ACLU Opposes Patriot Act Provision
I find it curious that the ACLU is ’supposedly’ only opposing this one provision. And which provision is that? Oh it’s the one which protects the President or anyone the Secret Service is protecting from so-called activists who ignore or breach security barriers or secured areas.
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.
Penalties for such violations would increase from six months to a year in prison.
To the ACLU, the changes would open the door to even tighter security restrictions at major events and would subject protesters to harassment from federal law enforcement officers.
The ACLU is quite familiar with the ‘Slippery Slope’ argument. Of course, they are usually defending AGAINST it instead of the other way around.
Comment by mdmhvonpa — December 13, 2005 @ 11:28 am
From the article cited: To the ACLU, the changes would open the door to even tighter security restrictions at major events and would subject protesters to harassment from federal law enforcement officers….But Specter and his aides said the first change is meant to close a loophole in current law, whereas the second is aimed at making clear that the Secret Service has authority at major events as outlined in a Clinton-era presidential directive.
Could this ACLU objection tacitly (unintentionally?) speak to the fact that those who harass GWB are inherently more dangerous than those who harassed Clinton? Just asking.
The ACLU simply doesn’t care about the safety of a conservation President. At least, that’s how I see it.
Comment by Always On Watch — December 13, 2005 @ 12:00 pm
Typo! Make that “conservative,” not “conservation.” Sheesh!
Comment by Always On Watch — December 13, 2005 @ 12:01 pm