low_delta | protesters = terrorists ?

article by James Boward at SFGate.com

Can anyone provide any sort of rationale at all for removing protesters from the general vicinity of the president?

Here are some quotes from the article that I thought were especially interesting:

Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak.

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.

And finally...

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."

I would guess that that charge is a felony offense, removing the offending liberal from the voter rolls.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

*shudder* Reminds me of the 1960's. Here we go again. I can think of no reason why the president should be shielded from Americans holding signs within his range of view. I attended a Clinton rally in 1996, even shook his hand. He drove right by protesters. Secret Service agents were everywhere, but that was fine. His limo was bullet-proof. He could read the signs. Big deal.

I watched people attempt to protest when Clinton was in power, and they were herded off by the Secret Service, even then. It's been status-quo since at least as far back as Jimmy Carter. The protection zones got more critical after the assassination attempt on President Reagan, and the Secret Service has kept those zones tighter and tighter every administration.

Such is life, when those in power are elected and always at risk to opposition advocates with the potential for violence. Funny that the last 'real' attempt was by someone wanting to impress an actress....

heh. You know, after I shook his hand, my daughter and I were elbowed away by the Secret Service before we could shake Al Gore's hand. So they're on the job, that's for sure.

Maybe the secret service just don't want Al Gore touching people? They wouldn't let our group near him, either.... Does he fear catching colds? :)

Nah. My husband shook Al's hand; but he was just ahead of us on the rope line-up. Guess I looked threatening to them! yeah, right.

Hm..... maybe you looked like you worked for an oil company.....

hardly - ha ha. BTW, I looked up the definition of "fascism" after I read your exchange with

angst_is_fun. You're dead-on.

fascism
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
(Source: Dictionary.com)

Very good arguments. Made me think. And I learned something.

Remember that the Usurper has bragged about how he deliberately does not read newspapers. He actively dislikes seeing alternative and/or opposing points of view. The mendacious use of the Secret Service and the FBI to keep him ignorant of public opposition is entirely consistent.

He spoke down the street from where I live on Monday night. Although the St. Louis Labor Council had a protest about overtime "reform", it was confirmed that he never saw them.

Hell, he even abuses those who throw money at him. He didn't eat at the $2,000 per plate banquet, just speaking platitudinal nonsense for 22 minutes, then gladhanding an elite for another ten or so. His campaign coffers gained $78,000 per minute he spent ignoring those who paid to see him, much less those who didn't.

Usurper? Am I to understand you do not approve of the protection from the tyranny of the simple majority of the people that the Electoral College provides? President Bush was duly elected, and rightfully so considering the system in place, so I have to assume you don't like our system?

I watched Gore's handlers have protesters herded off, but at least he stayed for banquets. I guess being Vice President has fewer obligations that interfere with fundraising efforts.... :)

> Usurper? Am I to understand you do not approve of the protection from the tyranny of the simple
> majority of the people that the Electoral College provides?

That's a somewhat simplistic explanation of the purpose of the Electoral College; regardless, due to the party politics unanticipated by the Founders it devolved into the partisan farce we know and love very quickly.

> President Bush was duly elected, and rightfully so considering the system in place, so I have to
> assume you don't like our system?

If you can define a vote of five to four as "duly elected" then you can say he was, but not otherwise. I don't like how the system was abused. What happened was, for practical purposes, a coup d'etat.

> I watched Gore's handlers have protesters herded off, but at least he stayed for banquets. I guess
> being Vice President has fewer obligations that interfere with fundraising efforts.... :)

I think the bulk of your jibing is based on a misunderstanding: I didn't vote for Gore, and didn't support his candidacy. My observation that Bush has usurped the Presidency is not colored by Democratic Party teeth-gnashing.

Oh, the founding fathers knew of the party politics problem (it was going on in Parliament, you see), and had even considered outlawing them entirely, but decided it ran afoul of the concepts of freedom. Still, even the founder of our first political party said, "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."(T.Jefferson). Factions were, and still are, a problem, but what can you do? People like to be in groups, to band together to get something done.

And, there was no 5-4 vote for Bush to be president. He won the electoral college, which is what counts. If you meant the Supreme Court ruling, the relevant verdict was 7-2. But, with either judgement, the voting rules, followed closely, would have generated a constitutional crisis, as the State of Florida was about to be put in the position of having its electors ejected or direct appointed by the Florida Legislature (a valid action, from before the desire by the states to allow popular election of electors). I think it would have made for some great stories.

I made no misunderstanding -- I just find that people that contend Bush wasn't elected properly to be anti-EC, and I like talking with them to figure out why they feel that way. I also find that people that refer to Bush as an usurper to be underinformed about what happened in Florida, and what the clock was for getting things right.

You need to know that Bursey was in a restricted area without credentials. We have to assume he was the only one in that area without the permits, as he has not attempted to prove anyone else in the area was missing their ticket. He was asked to leave, and he refused. That's trespassing, but the authority for restricted space (TFR, TGR, TTR) is the federal government, and that is where the only case could be made.

I disagree with the "free speech zone" concept, but Bursey isn't the advocate we need.

A restricted area without credentials? The only credential he was lacking was that he wasn't a Bush backer. There was no special restricted area in the direct vicicinty of the president. It was only the general protest area. Unless you have some other info not mentioned in this article.

Disobeying the law is generally not the way to go, and that changing the law is, but on the other hand, if nobody gets arrested, nobody sees that arresting people for protesting is wrong and nobody will back changing of the law.

i don't understand what your acronyms mean (TFR, TGR, TTR).

I do have that info -- I read the court case, and the news from regional sources.

The area the president was passing through was reserved to those backers, and they had to have 'tickets' to get into the area. This is a common action, even in public areas, but Bursey didn't want to get a ticket - he just wanted to protest. This is no different than restricting access to areas of the Mall during Inaugurations to valid credentialed people.

TFR=Temporary Flight Restriction
TGR=Temporary Grounding Restriction
TTR=Temporary Transport Restriction

All three are areas around the president where 'public' space changes for the duration of the president being in the area.

Links:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-dsc-d75.html
http://www.free-times.com/archive/coverstorarch/activists.html#bursey
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/7645909.htm

Interesting info on the court case. Thank you.

I'm still concerned about the use of the charge. As long as it remains used on offenders such as him, that's fine.

Once again proving fascism is alive and well in America!!
I just wish the "mainstream" would wake up, but they've been scared into submission.....

No fascism at all -- this is standard practice when the protection of the president is an issue. Bursey entered an area that was restricted to authorized people and refused to leave, and was arrested and prosecuted for same. That area was public most of the time, but was restricted for a measured time for a reasonable purpose (the passing of the president). His issue of free speech was vetted to a court, and found lacking, as the issue wasn't about speech at all.

Just as a query -- do you know what fascism actually is? Most people don't, and those that learn the term quickly realize it almost never applies where it is used.... No attempt to slam, honestly, just a desire to know if you are on the rare side or not.

The true definition of fascism is the intertwining of business interests with the government....
Since we have a corporate laden, special interest dominated theocracy in this country right now, it definitely qualifies as fascist.....
I bet Dubya just kept his smurk on as the people exercising their free speech were herded away like criminals for some arbitrary reason like "security".....
What a country....

I doubt President Bush was made aware of the situation, as the purpose of the Secret Service protection is to make his transition as smooth as possible from place to place. He probably found out much later as part of a press briefing in case he was asked about the situation (and, then, only if the Press Secretary hadn't fielded the question first).

No, the true definition of fascism is the execution of government by a particular political group that promotes nationalism or racism as a fundamental philosophy, and uses the executive power of government to suppress opposition through terror or censorship.

Our government is not a fascist government. As I feared, you haven't learned the terms. Our government is not a theocracy (despite the best interests of several religious groups), nor is it corporate laden (the largest special interest group set is non-profit organizations, which are not corporate entities). We are dominated by special-interest groups, however, as the individual long ago realized their voice carries more weight when joined with hundreds and thousands of others. In our country Unions figured this out first, of course, and from there hundreds of other organizations were formed to influence the direction of legislation.

I note, as well, that you do not understand what the concept of free-speech is about, either. A shame, really -- too many people forget that the first tenet of free speech is the necessary obligation of responsibility. This is the traditional argument that you can't yell "MOVIE" in a crowed fire-station -- neither can you walk into the middle of a private business and conduct evangelism, abscond with public resources for personal communication, nor use restricted areas for personal agendas. Bursey attempted to violate the restriction, and got upset when he was removed. He was being an egotistical git, putting his own ideas above the law. He got slammed, and rightfully so.

As I was once an idealist prone to rhetoric, like you are now, I understand why you are reacting like you are. I have protested war, chanted slogans, and carried signs. I have also learned that I was manipulated by those same special interest groups to be an opposing force, and was merely a number speaking on things I wasn't supposed to understand. When I took time to be informed I quit being a cog, and instead became a free man. I encourage you to start looking at the whole picture, and at what those that teach you similar rhetoric don't want you to see. It is always a good thing to exercise the mind, don't you think?

Now you're just a sell out and incorrect in your definition of fascism...a real shame indeed....

I regret that you feel so. I have never sold out to anyone, or anything, in my political opinion. And, my understanding of fascism is based in history, modern usage, and supported by definition. As I said, too many people like to use words without understanding what they mean - this forces definition migration, but also obscures issues while both meanings are in force.

Your definition has nothing to do with fascism, but socialism. They are different things, and you would do well to make a note of it.

Is this Dennis Miller by chance because he sold out to the right wing as well?
The similarity is eeeeerie:)

Cute. Your confusion about what is right wing, and myself, shows me how much you have sold out to the feel-good-but-please-don't-think attitude of the lunatic left.

There -- see, I can be just as insulting, but it is stupid, and pointless. I will not respond again to such baiting -- if you care to open your mind, and learn, I'll be here.

I'm done playing with you

I admire your willingness to admit how susceptible you are to being manipulated.

Your definition of the 'concept' of free speech is odd, though. Since I never received the official, importance-ordered list of it's 'tenets,' its likely I'm one of the unfortunate people who has forgotten which tops it, but I'm pretty sure the phrase 'necessary obligation of responsibility' appears nowhere within the 1st Amendment. I do know that the creators of this country considered criticism of the government necessary to the maintenance of democracy, and the protection from tyranny.

Despite your anecdotal allegations about past administrations, you won't find the phrase 'free speech zone' used before 2000, nor will you read stories of the Secret Service being used to to control the PR of a public event, at least since Nixon. The assessment that Bush isn't aware of what's happening is likely true, I doubt there's much he's all that aware of in general, but this administration is unreservedly seeking to curtail dissent in a frightening number of ways. We have Bursey's example simply because he had the guts not to put up with it. Is it wise to refuse the order of of a federal agent? Absolutely not. Is it wise to stand in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square?

Some additional context:

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html (http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html)

That's the same article I linked to at the top. And Dwivian seems to have posted a fair debunking of one of the claims in that article. Though it is a bit distracting from the main issue at hand.

Wow, I've been reading and arguing so much about this, the cross-linking had come full circle :) I saw SFGate and assume the link was this. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/06/national2349EST0871.DTL)

And there's nothing to be debunked, really. Did Bursey break the law? Probably, but when laws are arbitrarily applied, it's hard to know when that's the case. He was made into a one-man restricted zone. (and from the links Dwivian gave, his assessment that this situation isn't a good example for advocacy seems as much to do with his objection to Bursey as a person.)

It's a question of the greater outrage.

Actually, I was first treated to the "free speech zone" in college, which I started in 1985....

In fact, here's a 1997 article about a free speech zone:
http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v102/fa/n041/opinion/opn-mclemore.html

It's been around for a while -- it's a place you go where you are allowed to say what you will, and be heckled if necessary. It's not a new thing, even inside the protest community (I know - I got put in one in 1990, away from a politician I was protesting).

I think it is good to know the tenets of free speech, and no, they aren't included in the Constitution because they were considered normal to civilized discourse when it was written. Things like "free speech issues are part of public policy, and differs from commercial or corporate speech" and "expression of opinion will not get you arrested (except slander) but can cause lost of employment, companionship, and respect". There are others, which can be found easily enough with google. That it requires common courtesy and common sense means it is a very uncommon thing, indeed.

The necessary obligation of responsibility is held within that second point -- that you may hold whatever opinion you desire, and express it as you like, but be assured that you will be held responsible for that opinion, and the consequences may be undesirable. You cannot pretend to have free speech without paying for it with accountability.

And, I know that the Secret Service has controlled many things since Nixon, including PR issues. It isn't hard to find the complaints by the media, either. Google is our friend, there.

Finally, the creators of this country considered democracy a thing to avoid, calling it one of the worse evils of society. Or, as James Madison said, "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Further, John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence, noted, "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." And, John Adams, President, wrote, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Let us be assured, then, that we work under laws first, and if the laws are in error, we must work to change them, not flaunt and deride them. Though, as we have also discovered, civil disobedience is often the only way to bring change to a beginning. Bursey was no hero, because he was not opposed to the law, but instead attempted to protest where he was not allowed. Had he been doing it to get the law changed, I'd think differently. As it is, he was just indifferent to the fundamental basis of our country - a republic is a rule by law, not by the people, and no one should ever be above the law.

Heaven help us if we can ever convince our politicians of the truth of that.

The current use of the phrase 'free-speech zone' might be an ironic play on what was being talked about in that link, but it's not the same thing - it's not really even the same subject. If you've experienced this kind of censorship from a politician using similar tactics, I'm surprised you're so willing to apologize for it. I would have been pissed. There's nothing new about what the administration is doing, I guess I just find the pervasiveness and gall of it fairly novel (I want to say, 'in this day and age' but I guess if so many Americans are willing to hand over their freedom to disagree, maybe this day and age ain't what I thought they were).

And again, please refrain from trying to school us on the Sole True Definition of Free Speech. I know the interpretations, and their origins - I just disagree. The only caveats of the 1st amendment specify the few instances of what we ought not to say - there's absolutely nothing in it to dictate what we SHOULD be saying. 'Common courtesy' and 'common sense' are con men's phrases; meaningless cyphers used to justify all sorts of horrific thought and action. If a responsibility ever were to come attached to the freedom of speech, it should simply be that we always speak freely. That would be MY first tenet. I think it's good to know, too.

My freedoms are not pretense. They were granted to me by my creator and they are unalienable. All laws are a product of, and subject to, these freedoms, not the other way around.

Rosa Parks wasn't looking to change the law either. Her feet just hurt.

Actually, it's exactly the same thing - a place you go to speak on whatever, cordoned off from decent law-abiding folk. It was created in Hyde Park, London, 300+ years ago, and many colleges use it today so that they can isolate the chanters from areas where education is happening....

I was pissed when I got pushed to the side. I also know why it was done, and I have written letters calling for the practice to cease. I don't apologize for it, but I do recognize it. I don't see things changing, really, but at least I went on record for it.

And I will not refrain from reminding people that the first rule of free speech is that you MUST accept responsibility and consequences for what you say. That means you may self-censor, or not, but whatever you choose to do will color how others see you, and you have no right to demand respect from me. Too many people claim the right to free speech, then get offended when people tell them they are idiots (which is their free-speech right, donchaknow). You may disagree, and you have the right to whatever opinion you want, but where it differs from reality...

Rights always have limits -- when your rights and mine conflict, why should yours take precedent? They don't, as far as I'm concerned, but I'll bet you will disagree. Rights collide all the time, and each is arbitrated casewise. They won't be alienated (removed by the government), but there is no reason to expect that your rights are without response, without action, and without suppression when appropriate.

You're wrong about Rosa Parks. We in the south were taught a lot about her. She is quoted as saying, "The only tired I was, was tired of giving in." She also wasn't sitting in the front of the bus, but in the middle, where the dividing line floats depending on bus demand. It's not like she stopped in the first seat, but she moved to a valid seat, and got incensed when asked to move to allow a white man to sit down. She was tired of complying with a stupid rule. She wanted it changed.