![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
no subject
> 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.
no subject
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.