It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

H.R. 347: Protesting to be made illegal in the presence of politicians!?

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Yea, isolationism is wrong, but not for the politicos.

It is necessary for them to separate themselves from the rest of the crazies that don't condone their abuse of office.

If you ask me it just adds to my suspicion that they are not people. Not like the rest of us working stiffs. They are far too important to be subjected to our disdain for their uselessness.

The gig is up! They understand that the number of people who believe our election process is real is faltering. We are pissed. We are tired of corporate interests deciding our elections. WE ARE SICK OF THE LIE!

All of the security in the world won't save them from inadequacy. Their inadequacy will undo them. They will fail. The sooner the better.




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Time to mobilize EVERYONE to call the senators so it doesn't pass the senate.

Those bastards passed this when nobody was looking yet again...

MOBILIZE EVERYONE... ANONYMOUS...Twitter, Facebook, all forums you know, everyone you know...

This MUST NOT PASS.


This must pass, and many more like it!

Social outlook, political power and everything that comes with it is a pendulum swing. It has to get worse before it gets better. The wool needs to be pulled so far over peoples eyes they are blinded by lint, and then finally, people wake up and force it back to a livable balance.




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Sadly another poster that is parroting information rather than providing a clear entry into the information.

For those that are interested; and I have an idea of those that already have engaged probably already have gone to the source --

Bill and Summary Status
Actions Taken on the Bill

Note the following links do go straight to a PDF that is hosted by www.gpo.gov
Engrossed (meaning the passed bill) of the House
Senate Engrossed Amendments

Rather than relying on RT or some other source to feed you information, why not dig and find out for yourself?! Or is that asking too much from the "deny ignorance" crowd?

------------------

As for the bill. Domo is absolutely correct. The OP is using a sensationalist title and it is a tactic that ATS allows to go unchecked. Even disguising it in the form of a question makes the less inclined reader to not bother checking the facts and then allow the OP's sources to become that fact.

The bill is aimed at clarifying and stream lining 18 USC, Section 1752.

There you go. You have all the information you need to critically think (rather than have someone else do it for you) and come to your own conclusions about the nefarious intentions of this bill.

edit on 28-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


THANK YOU. Nice and concise, with all the info you could want to reach an informed opinion. I worry that people have so much fun getting angry, it doesn't matter what they are angry about.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
There is nothing innocuous about any bill which proposes to restrict Gods guaranteed freedoms....
These right i hold to be inalienable, and universally owned by every human being.......
The laws they pass today, are for some later date, they will all be abused in their due time.....
Every restriction is less freedom.....this is the ultimate end game....no freedom....just more slaves............



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


While I'm not a fan of RT, I still think there are some underlying things in this bill that can be abused (But forgive me as I didn't check former laws that would be used)


‘‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or
13 disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business
14 or official functions, engages in disorderly or disrup-
15 tive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any re-
16 stricted building or grounds when, or so that, such
17 conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly con-
18 duct of Government business or official functions;
19 ‘‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede
20 or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government busi-
21 ness or official functions, obstructs or impedes in-
22 gress or egress to or from any restricted building or
23 grounds; or


Impede "Government Business" is quite vague. So now we are talking about anyone in any government office "impeding" it, can be arrested. This includes licensing centers, courts, city hall... etc.

I do believe there were some people protesters at many government building this year. Some very quietly and peacefully.

"Official functions" refers to just about anything that the Government is involved in. Including summits, where just being present outside the venue could be considered "impeding".

Look at the G20 in Canada and how they manipulated a half century old law, designed for something completely different.

Yep...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


THANK YOU. Nice and concise, with all the info you could want to reach an informed opinion. I worry that people have so much fun getting angry, it doesn't matter what they are angry about.


You and I could lock horns and battle endlessly on differing philosophies and ideals but each has come at the other based on actual information that is verifiable and objective (as objective as something can be; given I retain that each of us is inherently subjective -- another time maybe).

What amazes me is the amount of persons that take sources such as RT as gospel -- because it solely is not the MSM. No fact checking, no digging, no trying to find out where they came to their conclusions.

Time will tell. I will make my stance on this bill soon and it was so because I bothered to read the bill, the amendments and that which it is applying to. I suspect you among a few others will do the same but that will not make interesting conversation!



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


And to be honest, all it looks like they have done is rewrote this purposefully, just to make it more ambiguous.




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Impede "Government Business" is quite vague. So now we are talking about anyone in any government office "impeding" it, can be arrested. This includes licensing centers, courts, city hall... etc.


Back that up! This pertains to Federal issues -- so we can strike out licensing centers, courts (not Federal), city hall, etc. Make sure you stay in the jurisdiction of what we are speaking of here. While the bill nor the USC does not specifically state it is only towards Federal, the 10th Amendment comes into play and it is up to each individual State on how they handle such situations. Barring Federal presence.

It is here I can understand your disconcerting view about the bill. Typically bills go through great lengths to clarify what terms mean. Not only is it "CYA" but it is to ensure the transparency of the legislation and its intended use. I will admit that the lack of such clarification is odd, but I wouldn't quite write it off yet.

This bill is to amend existing legislation (okay, law, but I consider law a particular way that is more philosophical than this thread could handle) that already has in place restrictions. Most I disagree with, since legislation should be applied equally regardless of standing, class or status.

The president visiting a casino should not be afforded additional protection (in terms of legislation and law) than you or I. In my opinion, it is a quasi-Federalisation of buildings that house persons the Secret Service deems necessary.



I do believe there were some people protesters at many government building this year. Some very quietly and peacefully.


What part of the bill or its amendments do you think would restrict any of us from redress of Government? Coming into a House hearing screaming "You kill babies" isn't redress -- that is attention grabbing -- example of course.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 



think an LRAD will do a fine job preventing them from getting payback. I don't know if a revolution is even possible in America at this point. The people pulling the strings really have everything figured out.


there is a true story movie about resisting the advance of banker controlled communism in an eastern european country called "the singing revolution" where everyone just held hands and sang
they won

sure explains the divide and conqure in the US though...the stringers do know what they are afraid of most....PEACE



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Thank you for clearing up my concern by pointing out state and federal differences.

Nonetheless, the ambiguity of the changes seems like it could be manipulated by people well versed in legalese (or the people working for said fellows) . I am not an expert in these matters so I suppose I will wait and see the end result in due time.




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Thank you for clearing up my concern by pointing out state and federal differences.

Nonetheless, the ambiguity of the changes seems like it could be manipulated by people well versed in legalese (or the people working for said fellows) . I am not an expert in these matters so I suppose I will wait and see the end result in due time.



I never meant to have you "wait and see". Your engagement in discussion of the topic is important and vital to a self-regulated and self-governed society. Such legislation (as with all legislation) can be manipulated to some ends one way or another.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I just believe we will have to wait and see:


engages in disorderly or disrup-
15 tive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any re-
16 stricted building or grounds when, or so that, such
17 conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly con-
18 duct of Government business or official functions;


"or so that"

"such conduct"

As I said I'm not versed in legalese. But my interpretation of just that spot and the, "or so that" leaves the bill open to be used in situations where it is up to the officers discretion to decide if someone is being disruptive.

If you can clarify for me...



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
"a special event" can be construed to mean just about anything, anywhere, anytime.


You mean like the upcoming G8 and NATO conferences in Chicago?
Yep, and holding a sign is more than enough for them to toss you in jail.
Don't worry though, I'm sure they will have preventive sweeps to jail people before the events even happen like they did in Minneapolis before the 08 Republican convention, only this time it will be on a grand scale.
Keep going Congress, showing us what a bunch of paranoid nutcases you are.

edit on 29-2-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
its time to clean house... seriously a breach of their oaths of office..



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
gearing up for the g8 conference in chicago this may. them damn pesky OWS people will be everywhere, my daughters school trip to chicago was cancelled because of the conference, someone from the city called their event planer and told them they will have a lot of the city blocked off and expect a lot of protest, and they recommend they move their trip. i expect to see a glorious flaunting of police state at this event, this summit may be the turning point where the people finally wake up. IMO. or even the gop convention where i am sure there will be plenty of paul supporters letting their voices be heard, as well as OWS peeps



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
I say we all buy orange jumpsuits and just run around DC all day. You know buying ice cream and stuff. I mean we are all terrorists now according to them. They insist on wasting time passing "laws" that really do nothing for anyone but them. To further separate the civilian from the officer. Divide and conquer. America has been going down this road for some time. We were never able to stop it, we allowed a two-party system and that is what we now have. The only issue is the two-party system is now one party and it serves it own purposes and then pretends to hate one another to divide the opinions of the people. Repubs and Dems have no control over this country people. We do.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Thank you for providing those additional links, they have proved very useful for me in order to attempt a half way intelligent response.

In reading the various links however I don't see the need for HR 347. The excuse given for it's creation is to:

To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.
Source

However in reading both section 1752 of the code and HR 347 as it was passed I cannot help but think that this is meaningless. It's just another long draw of blood by an already bloated parasite on the citizenry of the US. The meat and potatoes of both are exactly the same, the 'spirit' of the law here appears unchanged in my opinion. So what was there to clarify? What was there to correct? Am I missing something here??



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Any time you post something about the house passing something you should make it clear to all the people that do not know how our system works that the bill still has to go threw the senate and the president.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1


Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.


It's not saying you can't stand outside holding a sign peaceably. It seems to be geared towards people that would block entrances and exits, or actively disrupt (walk in chanting) govt. business. Seems reasonable to me.




In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware.


KNOWINGLY. This is engineered to rile up individuals that lack reading comprehension, most likely to gain a few hits to the websites.
edit on 28-2-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)


Ummm... isn't the whole POINT of a protest to be disruptive and inconvenient? I mean...if you have the "right" to protest but can only do so quietly, orderly, and in no way present an inconvenience to anybody or anything...doesn't that just make it easier to ignore?

The whole point of protesting is to make CERTAIN THAT YOU CANNOT BE IGNORED....but to do so peacefully.

Worse still...this measure will only increase violence. Have you ever been around one of those dogs where the owners had their vocal cords snipped to stop incessant barking instead of just spending time to train the dog? Almost universally those dogs are more likely to bite. NO SURPRISE...THEIR "EARLY WARNING" SYSTEM of barks and growls to deter would-be threats has been dismantled. The only recourse the dog feels like it has is to bite or nip to "voice" it's displeasure.

We really are a nation of idiots.




top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join