Unsurprising but disappointing news reached my eyes today. The Senate and the House have passed a "Trespass" bill, called the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, which would have landed me in deep doo-doo back when I (along with many other protesters) disrupted President George W Bush's Social Security privatization dog-and-pony road show in 2005.
According to RT.com , under the act, the government is "given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country."
The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president [or any official under Secret Service protection] is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
How can YOU get charged with a federal offense, as I would have been? Find out below the squiggle.
First, what was my horrible 2005 action, which may soon be a federal crime?
I went to one of these events .
President Bush is in the midst of a 60-day "campaign style" swing across the country to try and build support for his [Social Security] privatization plan. And in the course of pulling together some video clips and research, I was struck by a must read column from MSNBC contributor Craig Crawford.
Craig Crawford describes attending a few of these events in "middle America" where President Bush has what the White House describes as a "conversation." But as Craig points out, "it is more like a conversation with himself."
Craig writes (and the video confirms) that those people who speak up in disagreement with President Bush or veer from the "script" are forcibly removed from the event. In Louisville, Mike Bailey said he got tired of the narrow "conversation," and at one point shouted out, "How about private accounts outside Social Security?" The President talked over Bailey by quickly mentioning the Kentucky economy. The crowd picked up the president's cue to drown out the unscripted question, and a standing ovation ensued as police led Mr. Bailey from the room.
The irony, of course, is that the proposal to "privatize accounts outside Social security" has been floated on Capitol Hill. Another irony is that President Bush has repeatedly told audiences and members of Congress, "All ideas should be on the table to make this system permanently solved." The third irony is that President Bush is capable of handling tough questions. And he has often been at his best when forced to respond to sharp criticism or different points of view. (I'm thinking of more than a few press conferences, including those on his recent trip to Europe.)
I'm not certain whether these Social Security events were the president's idea or the idea of his advisors. But it's hard to see how stifling any discussion or normal conversation is going to get the nation closer to solving the Social Security problem. If the White House is confident in its plans, that confidence and logic will come shining through under tough questioning. And that give and take might actually change the minds of those who aren't sure.
But as it stands, the straight jacket approach that President Bush is bringing to these events seems to offer little to those who have serious questions... except, of course, to remind everybody this is not a White House that welcomes serious debate.
I wrote up an admittedly sassy description of what happened for Buzzflash at the time, which you can find
here, but I intentionally left out some details that the police shared with me while they were walking me out. The cops had been so nice to me that I didn't want to get any of them in trouble. I figure now seven years later I can share this: The officers told me that the Q&A had all been rehearsed the night before. There were certain "parts" played by folks who came up on stage and there was a "stage director" who was playing the role of GWB. They practiced the whole thing. Not a single unscripted question was ever intended to be asked or answered.
I interrupted with my admittedly boring and wonky question about add-ons vs. carve-outs late in the show. There had been some "No Blood For Oil" outbursts earlier. I preferred to stay on topic. But being on topic did not get an answer.
Now I find that thanks to this Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, I could have been charged with a federal crime for my outburst. This would have certainly prevented me from speaking out. My wife would never have permitted my protest with this law in effect. This law would have a chilling effect on speech. The whole privatization road show was exposed as the joke it was by relentless protest (such as mine and others) at almost every whistle-stop. The media covered the tour AND the protests. Let me ask you this:
What would have happened if the protesters were silenced?
What would have happened if the media had only positive coverage of that tour?
If privatization had passed right before the Great Recession, what would have happened to Social Security?
Who is going to stop this? President Obama? More from RT.com:
Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.
God help us.
Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 5:46 PM PT: **UPDATE**
Obama signed it into law.
Let me share this with you:
"Mr. Obama made his name in the Illinois Legislature by championing historic civil liberties reforms, like the mandatory recording of all interrogations and confessions in capital cases. Although prosecutors, the police, the Democratic governor and even some death penalty advocates were initially opposed to the bill, Mr. Obama won them over. The reform passed unanimously, and it has been adopted by four other states and the District of Columbia.
In the Senate, Mr. Obama distinguished himself by making civil liberties one of his legislative priorities. He co-sponsored a bipartisan reform bill that would have cured the worst excesses of the Patriot Act by meaningfully tightening the standards for warrantless surveillance. Once again, he helped encourage a coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives. The effort failed when Hillary Clinton joined 13 other Democrats in supporting a Republican motion to cut off debate on amendments to the Patriot Act."
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Such irony. As soon as he was elected he slapped on the stormtrooper boots and started tromping on civil liberties.
Check it out:
http://articles.latimes.com/...
"Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.
However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II."
Sickening.