WASHINGTON — A new provision tucked into the Patriot Act bill now before Congress would allow authorities to haul demonstrators at any "special event of national significance" away to jail on felony charges if they are caught breaching a security perimeter.

Sen. Arlen Specter , R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sponsored the measure, which would extend the authority of the Secret Service to allow agents to arrest people who willingly or knowingly enter a restricted area at an event, even if the president or other official normally protected by the Secret Service isn't in attendance at the time.

The measure has civil libertarians protesting what they say is yet another power grab for the executive branch and one more loss for free speech.

"It's definitely problematic and chilling," said Lisa Graves, senior counsel for legislative strategy at the American Civil Liberties Union , which has written letters to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, pointing out that the provision wasn't subject to hearings or open debate.

Some conservatives say they too are troubled by the measure.

"It concerns me greatly," said Bob Barr, former U.S. prosecutor and Republican representative from Georgia. "It clearly raises serious concerns about First Amendment rights."

But not everyone agrees that rights are being trampled on by the additional provision. In fact, some say the ACLU is the problem when it comes to protecting national security.

Rocco DiPippo, a freelance writer for the conservative FrontPageMagazine.com and editor of The Autonomist Web log , said the ACLU has fought the government every step of the way over security measures following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

"Its opposition to Specter's reasonable proposal is simply more of the same," he said. "I can understand the concern that we should be suspicious of government, but we shouldn't adopt this mindset: 'government is evil.' This is just more hatred of (President) Bush."

Under current law, the Secret Service can arrest anyone for breaching restricted areas where the president or a protected official is or will be visiting, but the new provision would allow such arrests even after those VIPs have left the premises of any designated "special event of national significance." The provision would increase the maximum penalty for such an infraction from six months to one year in jail.

In a post-Sept. 11 world many non-political events have been designated National Special Security Events and would rise to the higher status. Examples of possible NSSEs are the Olympics or the Super Bowl. In 2004, the presidential inaugural balls and President Ronald Reagan's June funeral procession in Washington, D.C., were designated NSSEs.

According to government sources with knowledge of the legislation, Secret Service protection and law enforcement authority would extend beyond protecting a specific person, rather the event itself would become the "protectee."

Currently, non-violent demonstrators who enter restricted areas at such events previously would be arrested and charged by local law enforcement with simple trespassing, said Graves. Under the provision included in the new law, they will be charged with felonies by the Secret Service.

"It's a different consequence to people," she said.

"You are talking about giving the executive branch broader authority to create these exclusion zones which could cover broad areas and last for days [during an event ]," David Kopel, a constitutional expert with the Cato Institute, told FOXNews.com.

A spokesman at Specter's office said the senator was surprised by the clamor over the provision, which merely makes a technical change to clear up legal confusion over who has arresting authority at NSSEs. His office had no further comment on the provision. Committee Ranking Member Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., also declined comment. Republican and Democratic House Judiciary Committee leaders did not return calls for comment.

White House sources say the measure was not instigated by the administration and pointed out that it was a stand-alone bill that was rolled into the Patriot Act by Specter's office during House-Senate conference negotiations. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told FOXNews.com that the White House would not comment on the intent of the measure, but that the president is concerned with preserving individual rights.

"President Bush is committed to protecting the American people's national security as well as their civil liberties," she said.

Secret Service representatives said the agency does not comment on pending legislation.

The Bush administration has been criticized in the past for what many say are tactics that keep protesters far away from official events and by employing stringent policies to ensure favorable audiences for the president.

Last year, three ticket-holding audience members at one of the president's Social Security events in Denver, Colo., were apprehended by a man who they said identified himself as Secret Service. The three were forced away from the event because of an anti-war sticker on the driver's car.

"[The administration] has certainly demonstrated a desire to have carefully-controlled events," said Graves.

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va.-based clearinghouse for domestic and international security information, said he "could certainly understand why the Secret Service would want that legal authority," given the enormous burden of making venues safe for VIPs today.

"However, I think many people have concluded that the way it is being used has nothing to do with protecting the president from Usama bin Laden and everything to do with suppressing dissent and making sure the protesters don't get on TV," Pike said.

Bush is not the first president to flex his authority in this area, said Kopel, who pointed out that beginning with Reagan, presidents have created a larger security bubble and greater distance between themselves and dissenters at public events. The 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States just intensified the situation, he said.

"I think the concerns about free speech in areas where the president is speaking long pre-date Bush. They were an issue in the Clinton administration, the first Bush administration and began as an issue during Reagan," Kopel said. "I do think the ACLU has legitimate concerns about the breadth of the new language and how it could be applied."

Graves points out that conservative "pro-life" groups will be the target of the new provisions, too, a scenario that could raise the concerns for those who are typically critical of the ACLU, which she said is necessarily concerned about other provisions in the bill that impinge on civil liberties.

House and Senate leaders, who return to Capitol Hill this week, are trying to renew the Patriot Act by Friday. Democrats and four Republicans in the Senate who filibustered a final vote in December after raising concerns about preserving civil liberties instituted a short-term extension of the previous bill, which was set to expire on Dec. 31.

"caught breaching a security perimeter." at any "special event of national significance"

I would hope that anyone that doing this would be nabbed.

Currently, non-violent demonstrators who enter restricted areas at such events previously would be arrested and charged by local law enforcement with simple trespassing, said Graves. Under the provision included in the new law, they will be charged with felonies by the Secret Service.

Yes they should be nabbed.
but a felony?

during a time of war, you betcha.

Like the war on drugs!

dumb

"Up the revolution!"

hoh-hum- great thread and a very important topic that the media is to scared to touch(more proof that their is no such thing as "the leftist media")

right now its a misdemeanor and the security perimiter is set as anyone within sight of the president....bush is the first president to make it illegal to protest him within his sight......the reason that they want to make it a felony is to take away the voting rights of the individual....and for you second ammendment fans- its also to make sure that anyone who protests bush within sight can be charged with a felony to preclude them from being able to excersice their rights to bear arms

papaslap-we are not at war

That's getting to be a pretty wornout clichè.

not at war

what are we calling this?

An act of terrorism. Have you ever noticed that no body calls it the Israeli-Palestinain war. And far more people have died there. Bush wants this called a war because he wants to be known as a Comander in Chef.

Papaslap,

Are you one of the remaining who actually believes there is a connection between 9/11 and our invasion of Iraq? It's amazing that there's no shortage of small thinkers in the U.S.

Papaslap,
I believe Lupo is correct in his analysis of the motivations behind the proposed dissent policy.It sounds like something Hitler and the Nazis put in place in the 1930s.

And I don't consider us at war either, never have since day one, what's that, 9/11? 9/11 ain't squat compared with the rest of the killing going on. Get over it.

"get over it"? you *******s! Tell that to those that have died at the hands of terrorist...I should have known better than entering this pool full of .............

and now 2,400+ dead soldiers, 30,000+ dead Iraqi civilians....the killing goes on and on because of a lie while the perpetrators are still on the loose in another country...tell that to those that died on 09/11. Some just want blood and don't care where it comes from.

Papaslap, what you demonstrated was a lack of willingness to enter into a level headed conversation. Has anyone else ever noticed that liberals will at least try to talk about issures. But conservitives just start throwing insults.

What bothers you isn't so much how may died. It's that they had the nerve to do it to us.

Come on BW be serious.

"Has anyone else ever noticed that liberals will at least try to talk about issures. But conservitives just start throwing insults."

All you need to do is check out some of your own posts.

Do you need special glasses to see the liberal posts?

Sort of proves the point....

What that you will not admit the truth? That liberal and conservative alike in this forum are equally guilty? Yourself included. comeon BW man up and admit it.