Secret Service Ordered Local Police to Restrict Anti-Bush Protesters at Rallies, ACLU Charges in Unprecedented Nationwide Lawsuit http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=13699&c=8633 responses total.
This is a surprise? C'mon,*someboydy* must be able to find a way to impeach that dratted turd.
Enjoy while it lasts!!
I read the complaint against the philadelphia police and the secret service: Learn something everyday. The Secret Service is apparently not part of the Department of Treasury any longer, but a function of Homeland Security. One part of the ACLU blurb differs from the complaint in a minor way: The ACLU release stated that protestors were moved behind police vans at one protest. The complaint alleges that the protestors were herded to a remote corner and just before the Presidential motorcade passed near, the police vans were moved in front of the protesters. In one way, the Secret Service does not discriminate. The complaint also notes that pro-Bush demonstrators have been relocated as well as the anti-Bush demonstrators. The goal seems to be to have a neutral, submissive audience. I think that the complaint's weakness will be the obvious concerted effort of the demonstrators to compete for space. The demands to excercise the right to free speech at a certain time and play and by an organized group is functionally equivalent to the demand to assemble. Certainly, this is a right of the people too, but it is not unconditional. Municipalities, for example, issue parade permits. Had the the complaint been made by many individuals, with no affiliations and with no distinction (apart from the political) from others, the suit would have been stronger. If I were in ACORN or NOW, I would suggest lining the route without flags, buttons or signs and giving Bush the bird. I guess that it terribly inarticulate and vague thereby, but it is protest. Hooray! How long before we go back to the police riots?
This response has been erased.
When it comes to Presidental events, Free Speech is up against the need for very tight security. I'm a huge Free Speech advocate but I see how the President is at great risk at the moment, much of which is his fault, but that doesn't matter. Mostly I want to see Bush be able to finish his term as Cheney would be even scarier. Sounds impossible, but true.
Was it President McKinley who commented that he would never agree to be president if he couldn't walk down the street unescorted and shake the hands of people? Whoever it was, he lived in a different time than we do now. Or thought he did... McKinley was assassinated by someone in a crowd in which he was meeting people.
What Mary said.
Re #5: the need for security is not at issue here. The point is that the Secret Service has allowed people with pro-Bush signs, or no signs at all, to be seen, while shunting those with anti-Bush signs off to hidden "protest areas". Terrorists would, of course, carry a pro-Bush sign over their esplosives belt (or whatever). A judge in Philadelphia has issued a restraining order requiring the Secret Service to allow government critics to demonstrate peacefully as close as supporters. That is all that is being asked. Now we have to see if Bush will dare to exclude the public entirely.
This response has been erased.
Sounds like what the protesters want is media attention, and they're busy chasing Bush trying to distract the reporters who are busy chasing Bush, hoping to pick up some scraps of on-air seconds & column-inches for them- selves. However well or poorly handled, the Secret Service wants to keep crowds of folks who don't like Bush (where a disturbed & violent fringie or two might feel at home) away. Crowds of supporters are less dangerous, and it takes (a) more determined & able violent fringie(s) to successfully operate from within them. Given what they're really after, why don't the protesters just go to the source? It's easy - forget the logistics of Bush-chasing, there are fixed & unprotected TV stations, newspaper offices, etc. in every city. The Secret Service won't lift a finger if someone drapes a big banner saying "U.S. Dept. of Lies" over the nice "WTV - Channel 2" sign out in front. Picketing the grocery store putting the biggest full-color flyer ($$advertising revenue$$) in that newspaper you consider biased is (quite literally) child's play.
We don't need millitants.
You mean, like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfelt, Rice, Wolfowitz, et al?
They're fighting for peace, rcurl. While that seems paradoxic, it's not; but liberals don't seem to be able to comprehend dual-layered logics.
They were fighting for peace with war...a nice bit of 'dual-layered logics'. Are they something like "double dealings"?
No, it's something like this: Our country needs to stop Iraq from killing our people and aiding terror, and the only way to do that is to invade it. Same with Afghanistan. We don't start wars; we stop countries from killing our people.
I'd follow that logic if there were any evidence Iraq had been killing our people and aiding terror. I'm with you when it comes to Afghanistan, but by your logic our next target should have been Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
or phillip morris.
Saudi Arabia is our pal, gull. We stick by our pals.
They better be our pal - we pay them enough. They should stay bought.
Yeah. Changing your mind after you've been bought is bad Texas ethics.
At the very least, we ought to be de-palling Saudi Arabia. Seems like we've got plenty of reason *not* to be their pals by this point.
(When I think of Saudi Arabia, I'm reminded of that old saw, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.")
This response has been erased.
doesn't he manage the mister donut in dearborn?
.. that was ralph fawd ...
oopsie doopsie, my bad.
Saudi Arabia is an example of an enemy not worth keeping close, because we only make more enemies by remaining friends with them. Wasn't Bin Ladin's biggest complaint against the U.S. our presense in Saudi Arabia. I know we used to have a half a million troops there, but I am not sure of the current figure. Anyone know it off the top of their head?
It's soon to be 0, I believe.
I don't know if that's true, but there does seem to be a trend towards deemphasizing our bases in Saudi Arabia and building new ones in places like Qatar. I also wouldn't be surprised to see us maintain a permanent base in Iraq.
This response has been erased.
Anyway,I love peace.I anticipate living in a world there is no war. Peace,peace, no war,no war. Let us pray for this.
i do every day.
WHORES< THAT IS! (ahaha).
You have several choices: