Quarantining Dissent

[Bob Hubbard]

Today's News: Quarantining Dissent

Author: James Bovard Source: The San Francisco Chronicle

Title: QUARANTINING DISSENT

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 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.

Full Story

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yeah, they've been pulling this ever since the Republican convention in LA a few years back...

Did Clinton's government do this too? I don't recall it, but I also don't recall looking...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I don't believe it was done to this high of a level. Now "Why" its being done can mean a few things.

1- To stiffle any disagreement with W's policies.

2- To "Protect" him from any conflicting evidence that he's not doing a superb job as CIC.

3 - All of the above?

At the moment, I don't have time to do as much digging as I'd like, but if anyone else wants to dig into how much of this un-american action on the part of our government has happened under the last couple of CIC's, please do so. I'd be interested in the intel.

:asian:

 

[MisterMike]

I think it is more out of safety than stiffling free speech. A lot of these yahoo's end up rioting or burning flags or some other stint to get on TV in the end anyways.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Yeah, they've been pulling this ever since the Republican convention in LA a few years back...

Did Clinton's government do this too? I don't recall it, but I also don't recall looking...

It is standard operating procedure (SInce early 90's or earlier) for the Secret Service to investigate all known psycho's in the area the President is to travel too. It is their responsibility for the protection of the President.

It may not have been done to this level in the past, then again it may depend upon the general level of threats the president receives, or the level of safety the President desires.

Not sure if it is right, yet I understand to need to stop people from trying to bomb or shoot the President.

 

[Makalakumu]

In my neck of the woods, the police arrested an 89 year old grandmother waving a Wellstone sign when Cheney was on the stump for Coleman. Yeah, dangerous...

 

[Ceicei]

They've done this when Jimmy "Peanut" Carter came to my town. I remember watching from the window at the downtown plaza how long they took to set it all up and "clear" things/people out.

I'm guessing that ever since the death of JFK, there has always been some security people sent on ahead to set things up before the CIC goes anywhere and to make sure the "muzzles are arranged" into their places.

- Ceicei

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, I think there may be a distinction to be established here. Ceratainly the secret service has been moving mailboxes, welding manhole covers, etc., especially since JFK's assassination. Well and good, I guess, though it is my suspicion that in the end this won't stop somebody who's really serious--and of course there is something to be said for stopping the amateurs.

But I think what's being asked about here has to do with cordoning off protesters for reasons that have to do with the image projected on the news and with suppressing certain objectionable political ideas, and not really with security.

Again, I continue to be interested when folks who often espouse libertarian ideas argue against them in cases where the right of free speech includes their opposition...

I say, too damn bad if the Prez is embarassed. Looking back at our history, it seems to me that there have been an awful lot of cases in which he should be...

Thanks.

 

[MisterMike]

Hmm. I dunno. I don't think these people would have a "censorship" problem if they decided to organise and protest any other day. The Sercet Service isn't stopping them from that.

That's my basis for leaning more towards the security reason.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I think if they want to make sure that the person has no waepons, i.e. goes through a search, and is far enough away from any vehicle with the sign so as to not cause any damage or concern to someone in the the vehicle.

Yet, if the person wishes to protest and there is no permit required, and the person is there at the last minute, then they should be able to hold up their sign.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, I'd thought the point was that protesters of all varieties were getting shoved into quarantine zones, so that neither the Prez nor the media saw them easily.

Huh. I guess I thought we were supposed to take that stuff about, "petitioning for a redress of grievances," right to the top, and that waving a sign was as important as one's right to wave a gun.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Spud]

The article discusses how the secret service is quarantining people based upon their message – i.e. if you have a Bush/Cheney Sign you are allowed to stay on the street. If you have a protest sign you are ordered to move into a designated free speech/protest zone. The argument about security is asinine. I think Al Queda knows how to find a couple of Bush T-Shirts...




:shrug:

 

[MisterMike]

To neglect security completely is what would be asinine.

Time and again these protesters quickly turn violent. Just look at the WTO protests. It doesn't take al-queda to throw a rock through a window.

I wouldn't risk anything with these flag-burning, car tippers. They're the real disgrace.

 

[Spud]

Mike, do you really think it is appropriate to limit free speech based upon one's message? That's what we're talking about here. Not lobbing rocks, tipping cars or torching Starbucks. Those are crimes. We are talking about the President’s security teams isolating people based upon their message.

One citizen with a sign saying We Love the POTUS vs one with a sign saying Impeach the Shrub should be treated differently? Somehow the protest sign can be used as a club, but not the Bush sign? The car tippers aren’t smart enough to blend into a crowd? This isn’t about physical protection, it’s about political protection and that’s not a valid use of the President’s security staff. :soapbox:

 

[Cruentus]

The thing is, at these political events they do run you through metal detectors, bag checks, etc., for security reasons.

So the arguement that proventing protestors for "security" is ridicules.

This is manufactured consent at its best.

Yet, this censorship has also been done for a long time, as far as I know; at least I know that it happened during the Clinton administration. So this action can't be isolated to just the Bush administration.

Although, it gets the attention because there are more Protestors against the current Bush administration more then in previous administrations. I heard that the amount of Protestors against our president in the U.S. has exceeded that since the Vietnam War (although I don't know for sure if it is true or not). But I DO KNOW that the amount of protestors against our President worldwide has far exceeded that of any other administration.

Just something to think about.

PAUL

 

[MisterMike]

I simply will not believe it is based solely on the message. No. Uh-uh.

Highest numbers of protestors worldwide? Well, I don't mind that so much. Inside the country, well, he's also had the highest approval numbers too.

Funny how you get both now-a-days.

 

[Spud]

Interesting – the American Conservative Magazine is also tracking this story – and it mirrors what the San Francisco Chronicle and Salon said.

American Conservative Magazine (Tool of the Left)

 

[rmcrobertson]

Could be worse...could be J. Edgar.

I was watching a show last night on political cartooning...apparently, one of the reasons European cartoons look a lot more savage about Dubya is that some American editors have taken to refusing cartoons that they feel puts the Prez in a bad light...wartime, and all that, don't ya know.

"Manufactured consent," is exactly right. Guess that's what happens when you're 'lected by a minority, and don't really know what the hell you're doing...

 

[Seig]

Yes, the Clinton administration did the same thing. I used to work for WorldCom at the UUNET headquarters in Ashburn, VA. Clinton was making a visit to the facility. The SS (coincidence?) made their advanced scout. They spoke to the higher ups about people that did not like Clinton and my name came up. I was approached by a Special Agent and told not to come out of my office during the visit.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Hmm. I dunno. I don't think these people would have a "censorship" problem if they decided to organise and protest any other day. The Sercet Service isn't stopping them from that.

That's my basis for leaning more towards the security reason.

A Protest that is visible to no one, is not really much of a protest, is it? You know ... "If a tree falls in the woods . . . ."