| Author | Message | ||
     ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 896 Registered: 5-2001 |
For those who scoffed at concerns about Bush having the power to unilateraly lock up American citizens without any due process at whim check this out. He's afraid to even have those how disagree with him within sight. So much for democracy. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/ING PQ40MB81.DTL&type=printable (Does anyone know if similar policies were in place for other presidents? It would be no less appaling, but I am curious) By the way, there is a more reasonable conservative view of the detention issue: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/562vydnj.asp I don't agree with all of it but its the right direction. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 277 Registered: 11-2003 |
You people are really getting your talking points mixed up--Big Brother was last week. This week it's Hitler. The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR.. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W. Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W. Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1646 Registered: 1-2003  |
It appears, from reading the first article you linked to, the Bush administration tells the local police what public behavior and speech to stop. And yes, I am appalled. I think these curbs to free speech are utterly indefensible. This will eventually backfire on the administration. What makes them think it won't? Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Greatest Straw of all time! Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1718 Registered: 10-2001  |
BORING BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. | ||
| mfpark Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 135 Registered: 9-2001 |
Setting up "protest zones" has recently become a favorite crowd control tactic--see, for example, The Masters Golf Tournament and protests about women not being allowed to be members of the club. But most have been careful to move both sides to the protest zones--pro and con. The cleansing of only anti-Bush protestors and leaving pro-Bush protestors is certainly prejudicial. No wonder most, if not all, of the arrests were vacated by the courts. If this is an ongoing practice, as the article says, it will provide a great forum for mass arrests and civil disobedience by anti-Bush protestors, which is exactly what they want and likely not what Bush's people will want. Perhaps the President's handlers need to rethink their strategy. P.S. Given Hilary's new awareness of Gandhi, perhaps she will seize this as her form of making salt and cotton. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 278 Registered: 11-2003 |
your appalling barometer is suspiciously selective, mr prissy. The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR.. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W. Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W. Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) | ||
| Ainsworth Hunt Citizen Username: Ainsworth Post Number: 127 Registered: 1-2003 |
Link of the year: http://www.bushin30seconds.org/ | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 823 Registered: 5-2001  |
That article describes yet more blatant hypocrisy from our President. We'll blow up anybody in an obstensible quest to establish democracy, but don't let me see you exercising your right to free speech. God forbid some old lady holds up a sign critical of the Prez. Get this guy OUTTA THERE! | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1647 Registered: 1-2003 |
Kenney, please give your best shot at defending the government's behavior described at ashear's first link. Tell me why Americans shouldn't be appalled. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2547 Registered: 5-2001  |
Anyone who is nuts enough to stage a protest at ANY president's public appearance deserves whatever they get. It's dangerous. Instead of public protest, channel the craziness to a more productive form by organizing groups, coordinate petitions, write to local and state politician, etc. And I am tired of any mealy mouthed cosseting of suspected terrorists.... Sheesh. | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1649 Registered: 1-2003 |
These protestors are not terrorists. No one deserves to be treated the way they were. The government has no right to limit free speech of this sort. Protesting the way the government fights terrorism is not terrorist behavior. It is very patriotic. Accusing such protestors of treason, on the other hand, shows gross misunderstanding of our nation's principles. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Greatest Straw of all time! Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1722 Registered: 10-2001 |
boring BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 401 Registered: 5-2001  |
Dingle-Berry; What's truly boring is seeing someone as limited as yourself proclaiming greatness. Who do you think you are you kidding besides yourself and Insite? The World Trade Center gets knocked down by a bunch of Saudi's with box cutters, so our president takes us into war with Iraq, killing thousands of innocent civilians, taking hundreds of our own casualties, creating more hatred towards America than before, so we can give Saddam a dental exam which you display as some kind of a twisted victory trophy? Victory over what? We have spawned more hate than ever. You cannot defeat an idea with bombs. Bush's victory lies over manipulating the minds of people like you, and you would be ashamed of yourself if you had any common sense. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4209 Registered: 5-2001 |
The article Ashear linked is written from one point of view. I don't think someone standing quietly with a sign should be arrested. However, the people profiled in the article may have been more disruptive than advertised. I also suspect that this approach has been taken in previous administrations as well. I think during WWII FDR had an opinion from his Attorney General that mental paitents were not subject to habeas corpus. His approach was to send citizens who were security risks to mental hospitals. My source for this isn't all that reliable, but take it as you may. Of course, we also imprisioned thousands of citizens of Japanese heritage in concentration camps for the duration, one of our blacker moments. | ||
| mfpark Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 136 Registered: 9-2001 |
Here is a source from Fox News, which is not a liberal mouthpiece. Apparently other administrations have done this, and none were as aggressive as Bush's folks. ACLU: Anti-Bush Protesters Exiled to Distant Zones Friday, September 05, 2003 By Peter Brownfeld Washington — Supporters can stand near President Bush and loyally wave their signs, but demonstrators opposing the president's policies are exiled to protest zones (search) in isolated areas, the American Civil Liberties Union (search) has alleged in recent court filings. Protesters across the country — from South Carolina to Missouri to Florida — have brought several cases against the Bush administration, claiming its strict rules for dissenters violate their free speech rights. “A favorite tactic of the Bush administration has been to herd protestors at presidential appearances into ‘designated protest zones,’ out of sight of [the president's] motorcade, and to arrest people who refuse to be moved. The policy, applied only to those with dissenting views, has been used to suppress dissent nationwide,” the ACLU wrote in a May 2003 report. The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (search) sued the Secret Service (search) and the St. Louis police to stop a protest zone from being established for the president’s Aug. 26 visit to St. Louis. The organization said during three other visits by the president to the city, protesters were relegated to designated areas far away from the scene of any action. The local police and Secret Service acknowledged that they had planned to use a free speech zone during the president's visit, but subsequently agreed in court not to do so. Based on that concession, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Limbaugh decided not to issue a temporary restraining order. “The government did admit that they had already set up a designated protest zone and it was going to be on the other side of the football-domed stadium, so between where the president was going to be and the protestors was a domed football stadium,” Matt LeMieux, executive director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, told Foxnews.com. During a Bush visit to Tampa, Fla., last November to support his brother Jeb Bush's re-election campaign for governor, police arrested three protestors for “trespassing after warning.” A designated protest zone had been set up several hundred yards from the president. Police said the three men willfully violated the protest zone and toted their signs: “Why Do You Let These Crooks Fool You?” and “War Is Good for Business. Invest Your Sons.” The Hillsborough County Court later dropped the charges, but the three are now suing for damages. Naming the Secret Service, the University of South Florida, the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department and the Sun Dome as defendants, the suit accuses them of "excessive interference with protected speech through the establishment of ‘protest zones’ and the unlawful arrests and intimidation of plaintiffs in the exercise of presenting opposing political views at political events taking place in a public forum.” “If your sign said, ‘We like Bush,’ you were not censored, and if your sign said, ‘We don’t like Bush,’ you were relegated to the free speech zone,” Luke Lirot, the plaintiffs' attorney, told Foxnews.com. Lirot rejected the argument that the distinction was made for security reasons, saying that if someone wanted to do harm to the president, he or she would not carry an anti-Bush sign, but would do whatever it took to get as close as possible. ACLU lawyer Chris Hansen, who has tracked speech zone cases, said the use of protest zones is not a phenomenon unique to the Bush administration. This is "a problem that has existed with all administrations. It is true of all administrations," Hansen said. But Lirot said he believes the Bush administration has been much more proactive than previous administrations in keeping protestors away from the president. “I think it’s become far worse with this president. I know [protest zones] have been around for a while ... but these days, it is so clear that the message of dissent is being censored,” he said. The Secret Service rejected the notion that it enforces the law selectively based on protestors’ views and denied involvement in establishing protest zones. “The decisions that the Secret Service makes are based on security considerations. The establishment in oversight of public viewing areas is the responsibility of state and local authorities,” Secret Service spokesman John Gill told Foxnews.com. Local police, however, have said they acted under orders from the Secret Service when setting up protest zones. A spokesman for the University of South Florida Police Department said that the USFPD established the zone, but worked with the Secret Service on the details and received final approval from that agency. “My strong impression is that the Secret Service is the ultimate decision maker. Most local police are deferential to whatever the Secret Service wants. Demonstrators are very frequently told [by local police] this is what the Secret Service wants us to do,” Hansen said. The USFPD spokesman indicated that the zone was established for all individuals speaking out and not just for the president's critics. LeMieux said regardless of whether or not the zones are meant to keep protesters farther away from the president than supporters, the Missouri court's decision was meant to make sure free speech is guaranteed to all. “Whether you supported or opposed the president, you were finally treated the same,” he said. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1732 Registered: 5-2001 |
"Free Speech Zone" -- worthy of Orwell. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2550 Registered: 5-2001 |
After 9/11 ANY president would require extra security when making public appearances, especially from dissenters. We've had other presidents either assinated or attempted, and with crazy terrorists unnaccounted for and running around, it is dangerous for protesters to get in the way to do their bratty little "look at me, it's all about me, I'm a bitter nerd, my whole life is down the tubes because of this particular president, wah wah wah" ridiculousness. Sorry, but there's bigger things afoot. | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 897 Registered: 5-2001 |
Yeah mem, that free speach and democracy is dangerous stuff. Better get rid of it before it is too late. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2552 Registered: 5-2001 |
Big picture - OK? We still have free speech. Just keep it away from the president's public appearances. It's dangerous. Remember JFK? He was murdered while doing a public appearance. Like I said, a lot more can be done by being productive and pragamatic (ooops - pragmatism is a US tradition - better scrub that) organization of similar minded groups and moving forward without the histrionic "I'm a bitter nerd trying to be cool" childishness. | ||
| Yogi Citizen Username: Yogi Post Number: 38 Registered: 12-2003 |
The thing is the protesters have learned the best way to get media coverage is to exercise their rights near their leader. So it is a practical approach to achieve what they want. Fortunately, Bush has enacted laws that lets the authorities arrest these individuals and hold them for an indeterminate period without access to a lawyer. We're becoming more like the old Soviet Union with every passing day. |
