![[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
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.