PowerSwitch

A bill passed Monday in the US Congress and Thursday in the Senate would make it a felony—a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration—to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. Several commentators have dubbed it the “anti-Occupy” law, but its implications are far broader.

The bill—H.R. 347, or the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”—was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.

The virtually unanimous passage of H.R. 347 starkly exposes the fact that, despite all the posturing, the Democrats and the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the corporate and financial oligarchy, which regarded last year’s popular protests against social inequality with a mixture of fear and hostility.

Among the central provisions of H.R. 347 is a section that would make it a criminal offense to “enter or remain in” an area designated as “restricted.”

The bill defines the areas that qualify as “restricted” in extremely vague and broad terms. Restricted areas can include “a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” and “a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

The Secret Service provides bodyguards not just to the US president, but to a broad layer of top figures in the political establishment, including presidential candidates and foreign dignitaries.

Even more sinister is the provision regarding events of “national significance.” What circumstances constitute events of “national significance” is left to the unbridled discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. The occasion for virtually any large protest could be designated by the Department of Homeland Security as an event of “national significance,” making any demonstrations in the vicinity illegal.

HR 347: One more step towards Neo-Feudalism

In feudal times, you could be put to death if you didn't kneel when the carriages of the nobility passed by. This is a step in that direction...

<snip>

To be arrested and imprisoned, all you need to do is be the same building or area around a person that has secret service protection. You don't even need to know they are there to be arrested and imprisoned. If you are merely walking by the area, you can be legally jailed for one year. If you are carrying something that can be seen as a weapon (legally or not), that imprisonment can be extended to ten years.

In short, if you are within the same building or neighborhood as a political or foreign personage without their expressed permission, you can be imprisoned.

"Trust us" or "they are good people" isn't a valid answer to this critique. If a new power can be abused legally, it will eventually be abused. Very simple tautology.

Lord Beria3 wrote:Among the central provisions of H.R. 347 is a section that would make it a criminal offense to “enter or remain in” an area designated as “restricted.”

The bill defines the areas that qualify as “restricted” in extremely vague and broad terms. Restricted areas can include “a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” and “a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.” The Secret Service provides bodyguards not just to the US president, but to a broad layer of top figures in the political establishment, including presidential candidates and foreign dignitaries.

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Speaking of the recent UK St Paul's occupy event the protesters achieved absolutely none of their stated aims and made the place look very untidy while doing it.

energy-village wrote:

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Speaking of the recent UK St Paul's occupy event the protesters achieved absolutely none of their stated aims and made the place look very untidy while doing it.

Quite right, we should ban any protests that (1) aren't immediately successful and (2) make the place look untidy. That's almost every protest in history, then.

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:I see that as an indication that the majority of people have had enough of the disruptive posturings of a vocal minority.

Why should the peaceful majority tolerate an 'occupy protest'?

Speaking of the recent UK St Paul's occupy event the protesters achieved absolutely none of their stated aims and made the place look very untidy while doing it.

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Nope but we should stop minority groups from disrupting the activities of the rest of us.

JavaScriptDonkey wrote: Nope but we should stop minority groups from disrupting the activities of the rest of us.

RenewableCandy wrote:

JavaScriptDonkey wrote: Nope but we should stop minority groups from disrupting the activities of the rest of us.

Quite right. The banks comprise a tiny minority of people and they are disrupting the lives of the rest of us by hoovering up vast amounts of money, both when they are profitable, and when they crash. They should be bundled unceremoniously into the back of a van (with their posessions left lying about in the street) and taken away.

RenewableCandy wrote:They should be bundled unceremoniously into the back of a van (with their posessions left lying about in the street) and taken away.

WUM Rolling Eyes

RenewableCandy wrote:

JavaScriptDonkey wrote: Nope but we should stop minority groups from disrupting the activities of the rest of us.

Quite right. The banks comprise a tiny minority of people and they are disrupting the lives of the rest of us by hoovering up vast amounts of money, both when they are profitable, and when they crash. They should be bundled unceremoniously into the back of a van (with their posessions left lying about in the street) and taken away.