Is this AmeriKa? or One Nation under Bush.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

deep

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
28,598
Location
A far distance down.
Quarantining dissent

How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech

James Bovard
Sunday, January 4, 2004




When President 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.

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that 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.

Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "

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'?"

Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent 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 holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct."

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

Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. 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."

When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was 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 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.' " Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."

Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States."

If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5,000 fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense. Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide.

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.

Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free-speech zone" but refused to cooperate.

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." Except for having their constitutional rights shredded.

The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold Walczak said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't pose a security threat; they posed a political threat."

The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs -- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.

The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries.

When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George Bush and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard."

Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area.

For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from protesters' messages.

Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of freedom" and declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings."

Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists.

Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington and elsewhere.

One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people.

When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."

Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.

On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."

The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report.

On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official.

Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.
 
Well, AFAIK this has been the case for many years now. I haven't read the whole article, but from reading it quickly I gathered that it's about the designated areas for protesters when the president is in town. Bush is not the first president who's doing this. It was also present during the Clinton era, maybe even before that.

C ya!

Marty
 
Popmartijn said:
Well, AFAIK this has been the case for many years now. I haven't read the whole article, but from reading it quickly I gathered that it's about the designated areas for protesters when the president is in town. Bush is not the first president who's doing this. It was also present during the Clinton era, maybe even before that.

C ya!

Marty

:yes:

thank you... the secret service has one job and one job only... to keep the president, no matter who it might be, safe. they have no party loyalty. this was done when clinton was in office, and it's done now. this is a non issue.
 
It's ashamed that our upholders of freespeech, can't deal with it themselves.

I thought censorship would be dead by now. But it seems to be alive and well even in the places where we talk against it the most. It discusts me.
 
It isn't that they are trying to limit their free speach, but they are protecting the President. I am sure there is a greater threat for an assassination attempts with people who oppose the Presidents policy.
 
Well Swizzle...Thats exactly what the Bush Admin., and the New Amer-World Empire would have you to believe. Ima Sheep...Youra Sheep.

Baaaa Baaaaa
 
swizzlestick said:
It isn't that they are trying to limit their free speach, but they are protecting the President. I am sure there is a greater threat for an assassination attempts with people who oppose the Presidents policy.

Because an assassin is going to advertise by a sign? :huh:
 
I don't think this is anything that began w/ Bush either, or that it is done more for him than for any former President. Who knows for sure? :shrug:

Btw, when I went to Hillary's book signing there were a few protesters who were kept down the street - I assumed it was by the local police, but who knows..they had some nasty signs about her, I can't remember what they said.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
this was done when clinton was in office, and it's done now. this is a non issue.
or it should also have been an issue when Clinton was in the office
 
deep said:
Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone.

:yes: :up:.

Originally posted by deep
If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

Sad but true.

Besides, what our government has forgotten is that they work for us, not the other way around. And if some of us don't like the job they're doing in regards to some particular policy, they should take our opinions into account, just as they take the opinions of those who agree into account.

How did the whole point of living in a democracy get lost so quickly?

Angela
 
god this is such a load of crap... the president of the united states will be protected by the secret service at all costs. there is no way in hell they would allow any... ANY president near what they precieve is or could turn into an angry mob of people... be in a republican, a democrat, an independent, or a martian.

like mrs. springsteen said... they kept the angry crowds down the street from a hillary book signing. as a former first lady hillary still is entitled to secret service protection. so if you really want to protest it as something that should be allowed, no matter republican or democrat? fine... but i disagree.

censorship would be if they didn't allow the protests at all... keeping them away from the president is just a security procedure.
 
thats all well and good headache but the problem lies in the articles statement that favorable signage and rallies of support for the president are given more leeway in terms of proximity to the president. im not sure if this is true, i can only go on this article.
but if it is, does this not represent a fundamental weakness in the secret service's protection of the president?
as the article states, terrorists or anyone with ill intent are unlikely to be so foolish as to spew negative connotations toward the president when it is apparent feigning support would bring them much closer.
potential threats havent been removed they have merely been rerouted and are only a brain wave away from getting just as close amidst a false sense of security.
following this logic then, if a real threat is believed to exist, all protestors should be removed.
this entire line of thought is, of course, dependant on the statement in the article.
 
kobayashi said:
thats all well and good headache but the problem lies in the articles statement that favorable signage and rallies of support for the president are given more leeway in terms of proximity to the president. im not sure if this is true, i can only go on this article.
but if it is, does this not represent a fundamental weakness in the secret service's protection of the president?
as the article states, terrorists or anyone with ill intent are unlikely to be so foolish as to spew negative connotations toward the president when it is apparent feigning support would bring them much closer.
potential threats havent been removed they have merely been rerouted and are only a brain wave away from getting just as close amidst a false sense of security.
following this logic then, if a real threat is believed to exist, all protestors should be removed.
this entire line of thought is, of course, dependant on the statement in the article.

Exactly.

Angela
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Because an assassin is going to advertise by a sign? :huh:

No I am not saying that. The THREAT is greater is all I am saying. A group of protesters within throwing distance of the President could prove to be a dangerous situation.

I don't care who is President, the secret service has a pre-planned route of LEAST RESISTANCE for every public appearance for the President.

I suppose an assassin could be anywhere they want to be, including the protest line. But, I don't know. I am not an assassin.
 
swizzlestick said:


No I am not saying that. The THREAT is greater is all I am saying. A group of protesters within throwing distance of the President could prove to be a dangerous situation.

I don't care who is President, the secret service has a pre-planned route of LEAST RESISTANCE for every public appearance for the President.

I suppose an assassin could be anywhere they want to be, including the protest line. But, I don't know. I am not an assassin.

An assassin would blend in as one of his supporters if he's going to attack from a front line like that.

The THREAT of an assassin isn't any greater. What kind of logic is that? A person's going to hold a sign up, draw attention to themselves and then try and sneak over and kill the president?

There's only two reasons they do this; one is yes, the potential of harm, but not by an assassin, by maybe a possible angry protester throwing a bottle or something. But this is the least of reasons because a mob can grow out of supporters too. Have you ever seen a celebrity try and leave a building?

The main reason is morale. In order to keep a politician's morale up they block them from any "negative vibe" from a crowd.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
An assassin would blend in as one of his supporters if he's going to attack from a front line like that.

The THREAT of an assassin isn't any greater. What kind of logic is that? A person's going to hold a sign up, draw attention to themselves and then try and sneak over and kill the president?

There's only two reasons they do this; one is yes, the potential of harm, but not by an assassin, by maybe a possible angry protester throwing a bottle or something. But this is the least of reasons because a mob can grow out of supporters too. Have you ever seen a celebrity try and leave a building?

The main reason is morale. In order to keep a politician's morale up they block them from any "negative vibe" from a crowd.

Exactly :up:.

Angela
 
What some are missing is that they are put into secluded areas where media is prohisbited. Doesnt this sound odd?

When a head of state goes into the public to apear is he apearing for the PUBLIC not the ones that favor him. If they are so concerned about security then either dont have public aperances or put him in a bullet proof box..ala the Pope.

There are alot of ways to secure a head of state and some are safer but these are convient for the head of state.

Just use common sense...terrorists dont run around with TERRORIST OR ASSASIN written on their forehead, they BLEND!
 
bonoman said:
What some are missing is that they are put into secluded areas where media is prohisbited. Doesnt this sound odd?

When a head of state goes into the public to apear is he apearing for the PUBLIC not the ones that favor him. If they are so concerned about security then either dont have public aperances or put him in a bullet proof box..ala the Pope.

There are alot of ways to secure a head of state and some are safer but these are convient for the head of state.

Just use common sense...terrorists dont run around with TERRORIST OR ASSASIN written on their forehead, they BLEND!

:yes:.

Angela
 
There are so many things that I read that make me laugh at this article....

I am sorry....DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THE POLICE REMOVE EVERY SIGN OPPOSED TO BUSH ALONG THE MOTORCADE ROUTE?

Seriously?

Anyone in here besides me have any experience working with the Secret Service? I cannot speak for everything in this article nor will I attempt to.

But I am going to try and look up an old friend with this article and see what I can find out.

Oooooooo Strom Thurmond Jr. He must be up to no good. He has his daddy's name.

Oh, I did take some time to check on some news reports on the case that Strom Thurmond Jr. was prosecuting and the man was found Guilty. They apparently failed to point out that the "Public" property that Bursey felt that he could DISOBEY THE POLICE ON WAS AN AIRPORT. HELLO!!!!!!!!

Good reporting. But no....it must be Strom Thurmond Jr and Ashcroft's fault. Not that that Police department restricted where this man was trying to go in an AIRPORT where the President was in an area where people with tickets who had been screened and searched were allowed access. Small detail, but, we can paint the picture any way we want.

I really had a crappy day at work. I do not have any more time to investigate this article any further.

I can only say that it was my responsibility to assist and make certain that when any dignitary way moving through the lobby area of the hotel that I worked, the area was clear of pedestrians. That included, locking down the doors to the general public to prevent people from coming in while the dignitary was coming into the lobby from their rooms, to exit the building out onto the streets.

It was NOT uncommon to place barricades in the streets for dignitaries like President Clinton and Vice-President Gore in the street moving crowds far away from the building. It was also not uncommon to have people arrested for making the silliest of comments....even ones overheard in the men's room.

Bill Clinton's 60 Minutes Interview with Hillary saying I am no Tammy Wynette was one of my favorite moments next to protecting Robert Kraft the Day he bought the Patriots.
 
I dont really care if it were to be Bush or Clinton.

If, for arguements sake, the head of state was having a public address or was making a public apearence for medias sake then protests should be allowed. They should be regulated and contained, as should the supporters, but they should be allowed to be where the head of state is speaking or within the alotted distance supporters are.

I dont claim everything to be true in this article, it doesnt seem to "fair" to me, but i'm pretty sure this does happen, with ALL heads of states and i think its bullshit!
 
I guess, mainly my problem is, the article is not written to protest the way heads of state are treated Bonoman. It is written to portray the President in a certain light. Now in less than five minutes, I found out that in one case they presented half the truth. Is this honest reporting?

Interesting that the man was found guilty yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:

Anyone in here besides me have any experience working with the Secret Service?

I don't have any experience myself, but one of my family friends is a retired secret service. He's a great man. He served under Reagan, Bush Sr., and I believe some if not all of Clinton. One of the most impartial men I've ever met. Still to this day will never play partisan politics, he's all about issues and never the party. Never has much to say about Reagan, he really likes Bush Sr.(Bush actually called him while I was talking to him at his daughter's wedding reception to say he's sorry he couldn't make it) but can't stand W, and liked Clinton. He admits to me that they had to do a lot of "silly" things while serving. I'll have to ask him about this sometime.
 
Back
Top Bottom