Mmm, Bush's Secret Service, or...

**Whir** · January 5th, 2004, 02:04 AM

Secret parents?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGPQ40MB81.DTL

**Toadman** · January 5th, 2004, 02:06 AM

No different than any other politician and protests.

**Mike** · January 5th, 2004, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Toadman
No different than any other politician and protests.

True, but Bush has seemed to step it up a bit.

**brandon184** · January 5th, 2004, 02:58 AM

Not a surprise. Just more conservative lemming mind control tactics.

Bush's policies go against the very fabric that is America... Yet no one really seems to care.

Oh well. *shrug* I live in Canada.

**TOAD6147** · January 5th, 2004, 09:29 AM

"You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."
This almost seems to boarder on facism. It won't be long until you can be a terrorist just because you disagree with the President. This along with their unfettered access to records of any kind is one step closer to Big Brother. I hope you neocon zealots are proud of what you're allowing to happen. And only one of THEM could say, "No different than any other politician and protests."

**crouse** · August 4th, 2004, 01:02 AM

Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"

Hmmmm seems more like the secret service and the fbi overstepping their authority than anything else. Perhaps Bush knew about it, perhaps not. He has stuck his neck out and pinned a big red crosshair on himself in the eyes of terrorists, I'm sure he knows that too, and so do the fbi and secret service.

I definately don't agree with them having the ability to put people in a group just because of something their sign says....... those people can be ask to quietly hold the signs, and if they DO become disorderly, then moved and detained.

The judge in Pennsylvania definately did the right thing by throwing out the disorderly conduct charge in that case.

**aldtech** · August 4th, 2004, 12:30 PM

Mmm, Bush's Secret Service, or...

I am kind of split on this. I understand that protests can be used as cover for terrorist events and therefore agree with the concept of isolating protesters during major events. But, this is more of a sympathetic agreement than actual support.

On the other hand I view it as a major impediment to free speech. Now some of you will argue that under current guidelines you can express your rights to free speech and protest but what good is it if it is not seen or heard? Again I can understand that some protests/protesters and their groups can at times go too far in regards to respect to others and their individual rights to peace (pro life activists in particular) but it seems to me that the government is trying to control these few groups by suppressing all.

To me it seems that all of this is over reaction to a few events, particularly the environmental and anti-world bank protesters that overwhelmed the authorities at some recent events over the past few years. But I also think, particularly in regards to political protesters against the current administration, that this is a knee-jerk reaction mandated buy Pres. Bush as a result of the protesters along his motorcade rout and being pelted with eggs during his inauguration. In my eyes, that was a stain on his presidency that happened within moments of his being sworn in. It was not long after that when protesters where isolated and removed from presidential view.

Hear no people, see no people.

**Smidley** · August 4th, 2004, 01:08 PM

That's truly terrible and borderline tyrannical.

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.

Reminds me of communist and fascist propaganda we've seen in the past.

Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

I agree with this.

**Mr. Goodbytes** · August 4th, 2004, 01:53 PM

I seem to remember a caged in area for protesters at the Democratic Convention. But I guess we can ignore that and stick to bashing Bush.

Also, the right to free speech does not guarantee you a venue or an audience. The idea of these protest zones are just around to prevent another incident like the WTO (or was it IMF) in Seattle.

**Smidley** · August 4th, 2004, 02:04 PM

Ah...'twasn't brought to my attention and I was unaware (DNC). Please provide a link as I'm sure you can understand why I can't just take your word for it.

Why, then, were supporters (even those bearing signs) allowed to stay? I understand the implications of safety, but both sides should be afforded an equal voice and venue.

**GroundZero3** · August 4th, 2004, 02:05 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/24/dems.main/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0220-02.htm

**RobRich** · August 4th, 2004, 02:28 PM

Here is Neel's description of the event....

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeS...?ID=13693&c=86

As I walked in that direction, I passed a community park and baseball field enclosed by a six-foot high chain link fence. Inside the fenced area was a group of people with signs protesting various aspects of Bush policies. At the gates to the park were armed police officers. The protesters were standing against the fence with their hands grasping the fencing. On the outside, people carrying pro-Bush signs stood on the sidewalk or proceeded unchallenged toward the rally site.

It sickened me to read that paragraph. This is not how fellow American citizens should be treated, regardless of their political affiliation or opinions.

The Department of Homeland Security issued an advisory on terrorism in May 2003 warning law enforcement agencies to watch any American who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government", implying that legitimate dissent could be equated with terrorism.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0120-04.htm

Nice to see McCarthyism is back in full force. Why not just bring back the House of Un-American Activities Committee or Internal Security Committee? Oh, I am sorry, what could I be thinking? Those powers were handed over to the House Judiciary Committee in 1969. The Secret Service is just revitalizing previously approved government policies.

**Smidley** · August 4th, 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by RobRich

Here is Neel's description of the event....

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeS...?ID=13693&c=86

It sickened me to read that paragraph. This is not how fellow American citizens should be treated, regardless of their political affiliation or opinions.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0120-04.htm

Nice to see McCarthyism is back in full force. Why not just bring back the House of Un-American Activities Committee or Internal Security Committee? Oh, I am sorry, what could I be thinking? Those powers were handed over to the House Judiciary Committee in 1969. The Secret Service is just revitalizing previously approved government policies.

I've said it before: I shouldn't be afraid about what I'm typing, but I am.

**aldtech** · August 5th, 2004, 10:12 AM

Mr. Goodbytes – “I seem to remember a caged in area for protesters at the Democratic Convention. But I guess we can ignore that and stick to bashing Bush.”

“Also, the right to free speech does not guarantee you a venue or an audience. The idea of these protest zones are just around to prevent another incident like the WTO (or was it IMF) in Seattle.”

Yes they did have designated fenced in protest areas but that is in compliance to current national policy, a policy initiated under the current administration. You can imply or infer what you want but that still does not change my opinion that Bush is an elitist who suppresses the people’s right to freedom of expression just so he does not have to see it and therefore deny their cause.

I can understand where you may think that I am just doing some Bush Bashing but can you understand and see the other side of the issue and recognize that the government is using the current status of international terrorist events as an excuse to deny US citizens their right to peaceable assemble and protest? Doesn’t it puzzle you that the Bush supporters are allowed to display their support where ever and when ever in relation to an event involving him but any and all protesters are removed and relocated to places away from the president and in particular, out of his sight? Where is the equality and freedom in that?

What comes around goes around. I fully expect that in years to come, a Democratic president will do the same thing and that will happen because of the precedent set by the current president. This IS an erosion of our rights; piece-by-piece we loose more with each passing year. For the current cesspool of politicians this is good for them because they can hide from you and subsequently hide you away. I can fully envision that in the future, designated protest areas will be a white rubberized room with a video camera in it and you the protester are to protest to the camera with the intent of your target audience eventually seeing the video. As laughable as that may seem, its coming. The terrorists have already won.