Just in time for the conventions

[Scheavo]

Where does the rationale behind this come from?

I ask this, because, basically, what does everyone here think is reasonable action to ensure the safety of the President? I think there's a large part of that in this bill, and I think it's a very fair question to ask, and something we need to acknowledge might be important enough to infringe a little upon some of our rights.

In the end, I do think the law crosses the line (or at least is abused for political gain).

[ReaPsTA]

Where does the rationale behind this come from?

I ask this, because, basically, what does everyone here think is reasonable action to ensure the safety of the President? I think there's a large part of that in this bill, and I think it's a very fair question to ask, and something we need to acknowledge might be important enough to infringe a little upon some of our rights.

In the end, I do think the law crosses the line (or at least is abused for political gain).

This has nothing to do with the safety of the president.  Nothing.

[Scheavo]

Where does the rationale behind this come from?

I ask this, because, basically, what does everyone here think is reasonable action to ensure the safety of the President? I think there's a large part of that in this bill, and I think it's a very fair question to ask, and something we need to acknowledge might be important enough to infringe a little upon some of our rights.

In the end, I do think the law crosses the line (or at least is abused for political gain).

This has nothing to do with the safety of the president.  Nothing.

I really don't know how you can say that. The bill and the orders go too far (and that has nothing to do with safety), but I can't help but get the feeling that the Secret Service has some keen desire to protect the President, and given today's environment, that may take quite a bit. Someone else being disorderly and being a distraction may not be harmful itself, but it could help create an environment where something harmful is more likely to occur. It also helps serve as a prevention of actual plots from getting off the ground ("By removing the willfully part, the secret service is making going to a rally to protest so risky that no one will do it.").

[ReaPsTA]

I really don't know how you can say that. The bill and the orders go too far (and that has nothing to do with safety), but I can't help but get the feeling that the Secret Service has some keen desire to protect the President, and given today's environment, that may take quite a bit. Someone else being disorderly and being a distraction may not be harmful itself, but it could help create an environment where something harmful is more likely to occur. It also helps serve as a prevention of actual plots from getting off the ground ("By removing the willfully part, the secret service is making going to a rally to protest so risky that no one will do it.").

Assassins don't need protestors to create chaos.  They don't even really need chaos.  Look at John Hinckley Jr. and Jared Loughner.  They snuck in during a moment where nothing was expected to happen.  Really, the worst place to attempt an assassination is when the Secret Service is on watch and waiting for something to happen.

And with the second point, where you quoted me, now we're getting back to the idea of arresting people not for committing a crime, but because they might be a committing a crime.  The exact same thing Bush has rightly been crucified for.  Why is it okay in this circumstance?  When did our rights become so easily thrown aside?

[William Wallace]

Fox does generally suck, but Napolitano is no slouch as a legal scholar. In his books (and now cancelled) show on Fox  he rips on the GOP for treating civil liberties as optional.

[antigoon]

His show got cancelled? The one on Fox Business?

[Scheavo]

I really don't know how you can say that. The bill and the orders go too far (and that has nothing to do with safety), but I can't help but get the feeling that the Secret Service has some keen desire to protect the President, and given today's environment, that may take quite a bit. Someone else being disorderly and being a distraction may not be harmful itself, but it could help create an environment where something harmful is more likely to occur. It also helps serve as a prevention of actual plots from getting off the ground ("By removing the willfully part, the secret service is making going to a rally to protest so risky that no one will do it.").

Assassins don't need protestors to create chaos.  They don't even really need chaos.  Look at John Hinckley Jr. and Jared Loughner.  They snuck in during a moment where nothing was expected to happen.  Really, the worst place to attempt an assassination is when the Secret Service is on watch and waiting for something to happen.

And with the second point, where you quoted me, now we're getting back to the idea of arresting people not for committing a crime, but because they might be a committing a crime.  The exact same thing Bush has rightly been crucified for.  Why is it okay in this circumstance?  When did our rights become so easily thrown aside?

It's not just the secret service, it's the methods they use and their effectiveness which stops people.

You may not need a distraction, but it common sense that a distraction, and too much going on, would hamper the effectiveness of the secret service. I'm giving you a reason why these circumstances are different, and your dismissing it out of hand.

Also, I never crucified Bush for this, so I dont see how it's relative. It applies to the President, and important public figures.

[William Wallace]

His show got cancelled? The one on Fox Business?

Indeed.

[kirksnosehair]

His show got cancelled? The one on Fox Business?

For this



Back on topic:
I didn't like it when Dubya did this stuff and I don't like it now.  Citizens should be allowed to protest where ever they damn well please as far as I'm concerned, and that goes for people I agree with as well as people I disagree with.  I get it that the president has to be protected, but this is bullshit.  "free speech zones" 

What's next?  "Voting Cities" and "Non Voting Cities" ?

[Super Dude]

His show got cancelled? The one on Fox Business?

For this



Back on topic:
I didn't like it when Dubya did this stuff and I don't like it now.  Citizens should be allowed to protest where ever they damn well please as far as I'm concerned, and that goes for people I agree with as well as people I disagree with.  I get it that the president has to be protected, but this is bullshit.  "free speech zones" 

What's next?  "Voting Cities" and "Non Voting Cities" ?

It's closer than you think.

[antigoon]

His show got cancelled? The one on Fox Business?

For this

I've cooled on Paul but they should have given him a promotion for that. When did it air?

[kirksnosehair]

Few weeks, maybe a month ago?

[Scheavo]

Back on topic:
I didn't like it when Dubya did this stuff and I don't like it now.  Citizens should be allowed to protest where ever they damn well please as far as I'm concerned, and that goes for people I agree with as well as people I disagree with.  I get it that the president has to be protected, but this is bullshit.  "free speech zones" 

What's next?  "Voting Cities" and "Non Voting Cities" ?

See, this is why I bring up the reason I bring up. Ya'll are acting as if the free speech zones are out of a desire to simply hamper and prevent free speech. I'm pointing out how, if you ask me, the reason this law exists is more to protect the President from physical harm, than simply some evil intentions to stop Democracy. Jumping from this law to such undemocratic practices is simply insane.

Obama has a right to life, and our collective rights to protest don't supersede that right. I think there's a much more reasonable, and balanced way to acknowledge both rights, but it really only harms the discussion when false reason and motives are being assigned.

[kirksnosehair]

Sorry, I disagree.

[El Barto]

As do I.

For one thing, the so-called free speech zones weren't limited to presidential appearances. They were in use throughout the conventions (and will be again this year).  Secondly, the treatment of the two parties at the conventions sends a very clear message and demonstrates a desire to sanitize the whole thing; put the people with the ugly signs 2 blocks away where they're out of sight/out of mind.

Next, the president is a citizen like anybody else.  Passive attempts to prevent his shit-filled head getting blown off are fine. Actively disregarding the Constitution for a modicum of increased safety is not.  It's also not necessary, as evidenced by the number of times he doesn't have to have his detractors quarantined several blocks away.

[Scheavo]

As do I.

For one thing, the so-called free speech zones weren't limited to presidential appearances. They were in use throughout the conventions (and will be again this year).  Secondly, the treatment of the two parties at the conventions sends a very clear message and demonstrates a desire to sanitize the whole thing; put the people with the ugly signs 2 blocks away where they're out of sight/out of mind.

I think the last part you mention takes it too far (I've never defended that, and have made quite clear from the beginning that this was my position) - but I think justified action to defend the President's life would contain many of the sanctioning and general "quarantining" that is in this bill.

And let's not pretend that the President is a normal citizen. It's a democratic fantasy, simply being the head of the government makes him more of a target than a normal citizen - and he has to stay and be a public figure, whereas most of us a private citizens. And the President being killed has huge political and social ramifications. Just look at the consequences of assassinations in history. In a Democracy, it martyr's the President, and any movement he's associated with.

The conventions are basically a huge symbol of our political systems, their time, date and places are known well in advance. This makes the conventions a much larger target for attacks, and so it needs stricter and better security. It's not like the President's normal trips, which are kept rather secret from the public. If this was out of a desire to stifle opposition, wouldn't it be done more, contrary to what you said - and doesn't the fact that it's not often indicative of a motive to keep someone safe?