[Nonsuch]

Scary, scary times.

At events attended by President Bush and other senior federal officials around the country, the Secret Service has been discriminating against protesters in violation of their free speech rights, the American Civil Liberties Union charged today in the first nationwide_lawsuit of its kind.

[...]

According to ACLU legal papers, local police, acting at the direction of the Secret Service, violated the rights of protesters in two ways: people expressing views critical of the government were moved further away from public officials while those with pro-government views were allowed to remain closer; or everyone expressing a view was herded into what is commonly known as a �protest zone,� leaving those who merely observe, but express no view, to remain closer._

Read the press release at ACLU.org.

[Uday's Carcass]

the ACLU is a piece of trash organisation now. They step all over regular Americans and their values, pushing their own disgusting agenda to the detriment of all.

If the ACLU is saying it, I don't listen anymore.

[Nonsuch]

Sure. Don't think about it. Nothing to worry about. It's only affecting liberals anyway, and we all know they're traitors (not like "ordinary Americans"), right?

[Uday's Carcass]

sure, I think about it. But I also believe they'd distort and outright lie to get what they want.

So when other major news outlets report on it, I'll take it more seriously. There are so many people out to get Bush that if it's a claim able to be substantiated, it'll be brought to larger light.

[spacefreak]

The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President. If they need a pack of hostile protestors to be situated differently to better prepare the site, that's fine with me.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President. If they need a pack of hostile protestors to be situated differently to better prepare the site, that's fine with me.

yep. I don't have a problem with relocating some hostile elements. They're still exercising their free speech rights, and the security of the President is better maintained. If it was Clinton moving some conservatives, you can bet the ACLU wouldn't open its pinko cakehole.

[Nonsuch]

So, like the Secret Service, you hold the view that people who express dissatisfaction with the administration are "hostile" and should be treated as a potential threat. Wonderful�and completely illogical. As the press release notes, anyone hoping to gain access to the President to attempt to harm him would be far more likely to feign support for him and thus allay suspicion.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
So, like the Secret Service, you hold the view that people who express dissatisfaction with the administration are "hostile" and should be treated as a potential threat. Wonderful�and completely illogical. As the press release notes, anyone hoping to gain access to the President to attempt to harm him would be far more likely to feign support for him and thus allay suspicion.

true, but the number of people acting crazy and out of control is reduced and moved to a safer distance. At least if some violent crazy is going to go after the President, the attacker would be more exposed and open to interception in a thinner crowd.

If you've ever seen Hinkley shooting Reagan, you get a seriously creepy feeling. I don't want that to happen to Bush.

If a few whining linfidels (liberal infidels) are inconvenienced for a few hours, that's just fine by most Americans.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
yep. I don't have a problem with relocating some hostile elements. They're still exercising their free speech rights, and the security of the President is better maintained. If it was Clinton moving some conservatives, you can bet the ACLU wouldn't open its pinko cakehole.

Another conservative who thinks he learned Everything He Needs to Know About the ACLU from Rush Limbaugh.

A Salon article on this issue:

Pittsburgh's Walczak notes that during Nixon administration, especially during his second term, police "made quite a practice" of tearing up protest signs and confining protesters, and at least in one case that went to court, the Secret Service admitted being behind the actions. He says there were some isolated instances of interference with protesters during the Reagan administration, and even at President Clinton's inauguration, an attempt was made (unsuccessfully, thanks to ACLU intervention) to bar anti-abortion protesters from the inaugural march.

OK, I think the code is finally right ...

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President. If they need a pack of hostile protestors to be situated differently to better prepare the site, that's fine with me.

This is more of that, "If you're not with us, you're against us," illogic that Bush uses.

I could understand maintaining a slightly larger distance to increase safety (even 100 feet back), but this isn't about safety. The protesters are specifically moved out of audible and visual range.

Also, let me add that you must have a low opinion of people to assume that because they disagree with the man they would want to kill him. That just lowers my opinion of you.

Also, in defense of the ACLU, the organization is founded on the principle that the government should be held to what is in the Constitution. If you don't like what the ACLU does, then change the Constitution. Even though it tends to have a liberal bent, at least partly because the most gross violations of civil rights were historically liberal issues, it isn't the pinko-commy organization you make it out to be. For instance, former house rep Bob Barr consults with them on privacy issues.

Granted, I don't agree with the ACLU all of the time, some of the cases they take an are ridiculous. Overall, though, I'd say they serve a valuable function as government watchdogs.

BlackGriffen

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
If you've ever seen Hinkley shooting Reagan, you get a seriously creepy feeling. I don't want that to happen to Bush.

You may not believe it, but I don't want it to happen either. But WTF does that have to do with anything? How does Hinkley's case relate at all to the very real free speech rights at stake here?

[Spliffdaddy]

I remember when Bill Clinton had a young couple arrested for making a comment like, "you let our boys die, you sonofabitch." - in reference to the bombing of the Marine barracks, I believe.

Anytime you publicly voice your displeasure at the President or his administration - you can bet that somewhere there's a jack-booted government thug creating a file on you.

This is the result of liberals always whining that the government isn't doing enough. Fine. We'll investigate every threat, real or perceived - just to deflect any future criticism that the government wasn't doing enough to prevent (insert tragedy here).

Update:

I was close, anyways...

http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoninsulted.html

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
This is the result of liberals always whining that the government isn't doing enough. Fine.

It's funny how everytime this conservative administration (backed by a conservative Congress and Supreme Court) does something we liberals disapprove of, apologists like you claim it's because they're actually trying to do what we liberals want them to. Liberals, unless I missed a newsletter, aren't "whining" for the government to start restricting people's 1st Amendment rights. Conservatives aren't either, though admittedly not the kind of conservatives welcome in the Bush administration (see BlackGriffen's note about Bob Barr). Maybe Bush is just a really bad liberal?

No. The truth is far more mundane: the president's handlers want to a) avoid all possible confrontations between Bush and anyone who disagrees with him, because he's not exactly fast on his feet in that department, and b) keep dissenting citizens out of the media's gaze, furthering the impression through the media that there actually is no dissent.

[MacGorilla]

The truth is far more mundane: the president's handlers want to a) avoid all possible confrontations between Bush and anyone who disagrees with him, because he's not exactly fast on his feet in that department, and b) keep dissenting citizens out of the media's gaze, furthering the impression through the media that there actually is no dissent.

You hit it spot on!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
The truth is far more mundane: the president's handlers want to a) avoid all possible confrontations between Bush and anyone who disagrees with him, because he's not exactly fast on his feet in that department, and b) keep dissenting citizens out of the media's gaze, furthering the impression through the media that there actually is no dissent.

Exactly.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President. If they need a pack of hostile protestors to be situated differently to better prepare the site, that's fine with me.

How do you know they are hostile? Maybe they're just exercising their right to free speech; this is another example of the John Bashcroft mentality at its finest.

I'm amazed at how many people seem to think that free speech only includes what they want to believe and practice.

Wake up America!

[nvaughan3]

"or everyone expressing a view was herded into what is commonly known as a �protest zone,� leaving those who merely observe, but express no view, to remain closer._"


I see no problem with this.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
"or everyone expressing a view was herded into what is commonly known as a protest zone, leaving those who merely observe, but express no view, to remain closer._"


I see no problem with this.

Protest is a protected form of speech the purpose of which is to allow groups of people to voice their opinions to the general populous, to the media, and to our elected officials. By hiding the protestors from the elected officials, media, and general populous by herding them into certain areas, the protestors are being deprived of their constitutional rights. We have those rights for a reason. We're supposed be be able to voice our objections to the government freely, and we're supposed to do so whenever we feel displeasure at the government. This isn't come whacko commie method of tearing down the "great American government", this is part of what is supposed to make the American government great. The detention of protestors and shielding the public and government officials from being aware of them is exactly the kind of thing that happens in the "pinko commie" governments that is part of what makes them so bad and allows their level of oppression to escalate.

In short: the people who object ot protestors are the "pinko commies" not the protestors themselves who are more American than the complacent masses who will gladly get raped up the ass by their government because "America can do no wrong".

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President. If they need a pack of hostile protestors to be situated differently to better prepare the site, that's fine with me.

prong two: quell with extreme prejudice the rights of citizens to protest by removing their access to due process, paving the road for political prisoners, like there used to be in South Africa.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I remember when Bill Clinton had a young couple arrested for making a comment like, "you let our boys die, you sonofabitch." - in reference to the bombing of the Marine barracks, I believe.

Anytime you publicly voice your displeasure at the President or his administration - you can bet that somewhere there's a jack-booted government thug creating a file on you.

This is the result of liberals always whining that the government isn't doing enough. Fine. We'll investigate every threat, real or perceived - just to deflect any future criticism that the government wasn't doing enough to prevent (insert tragedy here).

Update:

I was close, anyways...

http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoninsulted.html

Tu quoque logical fallacies are not a good defense, I hope you realize.

The fact that Clinton was an egomaniacal @ss doesn't excuse Bush's transgressions. Especially considering the difference of scale, here.

I thought I should post the text of Amendment one:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As long as the protesters are keeping it peaceful, the transgression of their right seems pretty clear to me.

Like I said, I could understand some increased distance as a precautionary buffer (like 100 feet or so), but not all the way out of earshot and beyond vision.

BlackGriffen

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
sure, I think about it. But I also believe they'd distort and outright lie to get what they want

It's a good thing no one else is willing to distort and outright lie to get what they want ...

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Protest is a protected form of speech the purpose of which is to allow groups of people to voice their opinions to the general populous, to the media, and to our elected officials. By hiding the protestors from the elected officials, media, and general populous by herding them into certain areas, the protestors are being deprived of their constitutional rights. We have those rights for a reason. We're supposed be be able to voice our objections to the government freely, and we're supposed to do so whenever we feel displeasure at the government. This isn't come whacko commie method of tearing down the "great American government", this is part of what is supposed to make the American government great. The detention of protestors and shielding the public and government officials from being aware of them is exactly the kind of thing that happens in the "pinko commie" governments that is part of what makes them so bad and allows their level of oppression to escalate.

In short: the people who object ot protestors are the "pinko commies" not the protestors themselves who are more American than the complacent masses who will gladly get raped up the ass by their government because "America can do no wrong".

there are limits to protests, a chief example being the need to obtain permits to make sure (among other things) that reasonable security is available for the protest and that any planned dispuption is reasonable and orderly. you don't have the right (as intepreted by the courts) to protest in mass whenever and wherever you want regardless of the magnitude of disruption.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
there are limits to protests, a chief example being the need to obtain permits to make sure (among other things) that reasonable security is available for the protest and that any planned dispuption is reasonable and orderly. you don't have the right (as intepreted by the courts) to protest in mass whenever and wherever you want regardless of the magnitude of disruption.

Irrelevant to the issue, which is about protestors being singled out and their rights violated while the rights of neutral or supportive demonstrators are unchallenged. There is a qualitative distinction being made based on the demonstrators' political messages, a plain violation of their 1st Amendment rights.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Irrelevant to the issue, which is about protestors being singled out and their rights violated while the rights of neutral or supportive demonstrators are unchallenged. There is a qualitative distinction being made based on the demonstrators' political messages, a plain violation of their 1st Amendment rights.

maybe im not being clear, my (challenged) comment on this was strictly related to:

"or everyone expressing a view was herded into what is commonly known as a �protest zone,� leaving those who merely observe, but express no view, to remain closer._"

again, rightfully allowing observers to observe and properly seperating disruptive protesters. the protesters could be supportive or non-supportive in this case.

[Face Ache]

GWB is addressing the Australian parliament soon, at which point the Australian people will be locked out of their own parliament house for the first time ever.

Ever.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
prong two: quell with extreme prejudice the rights of citizens to protest by removing their access to due process, paving the road for political prisoners, like there used to be in South Africa.

That was a stretch.

leave it to the "ACLU" to twist the Secret Services attempt to protect the pres into the Bush admin trying to silence the the opposition.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That was a stretch.

leave it to the "ACLU" to twist the Secret Services attempt to protect the pres into the Bush admin trying to silence the the opposition.

Yes, we must protect the president from the evil opposing viewpoints! Conformity is life!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That was a stretch.

leave it to the "ACLU" to twist the Secret Services attempt to protect the pres into the Bush admin trying to silence the the opposition.

nope. no stretch. it is precisely what is going on. The Bush administration is preventing peaceful protest. There are other examples, and I posted one that happened in Dayton as well where a protest group who had permission to protest were jacked around, moved from one place to another, none of which were visible to the press until the event was over, then they were finally allowed to stand where they had permission to stand in the first place.

If you approve of the abridgement of the right to peaceably protest and attempt to cloak it as protecting the president's safety, then you deserve to have no voice when a liberal president is in power and you conservatives wish to exercise your rights to protest.

this is what is short-sighted about your extreme partisanship on this issue. Sure, NOW it seems ok to you remove rights of people you disagree with while your side is in power, but once you abridge these rights, that means you abridge them for yourself when next the other side is in power. This is the purpose of these rights...

[lil'babykitten]

Shouldn't you people be in favour of the ACLU? they are protecting your rights after all.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
GWB is addressing the Australian parliament soon, at which point the Australian people will be locked out of their own parliament house for the first time ever.

Ever.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Shouldn't you people be in favour of the ACLU? they are protecting your rights after all.

conservatives have erroneously decided that the ACLU is against their interests...or at least not pro their interests. Because they view civil liberties issues as mostly "liberal" or "minority" issues, they feel that what the ACLU works on does not benefit them directly.
This is cutting off their nose to spite their face. An issue of civil liberties affects all citizens, regardless of party. Like I pointed out, they can be a bit myopic on these issues and operate on the assumption that their side will always be in power in perpetuity so therefore any degradation of rights that favors the current administration is seen as overall in the "good" column.
They unfortunately forget that all that has to happen is for the current administration to be supplanted with a different party, and that all those rights they let slide they might want to use for themselves, but ALAS! the birthright was already given up for a bowl of soup.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
GWB is addressing the Australian parliament soon, at which point the Australian people will be locked out of their own parliament house for the first time ever.

Ever.

wow. I missed this first time through.
How is that possible? I don't know how your parliament works, who has made this decision and how did it come about?
Did the PH vote it to happen?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
. An issue of civil liberties affects all citizens, regardless of party.

Precisely! It's amazing how far some people are willing to go just for the sake of supporting the government! Lets have a look at the ACLU's aims shall we?

(emphasis is mine)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
...

Since our founding in 1920, the nonprofit, nonpartisan ACLU has grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of nearly 400,000 members and supporters, with offices in almost every state. The ACLU has also maintained, since its founding, the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. In support of that position, the ACLU has appeared before the Supreme Court and other federal courts on numerous occasions, both as direct counsel and_by filing amicus briefs.

Now, we have protesters moved to "free speech zones" away from the ears and probably the sight of the people whom these protests are directed at. Yet, some of you feel that is OK? Some of you think the ACLU is part of some vast anti-bush conspiracy?! Come on people! You are lucky to have these organisations in place. Blind support for ones government is a dangerous thing.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
conservatives have erroneously decided that the ACLU is against their interests...or at least not pro their interests. Because they view civil liberties issues as mostly "liberal" or "minority" issues, they feel that what the ACLU works on does not benefit them directly.
This is cutting off their nose to spite their face. An issue of civil liberties affects all citizens, regardless of party. Like I pointed out, they can be a bit myopic on these issues and operate on the assumption that their side will always be in power in perpetuity so therefore any degradation of rights that favors the current administration is seen as overall in the "good" column.
They unfortunately forget that all that has to happen is for the current administration to be supplanted with a different party, and that all those rights they let slide they might want to use for themselves, but ALAS! the birthright was already given up for a bowl of soup.

unfortunately with limited funding the ACLU is forced to take only a small number of cases. I would argue that if you looked at the cases picked vs. picked over you would see a liberal slant that is not helped by the heads of the organization(s) being radically outspoken at times.

aclu serves a very good purpose, dont get me wrong. i've donated several hundred dollars to them in the past. i just wish they would pick up more cases that don't fit their liberal agenda.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
wow. I missed this first time through.
How is that possible? I don't know how your parliament works, who has made this decision and how did it come about?
Did the PH vote it to happen?

Vote? Like in a democracy? HELL NO!

It's quite strange. China's leader needs no special treatment the following day, but America's President requires half of Canberra to be shut down for "security reasons".

http://www.aph.gov.au/jhd/visiting/

I'd rather he stayed away.

At least the political opposition down here has agreed not to boo him.


FREEDOM!

[Wiskedjak]

It's interesting that the Republicans want to fight for the freedoms of the Iraqis, yet get upset when someone wants to fight for the freedoms of Americans ...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's interesting that the Republicans want to fight for the freedoms of the Iraqis, yet get upset when someone wants to fight for the freedoms of Americans ...

rather proves the disingenuity of the claim, don't it?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
unfortunately with limited funding the ACLU is forced to take only a small number of cases. I would argue that if you looked at the cases picked vs. picked over you would see a liberal slant that is not helped by the heads of the organization(s) being radically outspoken at times.

aclu serves a very good purpose, dont get me wrong. i've donated several hundred dollars to them in the past. i just wish they would pick up more cases that don't fit their liberal agenda.

QED...as I said, conservatives have erroneously decided that the ACLU is against their interests or not pro their interests.

The point is, the liberties protected are available to everyone....

Here's an explanation for why you think more "liberal" causes are taken up by the ACLU: because the conservatives are more hell-bent on infringing the civil liberties of liberals, therefore more cases affecting civil liberties will have liberals needing legal assistance.....
As we clearly see from this thread, myopic conservatives will allow or cheer the removal of civil liberties when they are in power....not clearly reasoning they limit their own as well.
It is not usual for liberals to attempt to infringe the civil liberties of others....therefore (if true, though you provide no numbers) it would be logical that more ACLU cases would be filed to protect liberals from conservatives than vice versa.

and I dearly love the "liberal agenda" boogeyman the most extreme conservative love to refer to...what, exactly, IS the liberal agenda here? to protect civil rights?....oohhh...scary.....

You're afraid of guaranteeing rights for everyone instead of oppressing liberals? or what? what is the nature of the ACLU's "liberal agenda"? What is the source of your irrational fear?

[finboy]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Scary, scary times.

They've done the same thing for years and years. Check your facts.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Vote? Like in a democracy? HELL NO!

It's quite strange. China's leader needs no special treatment the following day, but America's President requires half of Canberra to be shut down for "security reasons".

http://www.aph.gov.au/jhd/visiting/

I'd rather he stayed away.

At least the political opposition down here has agreed not to boo him.


FREEDOM!

well, the motorcade street closings are expected, and ARE a security concern, and the way the presidential events are handled here as well, HOWEVER, blocking of access to the proceedings, if that has never occurred is pointless. Heck, if they wanted to, they could frisk everyone who wants to attend. The Parliament House is a controlled environment, there are lots of ways to easily secure it as far as individuals.

That's where this bleeds over from security to control of opposition.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by finboy:
They've done the same thing for years and years. Check your facts.

Yes they have, and it's has nothing to do with "silencing the opinions"

You guys area almost like vultures something I swear.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by finboy:
They've done the same thing for years and years. Check your facts.

It happened quite a lot under Nixon, not so much under Reagan. I don't think any such effort in the past has been as far-reaching and systematic.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
It happened quite a lot under Nixon, not so much under Reagan. I don't think any such effort in the past has been as far-reaching and systematic.

Yes, and the world hasn't been in quite as much tension for a long time as well.

I don't blame them for tightening up security.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, and the world hasn't been in quite as much tension for a long time as well.

I don't blame them for tightening up security.

And I don't think this has anything to do with security (excepting Face Ache's observation re: the Australian Parliament perhaps), but I repeat myself. Like I said, the security argument only holds if you accept the supposition that people protesting the government constitute a danger to the president's safety while people supporting it do not. If the Secret Service believes that only the people holding the big angry signs are a threat, they're not very good at their jobs.

[finboy]

Not new:

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.sh...00/3/19/105204

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
Not new:

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.sh...00/3/19/105204

hm...you are making a comparison between scheduled peaceful protesters with permits and this incident?

are you truly unable to discern the difference in the situations security-wise and civil rights-wise?

(not that I"m condoning either situation)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Like I said, the security argument only holds if you accept the supposition that people protesting the government constitute a danger to the president's safety while people supporting it do not.

Or people that are out to get Bush hiding in with the people protesting.

I think people are taking a narrow view of this.

on purpose.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Or people that are out to get Bush hiding in with the people protesting.

I think people are taking a narrow view of this.

on purpose.

yes, I think you are.

(I added) let's think logically for a second:
If you were wanting to "get" Bush, would you hide among the protestors or among the supporters? Who is more likely to have closer access? I submit the security risk is exactly the same for those who attend the event and aren't protestors and those who are protestors. And, if you're a secret service agent, you do your commander in chief a disservice not to think so.

Going back to my earlier point: if they can comfortably address security concerns for everyone else who attends, via metal detectors, etc....they can do so for protestors. They just choose not to, and they choose to use the flimsy veil of safety to abridge the right to peaceably assemble.

[thunderous_funker]

"security"?????

You apologists seem to have forgotten the Cheney Insurance policy. Anything happens to Dubya and Cheney takes over officially, rather than merely calling the shots from his undisclosed location.

That makes Dubya's personal safety the utmost concern of nearly every American who finds themselves to the Left of the John Birch Society.

Dubya could crowd surf the protestors and not fear more than losing his wallet.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's interesting that the Republicans want to fight for the freedoms of the Iraqis, yet get upset when someone wants to fight for the freedoms of Americans ...

What freedoms that need to be fought for are you referring to?