Bush to criminalize protesters under Patriot Act as Disrupto

Written By: Diogenes
Date: 2006-01-13 01:40:00
<a href="/article/14011838-bush-to-criminalize-protesters-under-patriot-act-as-disruptors">Article Link</a>

What are the parameters of the crime of "disruptive behavior"? The dictionary defines "disruptive" as "characterized by unrest or disorder or insubordination." The American Medical Association defines disruptive behavior as a "style of interaction" with people that interferes with patient care, and can include behavior such as "foul language; rude, loud or offensive comments; and intimidation of patients and family members."

What are the rules of engagement for "disruptors"? Some Bush Team history of their treatment of disruptors provide some clues on how this administration will treat disruptors in the future.

(1) People perceived as disruptors may be preemptively ejected from events before engaging in any disruptive conduct.

In the beginning of this war against disruptors, Americans were ejected from taxpayer funded events where Bush was speaking. At first the events were campaign rallies during the election, and then the disruptor ejectment policy was expanded to include Bush's post election campaign-style events on public policy issues on his agenda, such as informing the public on medicare reform and the like. If people drove to the event in a car with a bumper sticker that criticized Bush's policies or wore T-shirts with similar criticism, they were disruptors who could be ejected from the taxpayer event even before they engaged in any disruptive behavior. White House press secretary McClellan defended such ejectments as a proper preemptive strike against persons who may disrupt an event: "If we think people are coming to the event to disrupt it, obviously, they're going to be asked to leave."

(2) Bush Team may check its vast array of databanks to cull out those persons who it deems having "disruptor" potential and then blacklist those persons from events.

The White House even has a list of persons it deems could be "disruptive" to an eventand then blacklists those persons from attending taxpayer funded events where Bush speaks. Sounds like Bush not only has the power to unilaterally designate people as "enemy combatants" in the global "war on terror," but to unilaterally designate Americans as "disruptive" in the domestic war against free speech.

(3) The use of surveillance, monitoring and legal actions against disruptors.

Bush's war against disruptors was then elevated to surveillance, monitoring, and legal actions against disruptor organizations. The FBI conducts political surveillance and obtains intelligence filed in its database on Bush administration critics , such as civil rights groups (e.g., ACLU), antiwar protest groups (e.g., United for Peace and Justice) and environmental groups (e.g., Greenpeace).

This surveillance of American citizens exercising their constitutional rights has been done under the pretext of counterterrorism activities surrounding protests of the Iraq war and the Republican National Convention. The FBI maintains it does not have the intent to monitor political activities and that its surveillance and intelligence gathering is "intended to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at demonstrations, not to quell free speech."

Surveillance of potential disruptors then graduated to legal actions as a preemptive strike against potential disruptive behavior at public events. In addition to monitoring and surveillance of legal groups and legal activities, the FBI issued subpoenas for members to appear before grand juries based on the FBI's "intent" to prevent "disruptive convention protests." The Justice Dept. opened a criminal investigation and subpoenaed records of Internet messages posted by Bush`s critics. And, the Justice Dept. even indicted Greenpeace for a protest that was so lame the federal judge threw out the case.

So now the Patriot Act, which was argued before enactment as a measure to fight foreign terrorists, is being amended to make clear that it also applies to American citizens who have the audacity to disrupt President Bush wherever his bubble may travel. If this provision is enacted into law, then Bush will have a law upon which to expand the type of people who constitute disruptors and the type of activities that constitute disruptive activities. And, then throw them all in jail.

Find this page online at: <a href="http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/blog/bush-to-criminalize-prote.shtml">http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/blog/bush-to-criminalize-prote.shtml</a>

I know we have some Americans here who are against censorship; I implore you to fight this! "Protest Zones" are already unconstitutional in the USA, don't let them further take away your rights under the pretense of the War on Terrorism!

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation.

Thankfully for the most part the US court system has not been totally perverted. So this like any of the anti-freedom Bush laws will be challenged. Poor neocons are going to see the courts stand up to them in 2006. It has already started with Paddila the so called dirty bomber.

The Supreme Court is a different story though...

the STALIN-NAZI-TION....has all ready begun, it has been for the last 8 years, the government traitors want dictorship, and for those who have no idea what it is like to live under dictatorship, you are about to find out.....this dictorship will happen in canada, by the coward lapdog politicians for their NEO-CON MASTERS.........just read Bill C-36, canada's version of the Patriot Act 
 
<a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/251105perspective.htm">http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/251105perspective.htm</a> 
 
<a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/101205perspective.htm">http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/101205perspective.htm</a> 
 
<a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/151205perspective.htm">http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/151205perspective.htm</a>

[W]e’re up against despotism. And whatever rhetoric they want to use and say, oh, we’re not despots, we’re good Americans -- well, everybody says that. But they’re not. They are the enemy. And they have targeted the American people.

-- Gore Vidal, speaking of the Bush Cartel

That's it! I don't want to live on that planet anymore... when is the next probe for mars?

>>>don't let them further take away your rights under the pretense of the War on Terrorism!<<<<

What you don’t seem to understand, despite having it pointed out over and over is that any fool can write a law, indeed, it seems to be a requirement. The fact is if it is unconstitutional it is meaningless. I haven’t had the time to track this down, along with the “cyber annoyance” thing, but if it is unconstitutional then it is invalid. There are more freedoms guaranteed under the US bill of rights then there are under the Canadian charter.

The other thing you don’t seem to understand is that most anything from “daily Kos” is crazy bullshit. Total propaganda. Look at all the qualifiers:

>> A "little-noticed provision" in the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to charge protesters with a new crime of "disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics."<<<

Why don’t they cite that "little-noticed provision"?

>>Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with "breaching security" and to charge for "entering a restricted area" which is "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting."<<<

Well…There go all my freedoms! It is probably a good thing to be able to restrict people’s access to the president, as you all know there are a lot of nuts out there…

>>In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.<<<

No, that is not what that said, is it? See, it is this kind of leap that sucks you in to the bullshit.

>>Bush Team history tells us<<<

Come on…

>>-- Gore Vidal,<<<

LOL!

Does laughing in a superficial and antagonizing
manner refute Vidal's claims ? No !!! It merely indicates
your complete and utter lack of cerebral skill, depth,
content and intelligence.Also, you are in denial.You
are blindly evading the TRUTH.

You live in a NEO-FASCIST USA under the Right-Wing WACKO Neo-Con clan of insane and oblivious MORONS Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld. An imperialistic, militaristic, puritanical, hypocritical, repressive, regressive, violent,
destructive, dogmatic, fundamentalist, polarizing,
incarcerating, corporatized, elitist Neo-fascist
NATIONAL SECURITY STATE WHERE RIGHTS AND CIVIL
LIBERTIES ARE ERODED AND ERADICATED
UNDER THE GUISE OF RIGHTEOUS, AUTHORITARIAN,
DICTATORIAL PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES to
gullible Bush-Loving dogmatic Republican
SHEEP.

And you don't even see it.You are perfect fodder for
the Neo-Fascist clan of insane right-wing WACKO
cultists.

Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and now, Harper.

BOYCOTT the 2 political dinosaurs who have brought
us to the brink of unseen dictatorship.The Liberals
and Conservatives.If you lean left, vote NDP, if you lean right (fiscally), vote Green.

For those in the USA, boycott the Republican
WACKOS and waffling/incompetent Democrats.Vote
Nader if you lean left, vote Badnarik (Libertarian)
if you lean right (fiscally).

The way towards liberty is to now BOYCOTT
the corrupt, deceptive, 2-party dictatorship
in favor of viable Liberty-Minded options.

While we still have them.

Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. government

Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 13, 2006, 07:42

President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.

Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by activating “national security initiatives” put in place by Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.

These “national security initiatives," hatched in 1982 by controversial Marine Colonel Oliver North, later one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal, charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders that allowed suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law, establishment of internment camps, and the turning the government over to the President.

John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the martial law implementation plan, following a template originally developed by former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida to battle a “national uprising of black militants.” Gifuffrida’s implementation of martial law called for jailing at least 21 million African Americans in “relocation camps.” Brinkerhoff later admitted in an interview with the Miami Herald that President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they remained in place, dormant, until George W. Bush took office.

Brinkerhoff moved on the Anser Institute for Homeland Security and, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, provided the Bush White House and the Pentagon with talking points supporting revised “national security initiatives” that would could allow imposition of martial law and suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law that is supposed to forbid use of troops for domestic law enforcement.

Brinkerhoff wrote that intentions of Posse Comitatus are “misunderstood and misapplied” and that the U.S. has in times of national emergency the “full and absolute authority” to send troops into American streets to “enforce order and maintain the peace.”

Bush used parts of the plan to send troops into the streets of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. In addition, FEMA hired former special forces personnel from the mercenary firm Blackwater USA to “enforce security.”

Blackwater USA, in its promotional materials, describes itself as “the most comprehensive professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations company in the world,” adding that “we have established a global presence and provide training and operational solutions for the 21st century in support of security and peace, and freedom and democracy everywhere.”

Blackwater is also a major U.S. contractor in Iraq and has a contract with the Bush White House to provide additional security work “on an as-needed basis.”

The Department of Homeland Security established the “Northern Command for National Defense,” a wide-ranging program that includes FEMA, the Pentagon, the FBI and the National Security Agency. Executive orders already signed by Bush allow the Northern Command to send troops into American streets, seize control of radio and television stations and networks and impose martial law “in times of national emergency.”

The authority to declare what is or is not a national emergency rests entirely with Bush who does not have to either consult or seek the approval of Congress for permission to assume absolute control over the government of the United States.

The White House press office would neither confirm nor deny existence of Bush’s executive orders or the existence of the Northern Command for National Defense. Neither would the Department of Homeland Security.

But my sources within the White House and DHS tell me the plans are in place, ready for implementation when the command comes from the man who keeps telling the American public that he is a “war time president” who will “do anything in my power” to impose his will on the people of the United States.

And he has made sure that power will be absolute when he chooses to use it.

>>> Does laughing in a superficial and antagonizing
manner refute Vidal's claims ?<<<

Nope, I have done that with Gore himself.

>>> No !!! It merely indicates
your complete and utter lack of cerebral skill, depth,
content and intelligence.<<<

No trailing, I have no doubt that without the help of Google you couldn’t name any of his books let alone refute his arguments in them. Suffice to say, a familiarity with who he is, where he came from and how his early works were received explains why he is such a bitter little drama queen.

You on the other hand, you are just nuts.

EVERY PRESIDENT since Roosevelt has passed/signed Executive Orders to be able to take over the government in case of an emergency or a good excuse. Hasn't happened yet. By the way, I thought president Bush was too dumb to plan anything like that. You can't have it both ways. You can't say the president is dumb and then say "He's a dictator", "He's planning to take over the country", "He's going to take over the world". If you are going to be paranoid, at least come to some logical conclusions.

<blockquote>There are more freedoms guaranteed under the US bill of rights then there are under the Canadian charter.</blockquote> Why don't you cite those specific "guarantees"? See, I can make vague and meaningless FUD too. It doesn't improve your argument in the least. <blockquote> "anything from “daily Kos” is crazy bullshit." </blockquote> Ah, an ad-hominem attack! Classic distraction. Too bad that the American Civil Liberties Union is *also* opposing this particular clause. Are they crazy too? <blockquote> Why don’t they cite that "little-noticed provision"?</blockquote> Why don't you read the ACLU's letters to the House or Senate about this hidden provision? Here's an excerpt: <blockquote>***QUOTE from the ACLU: These changes are buried in title VI of the Conference Report, the "Secret Service Authorization and Technical Modification Act of 2005," which was not a part of either the House or the Senate version of the bill. Despite its title, the new language does not merely make technical corrections, but rather makes major changes to the criminal statutes administered by the Secret Service that could seriously damage the free speech rights of all Americans. 18 U.S.C. § 1752 currently provides criminal penalties for entrance into "any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting ..." Section 602 of the Conference Report would broaden this provision, giving the Secret Service effective power to create "exclusion zones" even without the expected attendance of the President or other Secret Service protectee. </blockquote> http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/22670leg20051212.html http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/22689prs20051212.html So, you're okay with having censorship provisions snuck into anti-terrorism legislation under the guise of technical corrections? Why HAVEN'T you looked into this yet? Every American should be scared shitless by the *prospect* of having their freedoms revoked without the provisions in question ever being seen by the House or Senate! <blockquote> It is probably a good thing to be able to restrict people’s access to the president </blockquote> Indeed. Now explain why the secret service is allowed to declare "Exclusion zones" for places that the president isn't even expected to visit? Will a protestor at the olypics somehow hurt the President when he's on his ranch? --- Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation.

What you say has always been within the power of the Executive branch. Take a long deep breath.

Mike
USA