US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law

[Mazmaz]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/ma...prot-m03.shtml

A bill passed Monday in the US House of Representatives 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.

For certain, included among such events would be the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, which have been classified as National Special Security Events (NSSE), a category created under the Clinton administration. These conventions have been the occasion for protests that have been subjected to ever increasing police restrictions and repression. Under H.R. 347, future protests at such events could be outright criminalized.

The standard punishment under the new law is a fine and up to one year in prison. If a weapon or serious physical injury is involved, the penalty may be increased to up to ten years.

Also criminalized by the bill is conduct “that impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions” and “obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds.” These provisions, even more so than the provisions creating “restricted areas,” threaten to criminalize a broad range of protest activities that were previously perfectly legal.

In order to appreciate the unprecedented sweep of H.R. 347, it is necessary to consider a few examples:

 A wide area around the next G-20 meeting or other global summit could be designated “restricted” by the Secret Service, such that any person who “enters” a that area can be subject to a fine and a year in jail under Section 1752(a)(1) (making it a felony to enter any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so).

 Senator Rick Santorum, the ultra-right Republican presidential candidate, enjoys the protection of the Secret Service. Accordingly, a person who shouts “boo!” during a speech by Santorum could be subject to arrest and a year of imprisonment under Section 1752(a)(2) (making it a felony to “engag[e] in disorderly or disruptive conduct in” a restricted area).

 Striking government workers who form a picket line near any event of “national significance” can be locked up under Section 1752(a)(3) (making it a crime to imped[e] ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds).

Under the ancien regime in France, steps were taken to ensure that the “unwashed masses” were kept out of sight whenever a carriage containing an important aristocrat or church official was passing through. Similarly, H.R. 347 creates for the US president and other top officials a protest-free bubble or “no-free-speech zone” that follows them wherever they go, making sure the discontented multitude is kept out of the picture.

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act is plainly in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which was passed in 1791 in the aftermath of the American Revolution. The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (The arrogance of the Democratic and Republican politicians is staggering—what part of “Congress shall make no law” do they not understand?)

H.R. 347 comes on the heels of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was signed by President Obama into law on December 31, 2011. The NDAA gives the president the power to order the assassination and incarceration of any person—including a US citizen—anywhere in the world without charge or trial.

The passage of H.R. 347 has been the subject of a virtual blackout in the media. In light of the unprecedented nature of the bill, which would effectively overturn the First Amendment, this blackout cannot be innocent. The media silence therefore represents a conscious effort to keep the American population in the dark as to the government’s efforts to eviscerate the Bill of Rights.

The bill would vastly expand a previous law making it misdemeanor to trespass on the grounds of the White House. An earlier version of the bill would have made it a felony just to “conspire” to engage in any of the conduct described above. The bill now awaits President Obama’s signature before it becomes the law of the land.

What lies behind the unprecedented attack underway on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is a growing understanding in the ruling class that the protests that took place around the world against social inequality in 2011 will inevitably re-emerge in more and more powerful forms in 2012 and beyond, as austerity measures and the crashing economy make the conditions of life more and more impossible for the working class. The virtually unanimous support in Congress H.R. 347, among Democrats as well as Republicans, reflects overriding sentiment within the ruling establishment for scrapping all existing democratic rights in favor of dictatorial methods of rule.

This sentiment was most directly expressed this week by Wyoming Republican legislator David Miller, who recently introduced a bill into the state legislature that would give the state the power, in an “emergency,” to create its own standing army through conscription, print its own currency, acquire military aircraft, suspend the legislature, and establish martial law. “Things happen quickly sometimes—look at Libya, look at Egypt, look at those situations,” Miller told the Star-Tribune in Casper, Wyoming. Repeating arguments employed by every military dictatorship over the past century, Miller declared, “We wouldn’t have time to meet as a Legislature or even in special session to do anything to respond.” Miller’s so-called “doomsday law” was defeated in the Wyoming legislature Tuesday by the narrow margin of 30-27.

[Sera]

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.

ughhhhhhhh

[Siatdiat]

ughhhhhhhh

I don't know what is surprising about that.

[Lucavi]

Sorry Sera, politics are all in it together. Remember; democrat or republican, they all make bank together.

[Kurokikaze]

Um... 1st Amendment anyone? wtf is this? lol

[Cantih]

Let's see

[bigfuckintext]CONGRESS[/bigfuckintext] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yep, pretty sure they just did something unconstitutional.

[Synbios]

Sorry Sera, politics are all in it together. Remember; democrat or republican, they all make bank together.

while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill

I guess being consistent on protecting the Constitution and protecting peoples personal liberties isn't in vogue right now. Just goes to show that there is only 1 person running who wont be a "more of the same" president this term.

[Kurokikaze]

I guess being consistent on protecting the Constitution and protecting peoples personal liberties isn't in vogue right now. Just goes to show that there is only 1 person running who wont be a "more of the same" president this term.

Until hes elected. Then he will fall in line like the rest of them.

The new generations (the ones that will represent people that will be alive 60 years from now) are not ready to get into politics - or just don't care enough.

[Siatdiat]

Until hes elected. Then he will fall in line like the rest of them.

This. I don't think its possible to be elected unless you are corruptible, in most situations.

[Kurokikaze]

I'll take that challenge.

When are you getting involved in politics? I was thinking of getting my foot in the door in like 5-6 years

[Sera]

I'll take that challenge.

Every time you post things like this I get SO FUCKING PUMPED for the future.

[Sera]

Let's see

Yep, pretty sure they just did something unconstitutional.

Someone will have to contest it though in order to get it overturned, right?

[Cantih]

Correct

Unless Obama vetos it, but with a majority like that, it's gonna be NDAA all over again.
You'd need to get him to veto it first, then wage the most massive phone in campaign ever to get legislators to flip on in before it gets voted on again.

[Kurokikaze]

Every time you post things like this I get SO FUCKING PUMPED for the future.

You're not the only one.

[Kurokikaze]

Tossing all the unconstitutional acts the government has passed since 2001 is just the tip of the iceberg. I've got a list I add to all the time of the things I believe in and will see accomplished.

You can't do anything without like-minded people with the same goals/ideals. I'm just hoping a lot more people in our age range are looking at politics and getting fed up with the status quo.

[Mazmaz]

Zealot are you really as big a deal as you make it sound? I googled your twitter and got literally 3 results (twitter and this site).

[BaneTheBrawler]

He's big in Japan.

[Cleverness]

Zealot what state are you gonna be running in

[Mazmaz]

How old are you?

[Mazmaz]

What does becoming credible entail? I always thought politicians were all like super keeners in high school, president of their student council, straight into law school for post secondary, etc. etc.

I actually honestly thought you were like a 23 year old in law school or something.