| |
The Secret
Police and Political Dissent
by John W. Whitehead
2/6/2006
Once upon a time, a handful of colonists, fed up with being
arrested and jailed for speaking out, decided to take on the
British Empire. These great dissenters won the war. And when
it came time to write the Constitution, they made sure that
they included the rights to free speech and to protest by
enshrining these essential freedoms in the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, many of us have not learned the lessons that
our forefathers tried to teach us. Indeed, as we move
further into the new millennium, the American government
increasingly resembles the empire against which our
ancestors fought.
This fact was made abundantly clear with the passage of the
USA Patriot Act and more recently with the revelation that
President Bush bypassed federal law in approving warrantless
electronic surveillance of Americans. And a new bill,
sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), gives the Secret
Service unbridled authority to suppress political
dissent—one of the most basic and essential elements of
democracy.
The proposed law, with the Orwellian title “Secret Service
Authorization and Technical Modification Act of 2005,”
states: “It shall be unlawful for any person or group of
persons to willfully and knowingly enter any posted,
cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or
grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event
designated as a special event of national significance.”
Without defining what a “special event of national
significance” is, the provision continues: “It shall be
unlawful for any person or group of persons to willfully,
knowingly, and with intent…engage in disorderly or
disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any
building or grounds designated a special event of national
significance.” The phrase “engage in disorderly or
disruptive conduct” is not defined, either. This means
that whatever constitutes an event of “national
significance” or “disruptive conduct” is left entirely
to the discretion of the secret police.
And the penalty for breaking this law would increase the
maximum imprisonment from 6 months to 10 years if committed
with a weapon or 1 year if committed without a weapon.
The proposed law also creates a new federal police force:
“There is hereby created and established a permanent
police force, to be known as the ‘United States Secret
Service Uniformed Division.’” And: “Under the
direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of
the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are
authorized to…carry firearms; make arrests without a
warrant for any offense against the United States committed
in their presence.”
This law reaches a legitimate and necessary concern. And to
the extent that it merely intends to protect the President
without trampling on the civil liberties of Americans, the
law makes sense. But that is precisely the problem—it
provides law enforcement officials broad authority and
discretion over our most basic rights. By giving federal
agents the ability to prevent a citizen from attending a
political event based on the belief—unfounded or
not—that they will protest or speak unfavorably about the
government, the law violates the right to speak freely on
matters of public concern. After all, at the heart of the
First Amendment is the ability to criticize the government
and have an open and free discussion about its policies. The
law also allows these new federal police agents the power to
arrest and conduct warrantless searches, arguably in
violation of the Fourth Amendment.
All this despite the fact that federal law currently
provides criminal penalties for entering a restricted area
where the President or other person is protected by the
Secret Service.
However, even under current law, the Secret Service has
participated in harassment of individuals who have appeared
at taxpayer-funded forums with the President if they are
perceived to disagree with the Bush Administration’s
position. For example, on March 21, 2005, two Denver
students who had obtained tickets from their Congressman
were expelled from a “town hall” forum because they had
an anti-war bumper sticker on their car. Officials,
including one who identified himself as a Secret Service
agent, told the students the event was limited to audience
members who shared the President’s views and that they
would have to leave, even if they had no intention of
disrupting the event. It apparently made no difference that
the topic of the forum was Social Security reform, not the
Iraq war. Similar incidents have occurred at presidential
visits throughout the country.
The new law could seriously worsen the impact on free speech
by banning any form of dissent, peaceful or not. It would
allow the Secret Service, in effect, to declare martial law,
cordon off areas and enforce exclusion zones at any event
deemed a “special event of national significance.” This
even if no Secret Service protectee were scheduled to speak
or attend.
In fact, it most likely would be used against groups from
diverse political backgrounds. For example, if the Secret
Service declares the next U.N. conference on population
control an “event of national significance,” it could
arrest members of anti-abortion groups who want to protest.
And under this new law, the Secret Service could shut down
areas throughout the conference and arrest any potential
protester who might violate the zone.
Sadly, the targets of the Secret Service under this law will
not be terrorists or threats to national security. Perhaps
that is the problem with post-9/11 America—the cloud of
fear is so pervasive that we can no longer make commonsense
judgments about own security and safety.
All law enforcement officers—federal, state and
local—take an oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of
the United States. And while many of them make a commendable
effort to fulfill this obligation, others fail to understand
the very document they swore to uphold. Countless
congressional actions are passed every year seeking to
address legitimate and pressing problems. But many of them,
like this one, naively assume that they will be enforced by
individuals who have a clear understanding of and
appreciation for our Bill of Rights.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is
founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be
contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. |
