General Discussion

onenote

(46,127 posts)

23. Counterpoint: the Salahi's.

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 06:43 PM

Mar 2012

The WH apparently isn't an impenetrable as you think. And while the Salahi's were clowns, not bad guys intent on harming the president or his family, the fact that what they did would violate 18 USC 1752 if the dinner they crashed was at a hotel but not where the dinner was in the WH is sufficient reason to amend the statute, imo. I don't have any worries about giving the authorities additional tools to protect the President from people actually entering the WH or its grounds or the VP's residence and grounds without lawful authority to do so.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I oppose the changes to law HR 347 brings. I am a member of DU in good standing, [View all] mmonk Mar 2012 OP

Have you read any of the previous threads? randome Mar 2012 #1

May seem so but not trivial in a court of law. mmonk Mar 2012 #3

Thank you for saying that. Some do not seem to see it. n/t Cleita Mar 2012 #5

Thanks. It's a subtle change but could lend itself to how it is enforced. mmonk Mar 2012 #14

That's how taking away people's rights are done, Cleita Mar 2012 #15

+ 1 nt rbnyc Mar 2012 #57

Fine. Take it to court! randome Mar 2012 #6

Simply giving my objections to the changes. mmonk Mar 2012 #12

They added this part, "special event of national significance" Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #18

That was ProSense Mar 2012 #20

Yep. Pretty wide open for interpretation. mmonk Mar 2012 #21

Nothing to see here. Move along. GeorgeGist Mar 2012 #74

Good for you, but the freakout is still total bullshit. TheWraith Mar 2012 #2

Could you explain what a Ron Paul type is to you? Cleita Mar 2012 #16

A couple of points about the "knowingly" change onenote Mar 2012 #4

The "willfully" standard is more restrictive. mmonk Mar 2012 #9

I don't dispute the difference between willfully and knowingly onenote Mar 2012 #22

I don't think additional laws are needed to protect the President or Vice President other Cleita Mar 2012 #7

Do you really think you're going to be successful... randome Mar 2012 #8

Hyperbole much? Cleita Mar 2012 #10

Yeah, I know. randome Mar 2012 #11

I never said that government can't be trusted. Cleita Mar 2012 #13

Me? Scared? randome Mar 2012 #26

Oh, you are reaching. You are not even trying to Cleita Mar 2012 #29

Way to respond to my simple question. randome Mar 2012 #31

In this case none of them. The law sucks and there Cleita Mar 2012 #36

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #37

No I'm not. To be that I would have to work for him, give him money and Cleita Mar 2012 #40

Do you think that people should form their opinions only based on sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #60

you're being a real jerk in this thread. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #62

exactly. n/t RainDog Mar 2012 #64

a hearty +1 Union Scribe Mar 2012 #70

chill the fuck out RainDog Mar 2012 #17

Not when the goal is to spread fear and confusion. randome Mar 2012 #24

I know this person RainDog Mar 2012 #38

It's been explained a dozen times already. randome Mar 2012 #41

Tell me where you read that in the OP RainDog Mar 2012 #63

Counterpoint: the Salahi's. onenote Mar 2012 #23

That was a breach by the security team. This law would not prevent another Cleita Mar 2012 #27

By that standard we should do away with all laws that protect the president. onenote Mar 2012 #30

No, but we need laws that also protect our rights as citizens. Cleita Mar 2012 #34

You're wrong... SidDithers Mar 2012 #19

One would assume without lawful authority if arrests are made. mmonk Mar 2012 #25

You're taking a tour of the WH. You wander off into a restricted area of the WH. You get arrested onenote Mar 2012 #32

Or you want to protest Presidential candidates. mmonk Mar 2012 #33

You think you have a defense, but the law says differently. Cleita Mar 2012 #35

Just know that the outrage was ginned up because Ron Paul sufrommich Mar 2012 #28

I'm not really concerned about all that. mmonk Mar 2012 #58

But... but... before this law it was totally legal to trespass in the White House! Nye Bevan Mar 2012 #39

That's why it's such an inconsequential update to the 1971 law. randome Mar 2012 #43

Let's see what happens a republican admin xchrom Mar 2012 #42

What I consider the worst aspect of this bill MadHound Mar 2012 #44

The law has been in effect since 1971. randome Mar 2012 #45

What is it about the drastic expansion of this law do you fail to comprehend? MadHound Mar 2012 #48

Any law can be misused. randome Mar 2012 #49

Actually that isn't how the bill reads, MadHound Mar 2012 #52

"knowingly...without lawful authority" randome Mar 2012 #54

where do you get that idea? onenote Mar 2012 #68

Centrists in this thread had better go on record defending them. xchrom Mar 2012 #46

It's objectivity, not centrism. randome Mar 2012 #47

Great! Let's hear your defense of nixon's interference xchrom Mar 2012 #61

You know, this argument has been bothering me. Robb Mar 2012 #50

Good point. randome Mar 2012 #51

Because they can now strike while the iron is hot, MadHound Mar 2012 #53

No, I get the theory. Robb Mar 2012 #55

Good point. You are not going to get any calm rational answers. emulatorloo Mar 2012 #56

I don't see any need to make it any easier for them, especially with the people mmonk Mar 2012 #59

because bipartisan authorship provides the veneer of acceptability RainDog Mar 2012 #65

Yes. We all know how they interpret "anything" to suit their selves. glinda Mar 2012 #72

Fuck Ron Paul unionworks Mar 2012 #66

Because it can conflict with the 1st amendment, mmonk Mar 2012 #71

Thank you for saying that. limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #67

You're welcome. Thanks to all who responded. mmonk Mar 2012 #69

Thank you for posting. glinda Mar 2012 #73