Tim Edgars, National Security Policy Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, claims that the Secret Service has misled Senator Arlen Specter, resulting in the inclusion of unconstitutional provisions into the Conference Committee report on the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. The ACLU claims that they were included in the report after the Secret Service convinced Senator Specter that the proposed provisions would not change current federal law.

The issue revolves around the Secret Service's ability to create "exclusionary zones" around national events. Current US law allows the agency to create these restricted zones whenever the President is expected to attend a public event. Proposed additions to the USA Patriot Act would allow the Secret Service to impose these restrictions around any "event of national significance," regardless of whether the Commander In Chief is expected to be in attendance. The language in the Conference Committee report concerning "exclusionary zones" is so vague that it represents an enormous loophole which federal authorities could easily exploit for political purposes.

According to ACLU attorney Tim Edgars, "The Secret Service went to Senator Arlen Specter, who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and persuaded him that they needed this change, claimed that it was a minor technical change ... and without any hearing or debate or review of this, Senator Specter got this bill included in the Patriot Act report. And of course, that Patriot Act reauthorization bill is controversial for all sorts of reasons."

Edgars is concerned about the way in which the new provisions were quietly inserted into the Conference Committee report. He claims that the US Congress has failed to allow public debate on the matter.

"The problem here is that Congress is considering without any debate, without having considered it in either the House or the Senate, a major expansion of the Secret Service's ability to impose these exclusion zones that have been used to harass clearly legitimate protesters."

The ACLU opposes these proposals on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment. ACLU lawyers have already filed lawsuits against the US government for denying people entrance to Bush's public appearances, sweeping up protesters, and for conducting unwarranted surveillance on its own citizens. People have been turned away from political events for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts and pro-Kerry bumper stickers. These incidents have been clear examples of political repression on the part of the government and they should not be tolerated by the American people. Now the possibility exists that the Secret Service could be given the power to follow these kinds of exclusionary practices without limitation. Attorneys from the ACLU are worried that the legislation could potentially allow federal agents to impose restricted areas at public sporting events, music concerts or festivals.

Residents of Seattle may find themselves especially sensitive to the idea of "no-protest zones," given what people were subjected to during the World Trade Organization ministerial conference in 1999. An ever-expanding restricted area was created by authorities, resulting in mass discrimination committed against anyone attempting to practice their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. An infamous incident involved a man who was kicked out of downtown Seattle during the demonstrations because he was handing out copies of the Bill of Rights. Even Seattle City Council member Richard McIver was harassed by police.

Unfortunately, the resulting major class action lawsuit that was filed against the city of Seattle and law enforcement agencies alleging civil rights violations was thrown out of court by an unsympathetic judiciary. I hope this atrocious failure of the justice system did not serve to embolden local and federal authorities in their quest for increased power to control political opponents. It's undeniable that the use of so-called "no protest zones," and mass arrests have become a major strategy for police and city governments around the country since 1999. After the WTO protests, the Seattle Police Department began advising other metropolitan areas on crowd control issues surrounding major demonstrations.

The Patriot Act reauthorization bill was stalled in the United States Senate in December 2005. Criticism over some of the original provisions caused so much controversy that the Senators voted to extend the reauthorization, but only until February. A reauthorization vote must take place again before that deadline or the USA Patriot Act provisions will expire.

When I contacted members of Congress on these new proposed additions to the Patriot Act, I found that none of the members of the Conference Committee seemed to know anything about these provisions which allow the Secret Service to expand their power to impose "exclusionary zones." This ignorance on the part of our congressional representatives regarding the content of the Conference Committee report is a testament to the stealth utilized by government agencies when they wish to expand their power while avoiding oversight by the public or our legislators. In addition, the US news media networks have once again failed to cover an issue of vital importance to the future of our nation, due in part to their current focus on the controversial NSA domestic surveillance scandal and the Alito Supreme Court nomination. At the time of this writing, I am unaware of any other journalists actively investigating the Secret Service provisions.

The US Congress is facing a tight timeline regarding these proposals since the temporary reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act provisions is due to expire during the first week of February. If people don't raise their voices and demand that these additions to the Patriot Act be removed, if they fail to alert their Congressional representatives and the media, the Conference Committee report will be approved, and these new threats to our civil liberties will remain unchallenged without any public debate. If the new provisions are left intact in the Conference Committee report, they will be included in the reauthorization bill and another new threat to the Bill of Rights will be given its birth in the name of national security. Hopefully, our representatives will be forced to examine this legislation and take measures to block this latest attempt by the executive branch of the US government to restrict freedom of speech.