Reply #30: yes I read Nimmo and he (and you) are absolutely and demonstrably wrong [View All]

[onenote]

I’m going to try one more time, with lots of citations and everything. Maybe then you won’t be so fast to believe the half-baked rantings of an internet blogger.

Let’s start with what Nimmo says. He claims that Congress “has proposed the creation” of a “spanking new federal police force” to be known as the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.” Citing fellow half-baked blogger, BenFrank, he suggests that this represents the first time the country will have had a federal police force. He goes on to equate this “new” federal police force with the Gestapo. In support, he points to a provision in the proposed law that says “In carrying out the functions pursuant to paragraphs (7) and (9) of subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security may utilize, with their consent, on a reimbursable basis, the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of State and local government.” According to Nimmo, this means that if chimpy is going to drive through your city and you send an email to friends suggesting that you stand on a public street corner waving signs, under the new law, the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service can “commandeer” your local cops and order them to arrest you for act of sending that email.

Okay, so let’s look at what the law really is today and what the “new” law does.

1. The first “federal police force” dates back more than 100 years. The Uniformed Division has its origins in the White House Police Force which was created in 1922 and moved under the supervision of the Secret Service in 1930. It has gone under various names over the years, but has been known as the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service since 1977. http://www.secretservice.gov/ud.shtml

2. As I indicated in an earlier post, section 202 of title 3 of the US Code currently “creates and establishes” the Uniformed Division. What the new law does is repeal section 202 (and other sections in the same chapter of title 3) and move it, largely intact, to title 18, which happens to be where the provisions governing the Secret Service in general are located. In other words, it’s a clarifying/technical change, not the creation of a new entity. The likely reason (apart from organizational consistency) is simply the recognition that the functions of the Uniformed Division have, for many many years, involved more than the protection of the President and thus it doesn’t really make sense for the authorizing provision to be in the section of the law dealing with the presidency.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000202----000-.html

In short, Nimmo (and BenFrank’s) claim that the new law would create the first federal police force in US history is utter bullshit.

Now let’s look at what other changes the new law makes.

1. I will acknowledge that the new law makes a few other changes in the provision creating the Uniformed Division. But these changes are essentially clarifying and/or technical. In particular, the new law specifies that the Uniformed Division’s protection extends to the President and VP elect, former presidents, the next in line to the presidency in times where there is no VP, and to visiting heads of state. These “additions” aren’t really substantive expansions in the Uniformed Division’s powers since they already are covered by the current provision spelling the powers of the Secret Service (of which the Uniformed Division is, uh, a division) in general. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/index.html

2. Nimmo is all hot and bothered by the “new” provision that supposedly allows the Uniformed Division to “commandeer” local cops to arrest you for threatening to protest a chimpy visit. Two little problems. The provision allowing the Uniformed Division to utilize local law enforcement resources (with their consent and with reimbursement, which doesn’t fit my idea of “commandeering”) is not new and only applies in very limited circumstances. Specifically, the proposed language merely provides that the Uniformed Division can utilize local law enforcement in two situations: to protect foreign missions located outside Washington DC and to protect visiting foreign officials when they visit cities other than DC. The reason for this provision is obvious – its not cost effective to fly dozens of Secret Service agents all over the country every time a foreign official visits. So, if Prince Charles visits LA, the Secret Service can ask LA police to provide security and the US government will pick up the tab. Moreover, this isn’t a new provision. The exact same authority exists today in section 208 of title 3. That section, like section 203, is being moved to title 18. Whoop-de-doo. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000208----000-.html

3. There is one new provision that might be viewed as a substantive expansion of the law, although as usual Nimmo and friends completely mischaracterize it. Under current section 1752 of title 18, it is illegal to “willfully and knowingly” enter or remain in a cordoned off, posted, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where a person under the protection of the Secret Service (not just the Uniformed Division) “is or is temporarily visiting.” It also is illegal to willfully and knowingly and with intent to impede or disrupt official government functions, for someone to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted area where a protected person is present IF such conduct “in fact” impedes or disrupts. (In other words, just threatening to disrupt doesn’t cut it, you have to actually do so). Also illegal under current law: willfully or knowingly impeding entry or exit from a restricted area where a protected person is present or engaging in any act of physical violence against any person or property in a restricted area where a protected person is present. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001752----000-.html

Finally under current law (section 3056(d) of title 18), its illegal to interfere with the Secret Service when they are carrying out their protective duties under section 1752. So, if the President of France visits the US and goes to the theater and he wants to go to the bathroom, the Secret Service can cordon off the bathroom and if you attempt to bust in to relieve your bladder, you can be arrested. Shocking.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/index.html

What the new law does that might be considered an “expansion” of current law (but probably isn’t really) is as follows. The current law applies to areas when a protected person is present. The new law adds a section that makes it illegal to do any of the things described above in an area designated by the President as a “national event of special significance” even if a protected person isn’t actually there. So, for example, if chimpy is going to make a speech at a hotel in Dubuque at noon, the Secret Service (not just the Uniformed Division, but any officer or agent) can cordon off an area for security before he arrives and if you won’t leave the area or try to sneak in, they can bust you. By the way, the authority to designate NSSEs isn't new. Its already in section 3056.

So, back to Nimmo: Is it true that if chimpy is coming to town and you send emails to friends saying lets’ stand on a public street corner and hold signs protesting his thuggery, the new law allows some new federal police force to order your local cop to arrest you for the mere act of sending that email? No. Absolutely no. No to the nth power. And please, spare me the claim that you could be arrested for conspiring to cause a disruption. If that’s the case under this new law, its also the case under current law (which also specifically refers to conspiracies).

Frankly even the so-called expansion to cover “NSSEs” when no protected person is present is probably not really an expansion since the Secret Service currently (under section 3056(e)) has the authority to participate in the planning, coordination, and implementation of security operations at NSSEs, which implicitly includes enforcing security before the protected person arrives.

I will concede one substantive change: if, in connection with violating section 1752, you use or carry a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm, or significant bodily harm occurs, you can go to jail for up to 10 years, instead of for one year, which is the current penalty.

So, lets review: not the first federal police force; not a new federal police force; no new significant expansion in power (and to the extent there is an expansion, it applies not just to the uniformed division, but to the secret service in general as well as to any law enforcement official with authority to enforce violations of federal criminal law). Is a new “Gestapo” being created. Only in the fantasies of bloggers who don’t seem to realize that when they dream up this bullshit they undermine the credibility of those of us who are trying to point out the real problems with the Patriot Act.

Respectfully yours,

onenote