Bush Administration, via secret service, bans political speech near president.

[jj]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL

That, all by itself, is cause for immediate impeachment. I want to know how you supporters can justify this totalitiarian act.

[c0rbin]

View it as a battle.

Tactics must be changed to meet the changing tactics of your foe.

The protesters must now be craftier if they want media coverage.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by c0rbin
View it as a battle.

Tactics must be changed to meet the changing tactics of your foe.

The protesters must now be craftier if they want media coverage.

Except that the President shouldn't view protesters as enemies...

[jj]

Originally posted by c0rbin
View it as a battle.

Tactics must be changed to meet the changing tactics of your foe.

The protesters must now be craftier if they want media coverage.

Do I understand that you're suggesting that protesters are in a war, and that you're suggesting that they ramp up the "war"?

This is their own president! What are you thinking, man? The constitutional right to political speech is very broad. A sign reading "impeach Bush" is not a threat, it's an obvous, clear political statement.

WHY do they think they need to control what Bush sees? Is that what's going on here, he thinks the whole country is for him?

[jj]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Except that the President shouldn't view protesters as enemies...
TRVTH

[Thanz]

Originally posted by jj
WHY do they think they need to control what Bush sees? Is that what's going on here, he thinks the whole country is for him?
I think that it is less about controlling what Bush sees and more about controlling what the media sees, and the public through the lens of the tv cameras. What the people get to see is Bush and a crowd of oridinary people, who for some reason all support Bush and his policies.

How else do you explain the media not being allowed into the "free speech zone" or the protestors not being allowed out of the zone to speak to the media?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by jj


Do I understand that you're suggesting that protesters are in a war, and that you're suggesting that they ramp up the "war"?

This is their own president! What are you thinking, man? The constitutional right to political speech is very broad. A sign reading "impeach Bush" is not a threat, it's an obvous, clear political statement.

WHY do they think they need to control what Bush sees? Is that what's going on here, he thinks the whole country is for him?

The problem JJ is that they're not trying to control what Bush sees, they're trying to control what the rest of the world sees.

Nobody gives a rat's patootie wether Bush is exposed to criticism, they don't want any shots of the president being protested against in the media.

Don't you recall that one of the conditions of Bush's Visit with Blair in the UK is that No protesters be allowed within any distances of the president or any camera shots of the president?

Out of sight, out of mind as they say.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/20/1066631356196.html

I'm looking for the UK one...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Except that the President shouldn't view protesters as enemies...

Interesting assertion. Have you ever played "office" politics? If so, how did you characterize your opponents vying for the next promotion?

GWB's interest for 11 months now is "get re-elected". So sorry.


jj: Luckily, impeachment -- a difficult process -- may not be required; do you support Dean, or prefer one of the other candidates?

[Soapy Sam]

jj - I'm starting to get worried. What the blazes is happening in America?
I have a friend over there (Scottish) who moved his family there over a decade ago, at the request of his employers , (a US owned,multinational electronics firm). He has worked on all kinds of stuff, some of it used by the US military and sold to allied powers. Now they want him to take out U.S. citizenship. There is a strong implication that he must . Now his kids have largely grown up there. One is now working, one in college.

US citizenship is a worthy goal for many people, but enforced?? What is this?

I have another friend who works in NYC. He missed the Twin Towers attack by a pure fluke which sent him out of town for a few days. Some of his friends and colleagues did not. Now he has to fly back to London to reapply for a new visa, being fingerprinted like a common thief.

I read this article you posted (not the first) and I begin , for the first time in my life, to wonder whose side I should be on.

I'm worried.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

GWB's interest for 11 months now is "get re-elected". So sorry. That might be his interest, but it is his duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," which includes its amendments. He is allowing his Secret Service, which are responsible to him, to place his personal interests above the rights of the citizens which he is duty bound to protect.

So sorry.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

jj: Luckily, impeachment -- a difficult process -- may not be required; do you support Dean, or prefer one of the other candidates?

There's nobody I much like. Goldwater is dead, Fenwick is dead, and Powell and Whitman have allowed this administration to ruin their names.

I'm not a fan of Dean, sorry. I'd almost be happier with (shudder) good old Fritz.

Bush is lower than an anerobic prokaroyte, though.

[Soapy Sam]

"Lower than an anerobic prokaryote."

That's my ancestors your'e talking about!

Put that on a placard and show up at Bush's next event. How many troopers would know which pound to put you in?

[jj]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
"Lower than an anerobic prokaryote."

That's my ancestors your'e talking about!

Put that on a placard and show up at Bush's next event. How many troopers would know which pound to put you in?

It wouldn't say "Long Live King George" so they'd know which to put it in, I'm sure.

[Snide]

This came up on another board I was lurking on, and it was brought up that this was in place for previous presidents as well, but it wasn't proven. Might be worth researching, though.

[Grammatron]

Is this illegal is my question. If not then all this is, is just a horrible PR move. It's kind of like whenever there's a KKK rally the police separates PRO and CON by a chain-linked fence.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Is this illegal is my question. If not then all this is, is just a horrible PR move. It's kind of like whenever there's a KKK rally the police separates PRO and CON by a chain-linked fence.

There's a difference between being separated, and being removed form view. In the case of London Protesters, people were sent blocks and blocks away so the motorcades and speaking engagements were not even within view or hearing.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Grammatron
It's kind of like whenever there's a KKK rally the police separates PRO and CON by a chain-linked fence. But that's because there is a real threat of physical violence on both sides and neither side is singled out.

In this situation, the threat is political only and only one side is singled out.

[Otther]

That, all by itself, is cause for immediate impeachment. How so? I agree that it's very wrong, but I don't see how it could get him impeached...

I really hope this isn't along the same line as him getting impeached for saying britain said they knew saddam saught uranium...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
..... it is his duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" which includes its amendments.
Absolutely. And he can spend the next 11 months doing nothing but campaining to protect us and the Constitution from any of the Demo-rats who want his job.


He is allowing his Secret Service, which are responsible to him, to place his personal interests above the rights of the citizens which he is duty bound to protect.

and
But that's because there is a real threat of physical violence on both sides and neither side is singled out.

In this situation, the threat is political only and only one side is singled out.
The Department of Homeland Security needs psychics of your talent. Right after you win the $million, maybe?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
But that's because there is a real threat of physical violence on both sides and neither side is singled out.

In this situation, the threat is political only and only one side is singled out.

Oh come on, I am willing to bet good money that mixing those protesters has a high chance of a fight braking out.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


There's a difference between being separated, and being removed form view. In the case of London Protesters, people were sent blocks and blocks away so the motorcades and speaking engagements were not even within view or hearing.

London is not USA so the blame would go on the English government. And since they have censorship laws I wouldn't be too shocked to learn that it's a legal thing to do.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Snide
This came up on another board I was lurking on, and it was brought up that this was in place for previous presidents as well, but it wasn't proven. Might be worth researching, though.

These buffer zones were created by a late '90s law (extension of the RICO Act, I believe) enacted to force Abortion protesters away from abortion clinics. It was also used by the Clinton administration to justify the use of such buffer zones at the Seattle WTO meeting in 1999.

Such buffers were never (to my knowledge) used to keep anti-Clinton protesters away from President Clinton, except of course at the WTO meeting.

In my opinion, the law is bad and should be overturned by Congress. If Congress fails to do so, it should be judicially nullified as a violation of our rights to free speech and assembly.

That having been said, Bush's use of this law to manage PR is objectionable, but certainly not impeachable. Rail away on it as a reason to elect someone else, not as a reason to hold an impeachment trial. Sheesh...

MattJ

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Absolutely. And he can spend the next 11 months doing nothing but campaining to protect us and the Constitution from any of the Demo-rats who want his job. Ah. So you're okay with the President denying the rights of citizens as long as you disagree with those citizens?

edited to add: If a "Demo-rat" president were doing this, would you consider this to be a proper act for a president?

Speaking of psychic abilities, how do you know that those people who protest GWB are "Demo-rats"? Is it not possible that some of them are Republicans?
The Department of Homeland Security needs psychics of your talent. Right after you win the $million, maybe? The examples given in the example above included people in their 60s and a 5 year old girl. Consider them a serious threat of violent behavior, do you?

Besides, were the protesters not singled out for their polticial views rather than their behavior? From the articleBursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' "

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Oh come on, I am willing to bet good money that mixing those protesters has a high chance of a fight braking out. Based on what exactly?

[Doubt]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

In my opinion, the law is bad and should be overturned by Congress. If Congress fails to do so, it should be judicially nullified as a violation of our rights to free speech and assembly.


It is just a question of how long it takes before a test case ends up in front of the supreme court.

Congress will do nothing until then.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Based on what exactly?

Personal experience.

I work not to far from a Federal building here in LA. They have protesters here against War/Bush every day, same people too. Well one day there was a schedule huge protest against a war and the pro war people decided to have a pro war rally right there, near by as well -- which is "coincidentally" is the location of the French consulate. Needless to say the Police was the only reason the whole thing did not get out of control; the protestors were blocking the roads, yelling at each other and there were some verbal confrontations which police quickly put a stop too. I observed it all since I had nothing else to do being stock in traffic cause by protestors lying in front of my car blocking the road.

[c0rbin]

Except that the President shouldn't view protesters as enemies...

I agree. But his administration obviously does.


Do I understand that you're suggesting that protesters are in a war, and that you're suggesting that they ramp up the "war"?

This is their own president! What are you thinking, man? The constitutional right to political speech is very broad. A sign reading "impeach Bush" is not a threat, it's an obvous, clear political statement.

WHY do they think they need to control what Bush sees? Is that what's going on here, he thinks the whole country is for him?


Again, I agree. I am not suggesting they rise up in arms. I am suggesting that they must adapt their tactics to be seen. I mean cameras only work in one direction, you need to be infront of them to get exposure, not a mile away.

Maybe war is a bad metaphor, how about football?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Personal experience. {snip}Was only the anti-war side being violent or was the pro-war side also violent?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Was only the anti-war side being violent or was the pro-war side also violent?

Both of course; they are after all humans, and when you have such a heated issue and are in a large group, it's practically inevitable some kind of physical confrontation will occur.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Both of course; they are after all humans, and when you have such a heated issue and are in a large group, it's practically inevitable some kind of physical confrontation will occur. So, why single out one side over the others and then deny that side any voice in the media? If it is merely a safety issue, those two sides can be seperated without completely removing one side or the other from the event entirely. Or else, why not remove both sides from the event and just televise it?

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Is this illegal is my question. If not then all this is, is just a horrible PR move. It's kind of like whenever there's a KKK rally the police separates PRO and CON by a chain-linked fence.

It's suppression of political speech. It's directly opposite the constitution. It is, in my opinion, an act of simple treason.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, why single out one side over the others and then deny that side any voice in the media?

That's the way the law works. Groups that are hostile to Abortion clinics are denied access to abortion clinics. Groups that are hostile to the goals of the WTO are denied access to the WTO meeting. Groups that are hostile to GW Bush are denied access to him.

The law works one-way.

Re: Doubt's comment: "Congress will do nothing until then."

I realize this, but I was speaking of what I think should happen, not what will happen.


MattJ

[jj]

Originally posted by Otther
How so? I agree that it's very wrong, but I don't see how it could get him impeached...

I really hope this isn't along the same line as him getting impeached for saying britain said they knew saddam saught uranium...

Come on, Otther, it's a crime, pure and simple. The president has sworn to defend the constution, and he's directly breaking it.

[jj]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
That having been said, Bush's use of this law to manage PR is objectionable, but certainly not impeachable. Rail away on it as a reason to elect someone else, not as a reason to hold an impeachment trial. Sheesh...

MattJ

It's exactly, specifically the same crime Clinton committed, at the very least. When he was sworn in, he swore to defend the constution.

He is breaking it. His oath was a lie.

The charge against Clinton was lying to a government official. The person who swore in Clinton was a government official.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jj


It's exactly, specifically the same crime Clinton committed, at the very least. One could argue that that was no reason to hold an impeachment hearing either, but that didn't actively trample the rights of citizens.

[jj]

Originally posted by Upchurch
One could argue that that was no reason to hold an impeachment hearing either, but that didn't actively trample the rights of citizens.

Well, except for the Clintons, for whom I have less than total sympathy.

But you're right on both counts, with that minor nit raised.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by jj


It's exactly, specifically the same crime Clinton committed, at the very least. When he was sworn in, he swore to defend the constution.

He is breaking it. His oath was a lie.

The charge against Clinton was lying to a government official. The person who swore in Clinton was a government official.

Does this action reflect negatively upon him and his presidency? Yes. Is he breaking his oath and/or going against constitution? No. He is acting well within his legal rights. If you think the law is unconstitutional, you are more than welcome to challenge it -- frankly I think the law is stupid as well -- but you are not correct in stating that Bush is breaking his oath.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, why single out one side over the others and then deny that side any voice in the media? If it is merely a safety issue, those two sides can be seperated without completely removing one side or the other from the event entirely. Or else, why not remove both sides from the event and just televise it?

Why, I suspect it's as simple because he can (allowed to by law).

My comments were in response to JJ who think the president should be impeached for this, which he should not be since this is all legal. And yes, I disagree with Bush's actions and think the law is questionable so no need to argue that point with me.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ah. So you're okay with the President denying the rights of citizens as long as you disagree with those citizens?
Denial of rights? Locale with regard to POTUS is a "right"? I think you are wrong.


edited to add: If a "Demo-rat" president were doing this, would you consider this to be a proper act for a president?
Rebooblicon or demo-rat is of lessor interest to me than an ability to take a stand, and lead. The poll-du-jour approach is the antithesis of leadership imo.


Speaking of psychic abilities, how do you know that those people who protest GWB are "Demo-rats"? Is it not possible that some of them are Republicans?
Read it again. Are there repubs also in the hunt for the presidency in 2004? You may be right that several of the Dems who do want the job were there too with their signs.


The examples given in the example above included people in their 60s and a 5 year old girl. Consider them a serious threat of violent behavior, do you?
In the world we now live in, do you give them a free ride where your safety is concerned? A few years ago I'd have said, yes: today, every person seems capable of committing acts of mayhem. And since it would not be multiculturally & pc'liberally correct not to view all with equal suspicion, what else can we do?


Besides, were the protesters not singled out for their polticial views rather than their behavior? From the article
Damn if I know. What do your psychic abilities tell you?

[c0rbin]

Why, I suspect it's as simple because he can (allowed to by law).

My comments were in response to JJ who think the president should be impeached for this, which he should not be since this is all legal. And yes, I disagree with Bush's actions and think the law is questionable so no need to argue that point with me.

Hence my "war" comments.

[subgenius]

jj: "The charge against Clinton was lying to a government official. The person who swore in Clinton was a government official."

I believe we're referring to his deposition? Normally the court reporter (a notary) would do the swearing. Is this the "government official" to whom you're referring?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Denial of rights? Locale with regard to POTUS is a "right"? I think you are wrong.*ahem*
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Read it again. Are there repubs also in the hunt for the presidency in 2004? You may be right that several of the Dems who do want the job were there too with their signs.You should read it at all. Is there any mention of either republicans or democrats anywhere in the article, much less ones who are actively seeking the presidency? Is 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel or Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter running for the office? What psychic powers are you using to gather this information?
What do your psychic abilities tell you? Why don't you actually try reading the article. Maybe you'll actually get a clue.

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron

My comments were in response to JJ who think the president should be impeached for this, which he should not be since this is all legal.
Any such law is unconstitutional, and hence the enforcement of any such law is itself illegal. Ergo, the action here (I must say that I don't know if the president or someone else is behind this) is entirely, completely illegal, constitutes abridgement of the bill of rights, and as such is an act that means his oath of office is foresworn. Abridging the bill of rights, frankly, is at least arguably treasonous, too.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by jj

Any such law is unconstitutional, and hence the enforcement of any such law is itself illegal. Ergo, the action here (I must say that I don't know if the president or someone else is behind this) is entirely, completely illegal, constitutes abridgement of the bill of rights, and as such is an act that means his oath of office is foresworn. Abridging the bill of rights, frankly, is at least arguably treasonous, too.

I must have missed the day when SCOTUS ruled this law to be unconstitutional.

[Zep]

Given that GWB is as dim as they come, it wouldn't have been him personally who made such a limitation. Instead, it would most certainly have been political minders - people who did NOT take the presidential oath themselves, so does that exempt them from its conditions?

But it does seem to me to be a case of simple PR manipulation, and the best way to circumvent that is to not play the game their way. Rather than trying to shout at GWB, why not find more imaginative methods of drawing attention to their cause?

I mean, didn't this whole thing start with some guys dressing as Indians and throwing chests of tea into Boston harbour in some form of protest against government? Now THAT'S novel and memorable! If it were done today, the TV crews would flock like seagulls on a stray french-fry...

All that is needed is to outwit, outplay, outlast the PR spindoctors - not difficult, given GWB's team of dolts.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


That's the way the law works. Groups that are hostile to Abortion clinics are denied access to abortion clinics. Groups that are hostile to the goals of the WTO are denied access to the WTO meeting. Groups that are hostile to GW Bush are denied access to him.



Well wait a minute....

those are loaded analogies.

When you say hostile to abortion clinics, you knwo damn well we're all thinking of sickos who bomb clinics.

And you know anti-wto protesters have been awash in violence lately.

We're not talking about people with bombs, we're talking about people with signs and slogans. That's a whole different circumstance.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Well wait a minute....

those are loaded analogies.

When you say hostile to abortion clinics, you knwo damn well we're all thinking of sickos who bomb clinics.

And you know anti-wto protesters have been awash in violence lately.

We're not talking about people with bombs, we're talking about people with signs and slogans. That's a whole different circumstance.

"Lately" is an interesting claim with regard to WTO protests. What violence had been seen prior to the 1999 Seattle protests of which we speak?

You might be thinking of sickos who bomb abortion clinics, but I've never heard of a protester doing so from inside a crowd. Have you? The folks who wrote this law were specifically attempting to keep protesters ( not bombers :rolleyes: ) away from the clinics.

Your argument about bombers sounds identical to the one I would advance were I an advocate of the Secret Service policy.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by jj


It's exactly, specifically the same crime Clinton committed, at the very least. When he was sworn in, he swore to defend the constution.

He is breaking it. His oath was a lie.

The charge against Clinton was lying to a government official. The person who swore in Clinton was a government official.

Yeah, I get that you think that.

I'm not sure how a reasonable person should respond to such a line of argument.

Do you believe every president who engages in a policy that the Supreme Court finds to be unconstitutional is violating his oath of office, and thus worthy of impeachment?

Wouldn't that be all of them?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by jj

Any such law is unconstitutional, and hence the enforcement of any such law is itself illegal. Ergo, the action here (I must say that I don't know if the president or someone else is behind this) is entirely, completely illegal, constitutes abridgement of the bill of rights, and as such is an act that means his oath of office is foresworn. Abridging the bill of rights, frankly, is at least arguably treasonous, too.


Never mind. I see that you do.

Perhaps you should read up a smidge about how the US government works. Presidents are not impeached because a law they were enforcing is found to be unconstitutional.

Are you typing that stuff with a straight face?

[TillEulenspiegel]

This is not new in the anals...err annals of George II. Protesters were arrested in a pro bush rally at the raymond james Stadium in Tampa at a pro Bush/War rally in 2002 , ditto his brother in a rally at legends field on Tampa. All trespassing charges were dismissed.

What the hell is wrong with some of you people? Do you not realize that the right to criticize ( peacefully ) the government is the most basic of motives that the founding fathers had in mind when writing the constitution? That there is No king? The right to peaceful assembly is as sacrosanct a concept as the right to life?
Shall we just abolish the two term limit and appoint GII emperor for life...let's re-instate the alien and seditions act. Some of the opinions expressed by citizens of the US make me believe that the people expressing them are far more dangerous that any terrorist bomb. It also makes me cringe when non citizens are more versed in the concepts of American freedom the some native born Americans are. Christ I don't know wether to laugh or cry.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Why don't you actually try reading the article. Maybe you'll actually get a clue.

LOL. I did, and have. Conversely, you might try reading my words with some attempt at comprehension.

BTW, you should discuss your idea of unlimited citizen access to POTUS with the Secret Service. What did you say you based that judgement on?

[jj]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Do you believe every president who engages in a policy that the Supreme Court finds to be unconstitutional is violating his oath of office, and thus worthy of impeachment?

Wouldn't that be all of them?

I'm sure it would, but Mr. Bill was subject to a 6-year unconstutional harrassment (never mind he's a social moron in some respects), and then was inpeached on that basis.

So, let's have equity. Impeach Bush, too.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
BTW, you should discuss your idea of unlimited citizen access to POTUS with the Secret Service. What did you say you based that judgement on?

Nobody's suggested that. All anyone has asked is that the same treatment be given to all demonstrators.

Why does that bother you so much? You don't want the world to know how many people don't support King George II?

[jj]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Perhaps you should read up a smidge about how the US government works. Presidents are not impeached because a law they were enforcing is found to be unconstitutional.


Actually, I know very well what the constitution says. It says clearly that the president has to swear to uphold it.

Now, a law that is questionable in intent can be argued, but this law is obviously unconstutional on its face, and it is clearly being exploited, against the constitution, to the advantage of King George II.

That is treason, plain and simple. You are assuming that the only thing that is happening is "enforcing ... unconstitutional", what is happening is that an obviously unconstitutional law is deliberately being enforced with obvious and deliberate intent to suppress political speech.

And that, sir, is not what you have suggested. I suggest that you consider why you are defending this totalitarian act, an act that is fully suited to the USSR or to the SS, and that is a full and complete reversal of the civil rights held in this country for 200 years.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


Nobody's suggested that. All anyone has asked is that the same treatment be given to all demonstrators.
Perhaps you are right. Do you know of an instance where (non-vetted) citizens carrying pro-Bush signs were allowed anywhere near him?


Why does that bother you so much? You don't want the world to know how many people don't support King George II?
So far as I know 1st amendment still applies. Does it say POTUS photo-ops must be used to promote dissemination of anti-POTUS messages?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by jj
You are assuming that the only thing that is happening is "enforcing ... unconstitutional", what is happening is that an obviously unconstitutional law is deliberately being enforced with obvious and deliberate intent to suppress political speech.

I think the same thing about the new campaign finance law.

And there are all those people who think that every gun control law is 'deliberately being enforced with obvious and deliberate intent to suppress the right to keep and bear arms.' One could go on...

But don't accuse me again of defending a policy that I do not support, especially in a thread where I have already stated that I believe it to be a violation of our right to free speech and freedom of assembly.

You believe that "One can oppose Hussein while opposing war to remove him" do you not? Isn't it tiresome that various right-wingers on this board don't seem to get that?

Perhaps you will recognize the concept of opposing a law while opposing impeachment as a remedy to that law.

If you wish to carry on, I yield the battlefield to you. Wail away on the treason that you see.

[bug_girl]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
jj - I'm starting to get worried. What the blazes is happening in America?


i don't know, but it's really, really creepy. i look at the patriot act, and the difficulties my international students are having, and i feel like i've woken up in a sci fi alternate universe.

[WildCat]

Is this practice stupid, foolhardy and self-defeating? Yes.

Is it unconstitutional? Most likely, I can't see how it isn't.

Should Bush be impeached over this? No way!

Many a president, governor, and mayor has signed a law that proved unconstitutional. None has ever been impeached for it, and rightly so. Because it is not criminally illegal to pass an unconstitutional law!

Now, if the SCOTUS rules against the practice and the Secret Service still does this, then an impeachment would be in order.

People should really stop the knee-jerk "impeach 'em" cry whenever an elected official does something they don't like, it's petty and belittles the the very serious nature of impeachment and what constitutes an impeachable offense. Political tit-for-tat is not what it is about.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

Perhaps you are right. Do you know of an instance where (non-vetted) citizens carrying pro-Bush signs were allowed anywhere near him?


You claim to have read the article, so you know that one group was allowed to "meet the press" and the other forcibly hidden from the press.

So you didn't need to ask.


So far as I know 1st amendment still applies. Does it say POTUS photo-ops must be used to promote dissemination of anti-POTUS messages?

Irrelevant, and misleading. I see you're working on the "big lie" coverup here. It's a fact that "access to POTUS" is a complete red herring, one that it is dishonest of you to even introduce, since nobody has suggested that the protesters actually MEET the president, only that they get the same treatment as any other demonstrator making political speech.

And, no, I am not supporting violent demonstrators. They can go to jail, thank you, just as fast as the maria takes them.

[WildCat]

BTW, I think it is OK to keep protestors a reasonable distance from the POTUS (for obvious security reasons), but the distances in the article (1/3 mile away) is clearly unnecessary and unreasonable.

[jj]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I think the same thing about the new campaign finance law.


It's entirely likely that you're right.


And there are all those people who think that every gun control law is 'deliberately being enforced with obvious and deliberate intent to suppress the right to keep and bear arms.' One could go on...


That's hardly comparable. Signs don't people. People shoot people. :p


But don't accuse me again of defending a policy that I do not support, especially in a thread where I have already stated that I believe it to be a violation of our right to free speech and freedom of assembly.


Hmm.

You're right. I'm sorry.

That was badly phrased on my part.


Perhaps you will recognize the concept of opposing a law while opposing impeachment as a remedy to that law.


Not as a remedy to the law, as a remedy to making illicit use of an obviously unconstutional law.


If you wish to carry on, I yield the battlefield to you. Wail away on the treason that you see.
I still see suppressing political dissent as a fundamental attack on the country. Sorry, but that's how I see it. I don't know who passed the law, but either it was badly misphrased (keeping people with guns away from abortion clinics, or keeping people who block passage of other people who aren't under arrest away from abortion clinics, is not the same thing as keeping people making peaceful political speech away from cameras), or it's being misused. (that 'or' is not exclusive, it could be both)

[jj]

Originally posted by WildCat
Is this practice stupid, foolhardy and self-defeating? Yes.

Is it unconstitutional? Most likely, I can't see how it isn't.

Should Bush be impeached over this? No way!


Why not? This isn't a question of hairsplitting, here, it's a direct and obvious abuse, a taking advantage of a bad law in order to affect the political process. It's being done by the executive branch. It's a serious violation of the oath of office.


Many a president, governor, and mayor has signed a law that proved unconstitutional. None has ever been impeached for it, and rightly so. Because it is not criminally illegal to pass an unconstitutional law!


Bush didn't pass it as far as I know, he merely used it to make anti-Bush political speech a crime in the USA, if any media sees it, at least.

And that abuse warrants impeachment, plain and simple, no matter who made the law.


Now, if the SCOTUS rules against the practice and the Secret Service still does this, then an impeachment would be in order.


Have they moved that citizen at Gitmo back into the civilian system yet? I believe that we may have a case presently, or soon, where the executive branch is in direct contempt of the supreme court.

That is, of course, unrelated, but I don't think it will stop this administration for a second.


People should really stop the knee-jerk "impeach 'em" cry whenever an elected official does something they don't like, it's petty and belittles the the very serious nature of impeachment and what constitutes an impeachable offense.

Nonsense. Impeachment is exactly for serious violations of the constitution, a taking advantage of obviously unconstitutional laws, etc, and that's exactly what's happening.

This is much more serious than anything Mr. Bill the idiot ever did, but Bush is getting a free pass, whereas Mr. Bill harrassed for 5 years by the Starr chamber.

Political tit-for-tat is not what it is about.
No, it's not. It's about a serious threat to the most basic freedom in this country, no more, no less. It's about a serious threat to freedom that is committed by the executive branch, in order to create political advantage. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to the misuse of the "Homeland Security" agency when they tried to track down the Texas Democrats in order to willfully use government power to usurp a state's political process.

It's a complete and total abandonment of any kind of constitutional ethic.

[jj]

Originally posted by WildCat
BTW, I think it is OK to keep protestors a reasonable distance from the POTUS (for obvious security reasons), but the distances in the article (1/3 mile away) is clearly unnecessary and unreasonable.

Read more carefully. Only ANTI demonstraters are isolated where the media can not even see them.

It is a deliberate use of government power to stifle political speech. It is a violation of everything the founders ever intended.

[Theodore Kurita]

For cripes sakes... Have you people payed any attention until now on how Free Speech rights are being taken away from us!

Noam Chomsky outlined how the media was already censoring freespeech.

Now the Government itself is taking more obvious measures to censor the people!

If you want to sign up to impeach Bush.

Here is a link:

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

Over 383,000 have already signed this, I am among them.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by jj

No, it's not. It's about a serious threat to the most basic freedom in this country, no more, no less. It's about a serious threat to freedom that is committed by the executive branch, in order to create political advantage. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to the misuse of the "Homeland Security" agency when they tried to track down the Texas Democrats in order to willfully use government power to usurp a state's political process.

It's a complete and total abandonment of any kind of constitutional ethic.
Calm down, JJ. It really isn't that bad. Many feel the same way about gun laws, the income tax, the War on Drugs, etc. And unlike this practice, the SCOTUS upheld those!

The courts will slap this down pronto, trust me!

Bush didn't pass it as far as I know, he merely used it to make anti-Bush political speech a crime in the USA, if any media sees it, at least.
The law being used is one that allows the Secret Service to keep a security buffer around the president, according to the article. The law itself is constitutional, but this way of interpreting it will prove (IMHO) unconstitutional. It won't last.
Have they moved that citizen at Gitmo back into the civilian system yet? I believe that we may have a case presently, or soon, where the executive branch is in direct contempt of the supreme court.
If you're talking about Padilla (who's in a military brig in S. Carolina, not Gitmo), I don't believe for a minute Bush would ignore an order from the SCOTUS. It would create a constitutional crisis not seen since the Civil War, hell if he does I'll even supply torches and pitch forks to go get his head. But I really can't see that happening, despite what you may have heard Bush is not Hitler.

Bush is only the most visible politician trying to suppress free speech around him. If you think that Democrats don't engage in this practice just come here to Chicago. Open up a place of business and I DARE you to put a sign in the window for a Daley administration opponent, even if it's another Dem (really all we have here). See how long it will take before an army of city building inspectors show up and start citing you for code violations you never even knew existed. Any business licenses you have pending will be mysteriously denied or held up indefinitely. And don't be surprised when the next morning you find a brick through your window, if it's not a molotov cocktail. I find this just as egregious as what Bush is doing, but what's worse is that the end is not as quick and clean as a court decision.

[jj]

Originally posted by WildCat

Calm down, JJ. It really isn't that bad. Many feel the same way about gun laws, the income tax, the War on Drugs, etc. And unlike this practice, the SCOTUS upheld those!


Bullpucky. The fact that it's done at all shows the degree to which the administration thinks they can act like the old USSR government, without being substantively called on it.


The courts will slap this down pronto, trust me!


By 5 to 4, and only if one of the older judges doesn't die before it gets to them. At least 4 of the judges presently in office will endorse anything that the totalitarian right proposes. That will go up to 5 if this misuse of government authority gets Bush re-elected.

This is serious, Wildcat. It's active tampering with the basic process itself, to an extent that guns, taxes, and even the WOD pale in comparison to.


The law being used is one that allows the Secret Service to keep a security buffer around the president, according to the article. The law itself is constitutional, but this way of interpreting it will prove (IMHO) unconstitutional. It won't last.


Irrelevant. If Bush is re-elected, and gets to appoint a judge, it will become illegal to argue against King George, because he'll control the court, too.


If you're talking about Padilla (who's in a military brig in S. Carolina, not Gitmo), I don't believe for a minute Bush would ignore an order from the SCOTUS.

It's what he wants, a way to claim that he's being persecuted by the "liberal judiciary". It's a way to get votes. It's grandstanding of the worst sort.

It would create a constitutional crisis not seen since the Civil War, hell if he does I'll even supply torches and pitch forks to go get his head.

Start stocking up. The constitutional crises is what they want, while they have control, to make basic changes in how this country works that are entirely enemical to the founders intent, and to any kind of freedomloving person. They WANT the crises, Wildcat, they want it, they relish it, and they think they can pervert it to their ends, AND THEY ARE PROBABLY RIGHT since right now they also control congress and have made no bones about abusing THAT power to political ends.

But I really can't see that happening, despite what you may have heard Bush is not Hitler.

Um, I didn't say that, you did. Bush is obivously not nearly as smart as Hitler was, so the comparison is impossible.

See how long it will take before an army of city building inspectors show up and start citing you for code violations you never even knew existed.

I don't doubt it at all.

I find this just as egregious as what Bush is doing, but what's worse is that the end is not as quick and clean as a court decision.
It's egregious, but it's not QUITE usurping the founders' intent countrywide.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by jj

It's egregious, but it's not QUITE usurping the founders' intent countrywide.
It would have been if Mayor Daley's brother Bill had succeded in getting Gore elected. ;)

Bill was the only thing I had to know about Gore's campaign to not vote for him.

[jj]

Originally posted by WildCat

It would have been if Mayor Daley's brother Bill had succeded in getting Gore elected. ;)

Bill was the only thing I had to know about Gore's campaign to not vote for him.

Yeah, and look what you got instead. Great step forward, eh?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by jj


Yeah, and look what you got instead. Great step forward, eh?

Where were you when Clinton used this same law to keep the protestors the hell away from WTO?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Where were you when Clinton used this same law to keep the protestors the hell away from WTO?
Mayor Daley does some things very well. Last year when there was a trade meeting here he gave notice to all the various anti-trade groups leaders that he would sue the pants off any group responsible in civil court. (as a side note, most of the judges here owe their jobs to the Daley Machine)

He then gathered the biggest, baddest cops on the force and gave them some scary looking, all-black body armor riot gear. The protestors had a permit for a specific route, and this police goon squad formed lines to either side of them, escorting them thusly the entire length of the protest.

There wasn't any trouble at all... ;)

[Ignatius]

Can anyone find other articles that back this one up? I've been searching and haven't found anything that comes close to this one. It wouldn't suprise me as this administration is well known for being very agressive when it comes to controlling the information it wants to get out. But I would like to know how much is this is true and, if it is, why this hasn't been more widely reported.

If true, EVERYONE should be outraged, dems and conservatives alike. Not just disagreeing with the policy, but foaming at the mouth pissed. "Hypocrite" just isn't a strong enough word for a president goes around giving speeches about how much we love freedom and how we are fighting the people that just (for some reason) hate freedom while not allowing anyone that disagrees with him to be anywhere within camera range. There has to be a stronger word, probably rhymes with "snicktator".

aerocontrols,

Do you have any more information on how the laws banning protests against abortion clinics were able to be used for this? IIRC, those laws moved protestors across the street or some other distance where they could protest and be seen, but could not actively block and harass the people coming in and out. Admittedly, I'm pretty fuzzy on the details.

Or is it more about the laws designed to keep WTO protestors away (of which I know even less about)?

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Where were you when Clinton used this same law to keep the protestors the hell away from WTO?

I worked across the street from the Hamilton Park Hotel, gramps, and I saw some of those "peaceful" demonstrators.

Signs are one thing. 2x4's are something else.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by jj


Yeah, and look what you got instead. Great step forward, eh?
Hey, we all got it.

And I didn't like Bush much better in that election, which is why I voted Libertarian to protest both major parties failure to put a candidate on the ballot I could vote for w/o throwing up.

In retrospect I am glad Bush won over Gore because of the way he reacted to the 9-11 attacks. I think Gore might still be negotiating w/ the Taliban to extradite Osama.

The economy would have done much the same regardless of who won.

Iraq? I'll wait and see, this is too big to assess right away. It will take years before either a (pick 'em) peaceful democracy or a bloody fascist Islamic theocracy evolves.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


If you want to sign up to impeach Bush.

Here is a link:

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

Over 383,000 have already signed this, I am among them.


That represents 1/10 of 1% of the population, and impeachments generally aren't begun on referendums.

There was an online petition to force the Chicago Bears to trade Cade McNown (the world's worst rookie QB) that got more signatures than that, and it still took them another season to bounce him. In other words, it's really just so much jerking off.

Can't you just wait to vote like everyone else? This isn't California you know.

Edited to add:

Here's a little info on the guy who drew up your little petition. Nice company you keep.

Meet Ramsey Clark (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/)

[Grammatron]

Can we get some legal opinion on this? Perhaps Suddenly can grace us with his knowledge? :)


I worked across the street from the Hamilton Park Hotel, gramps, and I saw some of those "peaceful" demonstrators.

If you read my posts you will see I stated a similar experience from the anti-war/bush crowd. Is that enough justification?

Can't you just wait to vote like everyone else? This isn't California you know.

Screw you Jocko! :p

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Screw you Jocko! :p

Come on, anything that deflects the mockery of a nation away from Florida voters is a windfall for us. Gotta ride it for all its worth. :D

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron
If you read my posts you will see I stated a similar experience from the anti-war/bush crowd. Is that enough justification?


There's no reason to tolerate violence, but that's not what this criminal misuse of this law is about.

The misuse of this law is about preventing one's opponents the right political speech, and the use of government authority to deny the oppositing the right to wave a sign in front of the camera.

The critters at the Hamilton Park Hotel were not all carrying signs. I have no doubt that some of the anti-war protestors weren't carrying (only) signs, either. (In retrospect, though, that demonstration was one of the least violent and least destructive on record since Seattle. The area was an armed camp, we had to use a different exit for the day, etc, too.)

Those carrying weapons and fomenting violence are welcome to a fast trip to the pokey, and a chat with an annoyed member of the judicial establishment, too.

But that's not what appears to be happening here.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Upchurch:
So, why single out one side over the others and then deny that side any voice in the media? I want to know where the media is when the anti-bushies are rounded up. An interesting story might include interviews with various demonstrators to identify pro-or-anti-bushiness, correlated with distance from the prez. Show some charts and graphs and real data.

So, where is the media? Jostling each other for a photo op or sound bite from Bush is where. What a bunch of idiots. How many slightly different pics of the prez waving at a crowd of supporters do we really need?

The media failure to get the real story would make a good story.

What value is freedom of the press when there is no real press?

[evildave]

NONE of them want their FCC licenses suddenly and mysteriously revoked.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by evildave
NONE of them want their FCC licenses suddenly and mysteriously revoked.

You need an FCC license to run a newspaper?!!

[subgenius]

This is the kind of free speech I'm talkin' about (4 babes decide to drop in)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius
This is the kind of free speech I'm talkin' about (4 babes decide to drop in)

I only see 3 people and someone in the corner...as far as babes go, well you know what they say about beauty is in the eyes of the beer holder.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I only see 3 people and someone in the corner...as far as babes go, well you know what they say about beauty is in the eyes of the beer holder.
Absolutely. You are correct sir. Whatever.
And now some misplaced posts:

Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"
Yeah, whatever happened to that?


The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way."
Gosh am I glad they're looking out for me.

Originally posted by Grammatron


Protesters literally stood and then lied down in front of my car waving their No Blood for Oil sign like I do not fin see it. If I was a bit less attentive to the road I'd have added few more speed bumps to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's not what happened in the incident the judge was referring to. That's the thing about the constitution. Ya don't ban everything. You just arrest the people causing a problem.
The test is clear and present danger.
Amazingly freedom of movement (traffic) is another protected freedom. They were wrong in your case. That doesn't justify restricting speech solely because of its content. I think we all agree on that.
Can I get a witness?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius

That's not what happened in the incident the judge was referring to. That's the thing about the constitution. Ya don't ban everything. You just arrest the people causing a problem.
The test is clear and present danger.
Amazingly freedom of movement (traffic) is another protected freedom. They were wrong in your case. That doesn't justify restricting speech solely because of its content. I think we all agree on that.
Can I get a witness?

I guess this is why all drugs are legal because only people who cause problem get arrested for possession.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I guess this is why all drugs are legal because only people who cause problem get arrested for possession.
"You sure can talk some s**t, buddy I got a headache." (Lenny Bruce)
I'm sorry I can't understand what you're trying to say.

[Ladewig]

The media failure to get the real story would make a good story.

What value is freedom of the press when there is no real press?

When Ashcroft decides that he can bar print reporters from his press conferences at the National Constitution Center (story (http://citypaper.net/articles/2003-08-28/pretzel.shtml)) and the story is not mentioned in any major media outlet, there is no real press.

___________
I disagree with the people who think this is enough to impeach Bush. I do, however, think it is enough to launch a special investigation with unlimited subpeona power and unlimited funds.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You need an FCC license to run a newspaper?!!

There are relatively few corporations that control virtually all of the media sources in the U.S.A.

That means that even though the newspaper portion of the corporation doesn't need its FCC license (though there are a LONG chain of permits and licenses it needs), OTHER SUBSIDIARIES need those licenses.

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

So, let's take the NEW YORK TIMES, for instance:
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/nyt.asp

Newspapers

* The Boston Globe
* The Courier (Houma, LA)
* The Daily Comet (Thibodaux, LA)
* The Dispatch (Lexington, NC)
* The Gadsden Times (AL)
* The Gainesville Sun (FL)
* International Herald Tribune
* The Ledger (Lakeland, FL)
* The New York Times
* The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA)
* Petaluma Argus-Courier (CA)
* Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL)
* Spartanburg Herald-Journal (SC)
* Star-Banner (Ocala, FL)
* TimesDaily (Florence, AL)
* Times-News (Hendersonville, NC)
* The Tuscaloosa News (AL)
* The Star News (Wilmington, NC)
* The Worcester Telegram & Gazette

Broadcasting
Television

* KFOR (Oklahoma City)
* KFSM (Fort Smith, AR)
* WHNT (Huntsville, AL)
* WHO (Des Moines, IA)
* WNEP (Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA)
* WQAD (Moline, IL)
* WREG (Memphis)
* WTKR (Norfolk, VA)

Radio

* WQEW - AM (New York City)
* WQXR - FM (New York City)

Other

* Boston Red Sox (partial)
* NESN (partial)
* Discovery Times channel (50%)


So, as you can see, a little FCC harrassment affects the New York Times, because they have television and radio holdings.

Then there's always the IRS and other "oversight" functions. If you're particularly open and listened to about your dislike for an incumbent, you'd better have all of your financial records lined up, because you will be audited. Maybe every single year from now on.

Previous administrations have sicced the FBI on people (Now that the USA Patriot act is here, expect it to happen again, since all the laws written to protect you from this were stricken down!). Your family and friends and neighbors and employer will have feds show up asking questions about you and your politics. Isn't that "nice"? They'll tap your phones, monitor your internet use. Perhaps even bug your home. They don't need a warrant to do any of this anymore.

And if they luck out and catch you at something, they no longer need to have been looking for something specific, nor do they have to file any charges to lock you up indefinitely. All they have to do is stamp "combatant" on your file, and you will never have any rights (not even so-called "Human Rights") again.

That is our government under Bush. He basically gave the terrorists more than they could ever have hoped for: He and Congress turned the U.S. into a mirror of the U.S.S.R. Easy to hate.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius

"You sure can talk some s**t, buddy I got a headache." (Lenny Bruce)
I'm sorry I can't understand what you're trying to say.

It was late and I was tired, perhaps I should elaborate.

You said, "That's the thing about the constitution. Ya don't ban everything. You just arrest the people causing a problem." My reply was meant to show how there are already laws that do ban "everything" and not just people causing the problem and people don't seem to be as outraged by them.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


It was late and I was tired, perhaps I should elaborate.

You said, "That's the thing about the constitution. Ya don't ban everything. You just arrest the people causing a problem." My reply was meant to show how there are already laws that do ban "everything" and not just people causing the problem and people don't seem to be as outraged by them.
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not sure that more people are outraged by the instant issue than the drug issue.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius

Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not sure that more people are outraged by the instant issue than the drug issue.

I have yet to hear anyone call for impeachment when those laws get enforced, but that's just me. Frankly it angers me when any politician uses these laws as they trample all over my freedom at the same time there organizations out there already that are fighting to repeal those laws.

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I have yet to hear anyone call for impeachment when those laws get enforced, but that's just me. Frankly it angers me when any politician uses these laws as they trample all over my freedom at the same time there organizations out there already that are fighting to repeal those laws.

Well, Gramms, drug laws are obviously stupid, even though I personally find the use of drugs (that is, "recreational" drugs) to be blisteringly stupid, but they don't attempt to pervert the political process (or not nearly as much).

This use of "security" laws is a direct, overt attempt to pervert the political process. If you want to include the "let's keep two party campaign reform" laws, you're welcome to, but this is even not a "two party" thing, it's a "ONE PARTY" thing, and it's a concious, willful abuse of an obviously unconstitutional law.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.”

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.


65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel ....

arrested for disorderly conduct

the Secret Service told local police to confine “people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views” in a so-called free speech area.

Pennsylvania district judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge

St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, “At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators—two of whom were grandmothers—were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome.” One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man

Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 2003, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined.

In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn’t allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media.”

Brett Bursey... standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the “free speech zone.”

Bursey refused and was arrested.... Bursey was charged with trespassing. the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property.

But the Justice Department...
(is) charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding “entering a restricted area around the President of the United States.”


http://amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

if this article is any where near accurate I have to say wow! For those that fought and those that survived those that died for your freedoms in United States this has got to be hard to accept.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


http://amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

if this article is any where near accurate I have to say wow! For those that fought and those that survived those that died for your freedoms in United States this has got to be hard to accept.
Watch for the apolgists to not even give an inch. Its better to acknowledge that there may be room for improvement, but don't count on it.
Empiricism vs. dogmatism. "I hate to ruin the luminous clarity of that sentence with commentary...."----Bertrand Russell.
Hopefully the political process will work. Wake up.
Don't vote for third parties, as much as they may embody some of your ideals....its a vote for the present policies you are concerned about.
Vote. Its all we have.

[TillEulenspiegel]

A Dogmatist is one who holds that the belief's he embraces are correct and those that are divergent are wrong. How could any person with more than a third grade education actually hold such a position?

I believe it was Stewart Symington, during the Cuban Missle Crisis, who told JFK-" Mr.President , We belong to the least exclusive club in the world that has the highest dues."

[subgenius]

I like the quote by one of the Udall brothers (boy could we use folks like that now) when, after a speech someone said, "Mr. Udall that was a great speech, every thinking person in America will vote for you."
His response: "That's not enough I need a majority."

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

"Fortress Bush" (http://www.newyorker.com/press/content/)


interesting that the Bush II admisistration has had less press conferences than the following Adminstrations in the relatively similiar time frames:

Blair
Clinton
Bush 1
Eisenhower
Kennedy



and I like this catch 22

Andrew Card, Bush's Chief of Staff, says of the press, "They don't represent the public any more than other people do. In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election....I don't believe you have a check-and-balance function." Asked how reporters could get more sources on stories about the Administration, Card says, "It's not our job to be sources. The taxpayers don't pay us to leak!.... If their job is to talk to the press, they should talk to the press. If their job is to help develop policy, it's to talk to the people who are involved in that policy-making process....Our job is not to make your job easy."


Here are some words by Ari Fleisher (http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/whkeepsagrip.html)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Wow Bush is setting up quite a legacy of suppression of free speech (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38098)

the consistancy in the approach by the Bush Admin to attempt to interfere with free speach is disturbing.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Wow Bush is setting up quite a legacy of suppression of free speech (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38098)

the consistancy in the approach by the Bush Admin to attempt to interfere with free speach is disturbing.

The use of mercenaries (or "security guards" to the pindancers on the mercenary thread), is another pattern. And in this case, as with the international use of mercenaries, you can be assured that they will be able to do things as private citizens, that government employees such as the Secret Service cannot (legally) do.

"Bush Campaign Paying Firm That Specializes In Paramilitaries
by DHinMI
Fri Mar 19th, 2004 at 22:13:05 GMT

There are plenty of things a campaign must pay for, but the Bush campaign may be the first presidential campaign to employ a company that specializes in paramilitary protection.
In reports filed today with the Federal Election Commission, the Bush campaign showed February receipts of $13.7 million, and cash on hand of $110 million. Obviously much of that money will be spent on television advertising. But a quick look at Bush's FEC filing shows something curious--they paid almost $200,000 to Vance International for "personnel services/equipment."

Vance International may not be familiar to a lot of people, but they should be, because they are the Pinkertons of our era. Vance was founded and until recently run by Chuck Vance, a former Secret Service agent who at one time was married to Gerald Ford's daughter. Vance used his Secret Service background in security and investigation to specialize in providing security during labor disputes. From the strikes at Pittston Coal, to Caterpillar, to Detroit Newspapers, if there was violence on the picket line of a high-profile strike, it was most likely provoked by the maladjusted ex-soldiers, angry cop wanna-be's, and CIA rejects who wear the jack-boots of Vance's Asset Protection Team:


Professional and responsive asset protection services has made our Asset Protection Team (APT) the undisputed leader in the field of labor unrest and major event security since 1985. APT provides security personnel who are trained to protect people and property during potentially disruptive situations, such as strikes, union organizing drives, and plant closings. In addition, APT supplies seasoned professionals during special events and emergency situations, including traveling exhibits, conferences, demonstrations, fund-raising events, and man-made and natural disasters. Discipline and restraint characterize APT, whose operations pioneered the use of photo and video documentation. Our capabilities include business interruption contingency planning and consulting, security personnel and services (e.g., access control, critical area monitoring, crowd control and observation, photo documentation, and emergency response), logistics support, and pre- and post-crisis counseling.
Here are just a few capabilities that Vance believes set it apart from their competition:


·Client choice of uniform style ranging from discreet, non-threatening attire to full riot gear
·Full-time executive protection agents and investigators
·Evidence technicians and coordinators to cross-index photos and videotape
·35mm and video equipment; long-range and night vision lenses available
·Pre- and post-incident counseling by forensic psychologist
Provoking picket line violence ("Asset protection") isn't Vance's only business. They provide executive protection, investigate current and prospective employees, and consult on security matters for corporations, governments and wealthy individuals around the world. (They've just opened an office in--you guessed it--Iraq.) But George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their families and top aides already received protection from a pretty good outfit known as the Secret Service.

So, here's the question to the Bush campaign: What possible legitimate use do you have for a firm that specializes in high-tech surveillance, personal investigations, and paramilitary protection?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/19/22135/3823

[jj]

Originally posted by WildCat
Now, if the SCOTUS rules against the practice and the Secret Service still does this, then an impeachment would be in order.


Forget about the Secret Service, what about those mercinaries that Bush is hiring now?

Could it be that the Secret Service has refused to do something?

(Note: Speculation only, no information at hand yet.)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius


The use of mercenaries (or "security guards" to the pindancers on the mercenary thread), is another pattern. And in this case, as with the international use of mercenaries, you can be assured that they will be able to do things as private citizens, that government employees such as the Secret Service cannot (legally) do.

"Bush Campaign Paying Firm That Specializes In Paramilitaries
by DHinMI
Fri Mar 19th, 2004 at 22:13:05 GMT

From the strikes at Pittston Coal, to Caterpillar, to Detroit Newspapers, if there was violence on the picket line of a high-profile strike, it was most likely provoked by the maladjusted ex-soldiers, angry cop wanna-be's, and CIA rejects who wear the jack-boots of Vance's Asset Protection Team:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/19/22135/3823

Interesting rhetorical choice to make a point, subgenius. :confused:

[gnome]

Originally posted by Zep
But it does seem to me to be a case of simple PR manipulation, and the best way to circumvent that is to not play the game their way. Rather than trying to shout at GWB, why not find more imaginative methods of drawing attention to their cause?


I think the game should be played both ways--both in court and in using more imaginitive tactics...

How about if a bunch of people showed up with sarcastically Pro-Bush signs...

"We support censorship and closed government! GO BUSH!"
"Screw the environment! BUSH RULES!"

Or whatever...

They might have a hard time separating the sarcastics from the sincere, if it were done right.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Interesting rhetorical choice to make a point, subgenius. :confused:

Well, no, actually, there's a lot of history there.

But there is also another point, you don't get a lot from Vance for $200,000 do you?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Bush adminstration scutinizes (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/national/23FBI.html?ex=1384923600&en=a08993408fbbadb7&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND)press and protestors


Mr. Ashcroft said the Sept. 11 attacks made it essential that the F.B.I. be allowed to investigate terrorism more aggressively. The bureau's recent strategy in policing demonstrations is an outgrowth of that policy, officials said.


First Amendment restricted (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1093185,00.html)by Bush Admin Initiative


President of steelworkers union called for a congressional investigation into why

$8.5 million from the Iraq reconstruction bill (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/26/1538221&mode=thread&tid=25)was used to pay for security at the protests.

[daenku32]

I saw article like that a few months back.

If I hadn't already decided to vote against Bush, I would be now..

That crap makes me see red!

[daenku32]

Originally posted by gnome


I think the game should be played both ways--both in court and in using more imaginitive tactics...

How about if a bunch of people showed up with sarcastically Pro-Bush signs...

"We support censorship and closed government! GO BUSH!"
"Screw the environment! BUSH RULES!"

Or whatever...

They might have a hard time separating the sarcastics from the sincere, if it were done right.

I like it. Maybe next time he visits Indy I'll have a Heil Bush! Mein Nationalsozialistische Fuhrer! sign up.

[Ladewig]

I think the scarest part is:

Bursey’s trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access.

They arrest the guy and when he asks what law he broke, the government says, "we don't have to tell you that." WTF? Do these guys consider Kafka and Orwell novels to be instruction manuals?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

I am a subsciber to Center of Inquiry news, I got an e-mail with the following content:

CSPAN 2 (BOOK TV (http://www.booktv.org/) )

On Sunday, May 30
2:30 pm and at 10:00 pm Eastern Time

Operation Hollywood:
How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies
Speaker: David Robb

...Mr. Robb explains ... how many films are made with help from the military in the form of equipment, technical advice, and actual filming locations. He reveals that because Hollywood producers want to make and save money they tend to adjust scripts and storylines to meet the approval of the Pentagon. During the discussion the author presents several of the documents he used while writing the book and later answers questions from the audience. Author Bio: David Robb is a Pulitzer Prize nominated freelance journalist. His work has been featured in several publications, including the Washington Post, LA Weekly, and the New York Times.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

More Banning of speech around Prezlink to this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870541309#post1870541309)