Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Yippee!! Another Federal police agency...

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Wllm. Legrand, Jan 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wllm. Legrand

    Wllm. Legrand member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    219
    Great...Just what this country needs. The slide into the dystopian future continues...

    www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts142.html

    Unfathomed Dangers in Patriot Act Reauthorization
    by Paul Craig Roberts


    A provision in the "Patriot Act" creates a new federal police force with power to violate the Bill of Rights. You might think that this cannot be true as you have not read about it in newspapers or heard it discussed by talking heads on TV.

    Go to House Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 and check it out for yourself. Sec. 605 reads:

    "There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ’United States Secret Service Uniformed Division’."

    This new federal police force is "subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security."

    The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

    The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including "an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance" (SENS).

    "A special event of national significance" is neither defined nor does it require the presence of a "protected person" such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and to arrest people at their discretion.

    The language conveys enormous discretionary and arbitrary powers. What is "an offense against the United States"? What are "reasonable grounds"?

    You can bet that the Alito/Roberts court will rule that it is whatever the executive branch says.

    The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events. However, nothing in the language limits the police powers from being used only in this way. Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused. It has dire implications for freedom of association and First Amendment rights. We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo.

    Many naïve Americans will write to me to explain that this new provision in the reauthorization of the "Patriot Act" is necessary to protect the president and other high officials from terrorists or from harm at the hands of angry demonstrators: "No one else will have anything to fear." Some will accuse me of being an alarmist, and others will say that it is unpatriotic to doubt the law’s good intentions.

    Americans will write such nonsense despite the fact that the president and foreign dignitaries are already provided superb protection by the Secret Service. The naïve will not comprehend that the president cannot be endangered by demonstrators at SENS at which the president is not present. For many Americans, the light refuses to turn on.

    In Nazi Germany did no one but Jews have anything to fear from the Gestapo?

    By Stalin’s time Lenin and Trotsky had eliminated all members of the "oppressor class," but that did not stop Stalin from sending millions of "enemies of the people" to the Gulag.

    It is extremely difficult to hold even local police forces accountable. Who is going to hold accountable a federal police protected by Homeland Security and the president?

    January 24, 2006

    Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
     
  2. xd9fan

    xd9fan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,858
    Location:
    Under tyranny in Midwest
    The Gop is just the other side of the statist coin.
     
  3. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Tell me again how this new flavor of Republicans has anything to do with small government and fiscal conservatism? :scrutiny:

    Last I checked, expanding government agency bureacracies like balloons, creating new ones every other week and spending like drunken sailors weren't "conservative" values.
     
  4. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    Well, it's not well known but they are going to fill the positions of this new agency with "little people" (aka as midgets and dwarfs). That'll be their claim to a "small government".
     
  5. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,487
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    Another stupid article.

    Hate to break this to y'all -- but the U.S. Secret Service has long had a Uniformed Division ... only since 1922 ... and with the powers described in the article.

    Nothing new here.
     
  6. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    Yes, because we all know that Souter and Kennedy also did whatever Presidents Reagan and Bush 1 wanted.

    No, wait..... that didn't happen.

    Sorry,go back to your work......
     
  7. scubie02

    scubie02 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    916
    Location:
    ny
    There is little difference between most republicans and democrats these days--more reason to vote them all out and get some decent third party candidates, or recruit some people in from outside of current politics that might actually retain their integrity for a bit. The current bunch all love power too much, and never met a law they didn't like...
     
  8. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    I suspect some will try to discredit the writer by painting him as a member of the "liberal" press, nevermind the fact that he wrote for such liberal mouth pieces as the Wall Street Journal and the National Review.

    Look at all the pieces that are coming together--an administration that condones torture, wiretaps and arrests without warrants, indefinitely detains prisoners without charging them, tried to repeal the Posse Commitatus Act, and has now created a secret police force. What more does a person need to see us sliding into a totalitarian police state?

    If that is reason to dismiss this latest dictatorial power grab by the Bush administration, Old Dog, then why did they need a new law to authorize this new police force?

    This situation is getting to serious to blow off with an Officer Barbrady (the cop from South Park) admonition to: "Move along kids. There's nothing to see here."
     
  9. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    Read this section very SLOWLY and CAREFULLY (move your lips if it helps) and I think you will see that it is a description of the police powers held by every single police agency in the country.

    Which is a pretty far cry from this:
    I have a real problem with people who have to make up reactionary B.S. as a means to make a political point. The person who wrote this article is NO DIFFERENT from the people who write articles about .50 cal rifles knocking 747s out of the air.
     
  10. Sinsaba

    Sinsaba Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    585
    Location:
    Northern VA
    Hmm... let us look at this.

    Paul Craig Roberts' article starts out, "A provision in the "Patriot Act" creates a new federal police force with power to violate the Bill of Rights."


    According to Paul, the bill allows, "... The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

    The last time I looked, this was true of any and all police forces. In most states this is true of private citizens as well


    The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including "an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance" (SENS).

    "A special event of national significance" is neither defined nor does it require the presence of a "protected person" such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and to arrest people at their discretion


    The actual text (leaving out the list of other functions and individuals that this agency protects) reads more like this

    "... 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:

    ... (list of functions and people protected) ...

    `(11) An event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance. ..."


    Notice there is nothing there to indicate "arrest people at their discretion".



    The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events.



    If you read the list of who/when/where the protection extends to you will see that it extends to almost any political entity (US and others) and their family. Hardly a bill whose purpose is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheny events. If that is the in depth analysis applied to why this bill is being passed then I have to really worry about the rest of the analysis.

    "In Nazi Germany did no one but Jews have anything to fear from the Gestapo?"

    Here we go, the author just had to find more emotionaly laden text to put in since logic is wanting.

    A friend of mine objects to taking parts of long articles and sniping out what is needed for the point I am making, taking things out of context as he says. He has a point. so here is a link so you can read the actual text of the bill yourself. LINK

    The point I am making is that this is an article by another Bush Basher. There is really nothing new (the main new thing this does is put the power over the unit under the Department Of Homeland Security instead of the Secret Service). You may feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing but PLEASE use reason instead of inflamed retoric when you are making your point.

    Before anybody says that I shouldn't take shots at Wllm. Legrand for posting this... I'm not. It is Paul Craig Roberts that I take issue with.
     
  11. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,487
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    Well, L.B., don't know if you've noticed or not, but most of the federal agencies are all being absorbed under the umbrella of DHS. And this may not be a bad thing, as it could conceivably lead to some much needed consolidation of agencies in the long run, streamlining of chains-of-command, elimination of redundant assets and hence, possible savings of your tax dollars.
    In this case, the admonition is appropriate. There is nothing new here.

    A lack of research coupled with a lack of understanding of how federal agencies work and a propensity to fall for overblown, sensationalized rhetoric?
     
  12. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Shame, shame. I expect better from Mr. Roberts.:scrutiny:

    "New agency"??? Was not a member of this new agency a witness in the Lewinsky matter???;) :rolleyes: :D
     
  13. WT

    WT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    FWIW, the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City was a SENS event.

    And ....... in 1994 US Army Military Police arrested protestors at an Al Gore speech given at the Presidio of San Francisco. US Supreme Court ruled it was perfectly legal. The Supreme Court used the term 'arrest'.
     
  14. rock jock

    rock jock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    In the moment
    Let's see, an article designed to create an emotional, unthinking response and a dozen or so people more than willing to oblige. Sometimes this site resembles the DU and Brady Campaign for all the spin doctoring.
     
  15. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    rock, that's just what .gov wants us to think! Seeeee, that's further proof of the conspiracy!

    Look, there, a black helicopter!:what:
     
  16. scubie02

    scubie02 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    916
    Location:
    ny
    yep, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear...

    it'll almost be worth being in the gulag some day just so I can look at the idiots next to me and go "nothing to worry about because our boys the Republicans are in charge, right? The government is your friend..."
     
  17. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    Riiiight

    I notice that fail to see that this piece of BS was called out for what it is multiple times on the first page of the thread. Draw all the parrallells that you want, but they fall flat in the face of the actual facts.
     
  18. Wllm. Legrand

    Wllm. Legrand member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    219
    As opposed to the scintillating insight the above quote provides.

    We're not discussing the SS in isolation here. Read the article.
     
  19. Wllm. Legrand

    Wllm. Legrand member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    219
    It never ceases to amaze me the degree of faith in government some "conservatives" (and I use the term loosely) have.

    It just goes to show the degree to which so many people are not paying attention.
     
  20. Can'thavenuthingood

    Can'thavenuthingood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    704
    Location:
    California
    What is the need for yet another police agency?

    I'm running out of money to support my many governments.

    Vick
     
  21. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    Some people better quit posting the truth in this thread...........
     
  22. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,487
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    Ah, Wllm. LeGrande -- I'm no fan of the Patriot Act (in fact, I'm still dismayed that so many in Congress still support it), but the opinion piece you posted uses -- as the focal point of the article -- the Secret Service as an example of the federal government creating (implying that a whole new agency is being formed) another agency ... and that further, this new agency will possess "powers to violate the Bill of Rights."

    The article uses a false premise to generate more hysteria regarding the perceived government agenda to not only create additional and unnecessary law enforcement agencies, but also attempts to make the reader believe that those responsible for spawning this new agency do so with the intent to knowingly violate the Bill of Rights.

    I'm sorry, but I can't buy into this crap. If you want to subscribe to this naive belief that the government is purposely -- and actively -- trying to turn this country into a "police state," fine, have at it.

    First of all, while I do consider myself somewhat "conservative" politically, I do not possess much in the way of faith in those politicians who work for government. Not only do I have a pretty good knowledge of the workings of government, I have actually worked with some of these federal agencies, so I am well aware of the human failings involved, as well as the systemic and institutionalized deficiencies in government.

    And yes, just because some may not agree with you -- does not mean they are not "paying attention."
     
  23. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    North Carolina
    The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (Paul Craig Roberts or Chicken Little icon)
     
  24. carlrodd

    carlrodd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    849
    Location:
    Delaware
    all the hair-splitting and bickering and arguing over semantics is senseless. as far as i have observed, many on this site are very skeptical of the current trends in the use and abuse of power in the current administration. so let's say this police force is old news; here's the difference....we currently have an administration that is pushing the limits of executive power, and would not be above(IMO) tweaking and ever so slightly re-wording the duties/limits/jurisdiction of say a pre-existing police force in such a way as to prepare it for use in new and potentially frighteneing ways. and all the while, sleepy americans let the carefully worded changes slip by, along with another tiny slice of their freedom. maybe it doesn't apply to this situation, maybe it does. maybe it's a good thing to be a little paranoid......we're more likely to keep our eyes wide open then.
     
  25. tube_ee

    tube_ee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Except for the total lack of any need for expansion of the Secret Service's police powers, this is SOP for law enforcers.

    I thought an arrest for a felony not witnessed by the arresting officer required a warrant. If I'm right, then this is the real teeth in this provision. There would then be a Federal police force, answerable only to the Executive branch, with arrest powers that exceed those granted to any other police force. Giving the President his own cops is a bad idea in itself. Giving them expanded powers beyond the scope of other law enforcement agencies should sound alarms in the mind of anyone who's ever read the Constitution.

    Since the Government's police powers are historically the most frequently abused by those in power, it is precisely those powers which require the tightest restriction and the greatest oversight.

    --Shannon
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page