Bush Admin restricts freedom of speech...

[GenMarshall]

...in events wherever he is present.

Washington — Not that they're worried or anything. But the White House evidently leaves little to chance when it comes to protests within eyesight of the president. As in, it doesn't want any.

A White House manual that came to light recently gives presidential advance staffers extensive instructions in the art of “deterring potential protesters” from President Bush's public appearances around the country.

Among other things, any event must be open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organizers. Those entering must be screened in case they are hiding secret signs. Any anti-Bush demonstrators who manage to get in anyway should be shouted down by “rally squads” stationed in strategic locations. And if that does not work, they should be thrown out.

But that does not mean the White House is against dissent — just so long as the president does not see it. In fact, the manual outlines a specific system for those who disagree with the president to voice their views. It directs the White House advance staff to ask local police “to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route.”

The “Presidential Advance Manual,” dated October 2002 with the stamp “Sensitive — Do Not Copy,” was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004.

The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word “Bush” crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said “Regime Change Starts at Home,” while hers said “Love America, Hate Bush.” Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing.

The manual demonstrates “that the White House has a policy of excluding and/or attempting to squelch dissenting viewpoints from presidential events,” said ACLU lawyer Jonathan Miller. “Individuals should have the right to express their opinion to the president, even if it's not a favorable one.”

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that he could not discuss the manual because it is an issue in two other lawsuits.

The manual offers advance staffers and volunteers who help set up presidential events guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be “extremely supportive of the Administration,” it says. While the Secret Service screens audiences only for possible threats, the manual says, volunteers should examine people before they reach security checkpoints and look out for signs. Make sure to look for “folded cloth signs,” it advises.

To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create “rally squads” of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with “favorable messages.” Squads should be placed in strategic locations and “at least one squad should be “roaming' throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems,” the manual says.

“These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators,” it says. “The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the (protesters) (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site.”

The manual adds in bold type: “Remember — avoid physical contact with demonstrators! Most often, the demonstrators want a physical confrontation. Do not fall into their trap!” And it suggests that advance staff should “decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone.”

The staff at the West Virginia event may have missed that line.

Original article @ TheDay

 

[Phlegmak]

Just an FYI, CivGeneral, this is old news. Bush has been doing this for at least a year.

I'm not saying I disapprove of you posting these stories, but I'm just letting you know.

 

[Gilder]

Wasn't this reported months ago?

 

[GenMarshall]

Wasn't this reported months ago?

Not realy since this article was published on 8/22/2007

 

[skadistic]

I don't see the problem. Not only Bush but any president would have the same steps in place. I bet the dems. hoping to become POTUS have a similar setup.

 

[Gilder]

I didn't mean the article. I meant what it's reporting on.

 

[amadeus]

Anyone recall the first time this was done?

It was the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta.

 

[The Yankee]

Remember the "free speech" playpen next to where the DNC was in Boston in 2004?

This is nothing new......I may not like it, but it's wrong to place this label squarely on Bush.

 

[amadeus]

Exactly, Yankee.

 

[Phlegmak]

Not realy since this article was published on 8/22/2007

Maybe the article is published today, but the news story is old.

 

[Gilder]

Instead of hating one group of politicians, it's better to hate them all. Because when it comes down to it, they're really just different flavors of the same ice cream.

 

[Phlegmak]

Instead of hating one group of politicians, it's better to hate them all. Because when it comes down to it, they're really just different flavors of the same ice cream.

Mmm, ice cream.

 

[dh_epic]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: I'll vote for any president who promises to reduce the power of the presidency. There's a lot of rhetoric about "cleaning up washington" and "government is the problem". Who's going to actually say "I want you to be able to criticize me more easily, and make it easier to scrutinize what I'm doing"?

 

[North King]

Old news as this is, it does explain why he thinks he's a Uniter.

 

[MobBoss]

People have a right to free speech...but not to disrupt speaking events. The two are not the same thing.

 

[JollyRoger]

The President has a right to make a speech, just not the right to avoid public dissent.

 

[cubsfan6506]

I posted the story a few months ago.

 

[MadScotsMan]

News to me....but what Yankee said.

 

[warpus]

So why are they hiding this from Bush anyway?

Maybe he hasn't caught on yet that people don't really like him.

 

[BasketCase]

I don't think anybody, of either party, should have the right to trample on someone else's gathering with a protest. Instead they should simply hold their own gathering.

The Constitution says Freedom of Speech. That does not mean you have the right to be heard, and nobody in America is required to listen to you. In fact, that already came up in another thread. Nobody is required to read the crap I write.

The only exception being the voting booth. If you have a political statement to make? Make it there.