General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat do you think of this article about HR 347 (Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds etc...) ?
What do you think of this article about HR 347?
There were some changes to the law relating to the words "knowingly" and "willfully". This author thinks the changes are not necessarily trivial. I've see a few people on DU say that this change was just cleaning up language, and it is not a significant difference in meaning. This lawyer seems to disagree. Is this lawyer a credible source? I never heard of him before but I read this article and it seems to make sense. On the other hand, I'm not a lawyer. I usually rely on cues from various left-wing media sources and politicians to decide what I think about things like this. It's not working for me this time since most of them are not discussing it.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/03/on-the-federal-restricted-buildings-and-grounds-improvement-act-of-2011/
So how important is the elimination of the willfully requirement? The answer will depend on how the revised statute is enforced, but, on first glance, the change is not obviously trivial. Willfully generally requires more than knowingly. As the Supreme Court once put it, in order convict under the willfully standard, a jury must find that the defendant acted with an evil-meaning mind, that is to say, that he acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. Contrast this with the knowingly standard, which only requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense, unless a statutes text dictates otherwise and H.R. 347s text certainly doesnt dictate otherwise. Also remember that many people foreign leaders, vice presidential and presidential candidates, and so on sometimes can qualify for Secret Service protection. In an election year, that can mean a lot of areas restricted on account of official visits, and thus a lot more opportunities for citizens to wander, deliberately or not, into temporarily restricted places.
rsmith6621
(6,942 posts)how large of an area can the SS designate as the grounds at a political function,could be the entire city in reality ..... Our Occupy Group went to 2 US Sen and 2 US Reps office today and made a request for clarification.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Is your group asking the members of Congress to give their personal interpretation of what the law does?
Or are you petitioning them to pass another bill to clarify the language?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You can't exclude only the people with signs you don't like. You have to exclude everyone.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Law requires barriers, fences, signs or other clear demarcation. Arguing it's possible to "wander" into a security cordon is ludicrous.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Oh, and if you'd prefer the original 1971 language:
Wait a minute....it almost looks like the same language that's been on the books for 40 years. Golly, I'm sure it will suddenly mean no protests ever again when the new law is signed!!
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And yes, dear. I know that it is similar to a law that has been on the books for 40 years. I'm not sure what the fuck your problem is. I've never once made the claim that there will suddenly be no protests ever again when the new law is signed.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01547.htm
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)you believe it is impossible for a person to accidentally find themselves in a restricted area.
Is that correct?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There are other laws creating "restricted" areas that do not require fences, etc. So it's possible to accidentally wander into an area restricted by other laws.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)What is meant by "otherwise restricted area"? How is it different from a "posted" or "cordoned off" area?the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Here's what the Justice Department says about it:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01547.htm
It should also be noted that "otherwise restricted area" has been in the law since 1971, and any attempts to claim nefarious intent would have to explain why it has never been used for such intent in the last 40 years.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Or can it apply to areas restricted by local police departments, if so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It only applies to locations the Secret Service protects (White House, VP house), or places their protectees are visiting, or "a special event of national significance" which has an explicit definition in law that puts Secret Service in charge of security.
State and local law enforcement can't use it. Heck, the FBI can't use it.
Warpy
(111,383 posts)but the appallingly bad Roberts court will likely uphold it.