Quarantining Dissent

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Quarantining dissent

How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech

James Bovard

 

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.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...INGPQ40MB81.DTL

 

Now, I thought at the point where he started talking about the Homeland Security Dept memo, the author of this opinion piece started going way too into Chicken Little mode. I also understand and respect that the Secret Service could be afraid of terrorists approaching the motorcade and blowing themselves up, letting loose a chemical, or some other danger. But letting supporters to the front of the line while keeping protesters farther off?

 

Excuse me, Mr. President. This is the US, not Tiananmen Square. I know you've been kind of paranoid since your limo had to shoot through a bunch of "Hail to the Thief" signs at the speed limit the morning you were inaugurated, but we're starting to take that a little far.

[NoCalMike 0]

seems pretty stupid to me and illegal.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

When Jack Kemp came to my town (Bob Dole's future VP), Dole supporters blocked pro Clinton signs. It was funny watching them out manuever each other. Politicians want to look good in front of the media.

[Styles 0]

Good. They're idiots (oohhh "no blood for oil" how original). I don't think it's safe for the president to be near such irrational people, nor have his duties interrupted. Plus, they have the right to protest, not the right to get seen on TV.

[Guest JMA]

Looks like ANOTHER thread that will be turned into a "debate" (read: childish name calling) between those for the war and those against it. Oh goody.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Holy Guacamole, Batman.

 

The Secret Service permits "pro-president" people closer to the President while pushing people with "Bush is a NAZI!" signs away.

 

Next thing you know, you'll tell me that politicans vote on bills just for political gain...

 

[MrRant 0]

Looks like ANOTHER thread that will be turned into a "debate" (read: childish name calling) between those for the war and those against it. Oh goody.

FRENCHY~!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Styles 0]

Looks like ANOTHER thread that will be turned into a "debate" (read: childish name calling) between those for the war and those against it. Oh goody.

You DEBATE-IST~!

[Guest JMA]

Looks like ANOTHER thread that will be turned into a "debate" (read: childish name calling) between those for the war and those against it. Oh goody.

FRENCHY~!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HIPPIE-COMMIE~!

 

Or is that COMMIE-hippie?

 

Eh...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Plus, they have the right to protest, not the right to get seen on TV.

Right, but the TV people weren't allowed to talk to them even if they chose to.

 

kkk:

Holy Guacamole, Batman.

 

The Secret Service permits "pro-president" people closer to the President while pushing people with "Bush is a NAZI!" signs away.

 

I don't think this is really business as usual. Clinton had a ton of detractors, and they got tons of attention.

 

Beyond that, there's the issue of free speech. You could claim Presidential security except that there seems to be political interest involved. If you want to say "Yeah, oh well, I don't mind because I don't agree with their political opinion anyway" then we might as well not have the Bill of Rights.

[Styles 0]

Plus, they have the right to protest, not the right to get seen on TV.

Right, but the TV people weren't allowed to talk to them even if they chose to.

Well, I'm not saying I agree with that, then again, I'm not exactly upset about it either because most of those people are just attention seeking idiots, who don't need to be given a forum to spread their idiocy to give the impression on the news that this is how most American's think. OMG LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS 2004~!!!!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

most of those people are just attention seeking idiots, who don't need to be given a forum to spread their idiocy to give the impression on the news that this is how most American's think. OMG LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS 2004~!!!!

If you want to say "Yeah, oh well, I don't mind because I don't agree with their political opinion anyway" then we might as well not have the Bill of Rights.

[Styles 0]

Maybe you misunderstood me. I don't agree with the officers not allowing the media to talk to the protestors. But, at the same time, it's not exactly a cause I'm upset about because you know darn well that the majority of those people are loud, ignorant "blood for oil" types who want attention. The media (especially local) likes this type of thing, and by putting them on TV as part of a story on the president speaking, it makes it seem like, this is the majority opinion out there (it gives them credibility). So, I think it's best to ignore them (the same way you ignore Nazi protestors or Peta people (before anyone replies, NO Im not comparing anti-Bushists to Nazis but the PETA example is pretty similar). Anyway, just to reiterate, I think the media should be allowed to acess and talk to and broadcast whoever they want, but I'm not losing sleep over this.

[Guest JMA]

Well, I'm not saying I agree with that, then again, I'm not exactly upset about it either because most of those people are just attention seeking idiots, who don't need to be given a forum to spread their idiocy to give the impression on the news that this is how most American's think. OMG LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS 2004~!!!!

It doesn't really matter if you agree with them, does it? That's not what freedom of speech is about. Hell, I despise the Ku Klux Klan (as do most Americans) but they have the right to their idiotic, immoral views. And no, I'm not comparing the KKK to the anti-war protestors. The point is, you can't censor something just because you disagree with it.

 

But what I just said is pointless in this thread. No one cares about people who don't agree with their viewpoints. And before anyone starts, I SUPPORTED the war on the basis of removing Saddam from power.

[Styles 0]

If the KKK is giving a rally, while they have the right to do so, should the media give them attention by broadcasting them? I heard that last year at my college som neo-Nazis planned a rally down our main street where all the shops and cafes are. On that day, all shops agreed to close and everyone comepletely stayed away from the area, so while they marched there was NO ONE there to see them, which is how you deal with that type of thing. AGAIN, anti-Bushists are certainly not Nazis, but I don't think they have any legitimacy in representing anyone but the ignorant, radical segment of people out there who hold up signs like "Bush is worse than Saddam". And I am not exactly sad that they are ignored. But, again, I disagree with it.

[NoCalMike 0]

actually, the majority of folks are NOT, "war for oil" people. Just because there is a sign or two that say that in a crowd of 1000, doesn't mean they represent everyone there. The media tends to cover the most annoying and obnoxious folks just to get a point across(whatever that might be). Just the fact that they labeled a place a 1/3rd mile away from the speech a "free-speech ZONE" is laughable in itself. Sounds like to me that there is just a desire to paint a more favorable picture then there really is.

[NoCalMike 0]

. AGAIN, anti-Bushists are certainly not Nazis, but I don't think they have any legitimacy in representing anyone but the ignorant, radical segment of people out there who hold up signs like "Bush is worse than Saddam". And I am not exactly sad that they are ignored. But, again, I disagree with it.

All you are doing though is pointing to the lowest common demoninator in a crowd of people and labeling the whole group. The majority of folks are civilised, but unfortunately they don't have the power or right to exclude the more idiotic members of the group. Just like the majority of the anti-abortion groups are not likely to hold up dead fetus pictures and block doorways.

[Styles 0]

You just proved my point for me. All they focus on is the loud, ignorant "blood for oil" croud. So even if there are some sensible disenters out there, they're not going to be covered anyway. It's going to be the more "embarassing" of the crowd. So, the right and the left doesn't want them acknoledged, so why should they be? Let them protest out of safe distance of the president or media cameras...

[CanadianChris 0]

. AGAIN, anti-Bushists are certainly not Nazis, but I don't think they have any legitimacy in representing anyone but the ignorant, radical segment of people out there who hold up signs like "Bush is worse than Saddam". And I am not exactly sad that they are ignored. But, again, I disagree with it.

All you are doing though is pointing to the lowest common demoninator in a crowd of people and labeling the whole group. The majority of folks are civilised, but unfortunately they don't have the power or right to exclude the more idiotic members of the group. Just like the majority of the anti-abortion groups are not likely to hold up dead fetus pictures and block doorways.

But then, ad hominem attacks seem to be de rigeur in any political discussion these days.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

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."

 

Not a war statement.

 

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.

 

Are all these people "No blood for oil types" too?

 

I'm a rational person here. The Port of Oakland scene mentioned in that article, for instance, WAS a scene of people who got what they deserved (in that case, they were blocking transport of military supplies.) But there's a difference between disruptors and someone holding a less than favorable sign.

[NoCalMike 0]

You just proved my point for me. All they focus on is the loud, ignorant "blood for oil" croud. So even if there are some sensible disenters out there, they're not going to be covered anyway. It's going to be the more "embarassing" of the crowd. So, the right and the left doesn't want them acknoledged, so why should they be? Let them protest out of safe distance of the president or media cameras...

In this case your issue should be with media coverage, not the protestors.

[NoCalMike 0]

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."

 

Not a war statement.

 

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.

 

Are all these people "No blood for oil types" too?

 

I'm a rational person here. The Port of Oakland scene mentioned in that article, for instance, WAS a scene of people who got what they deserved (in that case, they were blocking transport of military supplies.) But there's a difference between disruptors and someone holding a less than favorable sign.

Agreed, on all 3 points.

[Guest Cerebus]

I don't recall anything close to this hullabaloo after Clinton's second inaguration and its "First Amendment Zones".

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't recall anything close to this hullabaloo after Clinton's second inaguration and its "First Amendment Zones".

I don't remember anything of this sort taking place under the Clinton administration. I could be wrong though.

[CanadianChris 0]

I don't recall anything close to this hullabaloo after Clinton's second inaguration and its "First Amendment Zones".

I don't remember anything of this sort taking place under the Clinton administration. I could be wrong though.

The Secret Service made an attempt to deny anti-abortion activists a place along the parade route. However -- and this is key -- THE ATTEMPT WAS DENIED BY THE COURTS.

 

It was the only time such a thing happened under the Clinton administration. The current administration seems to be making it standard practice.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I don't think this is really business as usual. Clinton had a ton of detractors, and they got tons of attention.

 

As the Bush haters do, too. Yippie.

 

Beyond that, there's the issue of free speech. You could claim Presidential security except that there seems to be political interest involved.

 

Not doing a "counter-point" here, but when you said that I thought back to the Clinton years. Didn't Bill pull something like this off for not releasing his medical records or something? I'm sure MikeSC will know.

 

If you want to say "Yeah, oh well, I don't mind because I don't agree with their political opinion anyway" then we might as well not have the Bill of Rights.

 

You're right that I don't care, but you're wrong in the reason why. There have been times in the past when I have had my "freedom of speech" silenced (my most memorable moment came while I was in college and it regarded the Johnny Gammage case and my home-made sign "Vojtas acquitted -- one down, three to go"), but I didn't run around and cry about having my First Amendment rights violated.

 

Why, I wasn't allowed to run up to Bush and say he sucks -- this is how it must have felt like when the NAZIS were running things...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Why, I wasn't allowed to run up to Bush and say he sucks -- this is how it must have felt like when the NAZIS were running things...

So, you don't have a problem with your rights being tampered (if not infringed) for political gain. Okay then.*

 

* I'm sorry if that sounds like a straw man of the greatest degree, but I really can't figure out your position besides one of apathy.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't think this is really business as usual. Clinton had a ton of detractors, and they got tons of attention.

 

As the Bush haters do, too. Yippie.

Indeed. It's not like anti-Bush rallies get ignored.

Beyond that, there's the issue of free speech. You could claim Presidential security except that there seems to be political interest involved.

 

Not doing a "counter-point" here, but when you said that I thought back to the Clinton years. Didn't Bill pull something like this off for not releasing his medical records or something? I'm sure MikeSC will know.

It IS Presidential security. Nobody is saying people can't protest. They're just saying you can't protest in certain areas.

 

And medical records for candidates should be public knowledge (OMG, but you said Rush's shouldn't be! INCONSISTENCY!). Clinton refused to release his on privacy grounds, but the Presidency is important and we should know the medical situation of our President. Would FDR have been elected in 1944 if word got out that he, literally, was on death's door? What if the true extent of JFK's problems came out?

If you want to say "Yeah, oh well, I don't mind because I don't agree with their political opinion anyway" then we might as well not have the Bill of Rights.

 

You're right that I don't care, but you're wrong in the reason why. There have been times in the past when I have had my "freedom of speech" silenced (my most memorable moment came while I was in college and it regarded the Johnny Gammage case and my home-made sign "Vojtas acquitted -- one down, three to go"), but I didn't run around and cry about having my First Amendment rights violated.

 

Why, I wasn't allowed to run up to Bush and say he sucks -- this is how it must have felt like when the NAZIS were running things...

People have every right to protest.

 

People bitch because they aren't given the biggest possible audience.

 

That is what we, in the real world, call a bitch.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It IS Presidential security. Nobody is saying people can't protest. They're just saying you can't protest in certain areas.

But it can't be security if people who aren't protesting the President's agenda can get up right there. That's operating under the assumption that anyone who wants to do the President harm won't be smart enough to go under the guise of a supporter.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Why, I wasn't allowed to run up to Bush and say he sucks -- this is how it must have felt like when the NAZIS were running things...

So, you don't have a problem with your rights being tampered (if not infringed) for political gain. Okay then.*

 

* I'm sorry if that sounds like a straw man of the greatest degree, but I really can't figure out your position besides one of apathy.

But my rights aren't being tampered or infringed upon.

 

And if these pseudo-hippies had an active brain cell among them they would come to these events with "Bush OWNZ" signs, get invited up to where they could be seen by the President and then let their true colors shine...