law would increase the maximum imprisonment from 6 months to 10 years if committed with a weapon or 1 year if committed without a weapon.

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.”

This law reaches a legitimate and necessary concern. And to the extent that it merely intends to protect the President without trampling on the civil liberties of Americans, the law makes sense. But that is precisely the problem—it provides law enforcement officials broad authority and discretion over our most basic rights. By giving federal agents the ability to prevent a citizen from attending a political event based on the belief—unfounded or not—that they will protest or speak unfavorably about the government, the law violates the right to speak freely on matters of public concern. After all, at the heart of the First Amendment is the ability to criticize the government and have an open and free discussion about its policies. The law also allows these new federal police agents the power to arrest and conduct warrantless searches, arguably in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

All this despite the fact that federal law currently provides criminal penalties for entering a restricted area where the President or other person is protected by the Secret Service.
However, 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 Bush Administration’s position. For example, on March 21, 2005, two Denver students who had obtained tickets from their Congressman were expelled from a “town hall” forum because they had an anti-war bumper sticker on their car. Officials, including one who identified himself as a Secret Service agent, told the students the event was limited to audience members who shared the President’s views and that they would have to leave, even if they had no intention of disrupting the event. It apparently made no difference that the topic of the forum was Social Security reform, not the Iraq war. Similar incidents have occurred at presidential visits throughout the country.

The new law could seriously worsen the impact on free speech by banning any form of dissent, peaceful or not. It would allow the Secret Service, in effect, to declare martial law, cordon off areas and enforce exclusion zones at any event deemed a “special event of national significance.” This even if no Secret Service protectee were scheduled to speak or attend.

In fact, it most likely would be used against groups from diverse political backgrounds. For example, if the Secret Service declares the next U.N. conference on population control an “event of national significance,” it could arrest members of anti-abortion groups who want to protest. And under this new law, the Secret Service could shut down areas throughout the conference and arrest any potential protester who might violate the zone.

Sadly, the targets of the Secret Service under this law will not be terrorists or threats to national security. Perhaps that is the problem with post-9/11 America—the cloud of fear is so pervasive that we can no longer make commonsense judgments about own security and safety.

All law enforcement officers—federal, state and local—take an oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States [Including Obama]. And while many of them make a commendable effort to fulfill this obligation, others fail to understand the very document they swore to uphold. Countless congressional actions are passed every year seeking to address legitimate and pressing problems. But many of them, like this one, naively assume that they will be enforced by individuals who have a clear understanding of and appreciation for our Bill of Rights.