Greetings! Many of you may or may not know that President Bush visited La Crosse on May 7th, 2004. On that date, Republican Party officials attempted to thwart every attempt to hold a press conference, rally, and protest that more than 8 organizations including: Women in Black, Sierra Club, La Crosse Coalition for Peace and Justice, UWL Campus Progressives, the 3rd District Dem Party, among others organized. In setting the "free speech area" up we were confronted by significant obstacles. After being told we were permitted to use a designated area the following happened: large concrete barriers blocked the site; Republican Officials approached us and informed us we did not have a permit (even though we had cleared it with the local Park & Rec Dept., the Mayor's Office, and the City Police). We informed them that we would not leave the area unless the police informed us that we would need to leave. We were told over and over again, "we would be subject to arrest". An hour after the Republican officials approached us, the police informed by the Rep. Party did come--two officers and 3 "Police Chaplains-- who were used in an illegal role" did come and serve us with papers threatening to arrest us. These papers sited a 1940's law prohibiting sound trucks and "loud and raucous noise". They informed us that we had no right to use electricity, yell, scream, beat on pots and pans or we would be "shut down" and "subject to arrest". This effectively ended our ability to hold a press conference and rally. The area the Prez came was surrounded by 12 ft. high Waste Management Roll-off Trucks--completely blocking-off any visual and sound from the stadium to us (we however managed to work our way around this problem!). The Secret Service blocked off all access to the sidewalks and streets surrounding the presidential visit area. We were literally forced to stand on private property to protest within a block of the area the President came to. EVEN THOUGH WE CLEARED THIS WITH THE POLICE PRIOR TO THE EVENT. THE SECRET SERVICE CAN USE THEIR AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE LOCAL POLICE ACTIONS. The police brought in plenty of mounted officers who pushed and shoved adults and children off the streets--the same areas we were informed earlier that we could use. We were videotaped within feet of where we stood. Some protestors were threatened with arrest because of signs (one read F.U.G.W. and was arrested). The press corps were told they could not exit and return to the area where the Prez was speaking at. There bye blocking any ability for them to attend our press conference--the press complained to no avail. The Prez's motorcade shut down roads from Dubuque to La Crosse--more than 80 miles (and wee mean shut down--using tens of thousands of dollars of public money to do so), and changed the routes multiple times--contrary to what the press reported--often to deliberately mislead and hope of protest. At the rally, more than 450 soldiers at their commander (who was in full Class A Uniform) from Fort McCoy were a part of the President's Partisan Rally. They were called out by the Prez., they came in organized fashion and were dropped off the bus so that they surrounded the free speech area and subsequently formed into platoons with their backs to us. Then is cadence they yelled back and forth--all this after we were told it was illegal to use "loud and raucous" noise. Other veterans on the other hand, were denied access to the rally because they did not vote for the Prez in the last election or weren't planning to this time. All recipients of tickets had to pledge allegiance to our Prez in order to acquire tickets. All were searched before entering the Bush Rally area--anyone with a T-shirt, including children, who were wearing pro-peace, anti-anything were not allowed to enter. When the Bush entourage left the area (and they always leave early), we were able to gain access to a area where the Prez had to drive by. With supporters of the Prez flowing out of the stadium--people were pushed and shoved, others hand their signs (including kids) ripped out of their hands, people were spat upon, food thrown at them, etc. Having 300 protestors unprotected by the police was a disaster. So what is our advice: 1) Make sure you bring attorneys to the rally. We did and they were invaluable, documenting everything--before and after the rally. 2) Bring Video, digital camera--record everything, every encounter with the police or Rep. Officials--we had some, not enough--although we were able to acquire the entire rally video from the local TV channels via a cost. 3) Make sure you have people well trained to assist in protection of civil rights of protestors. We did not have enough--of course we were abandoned by the police. 4) Get in writing any permits for free speech area--we did not--even though police and the Mayor agreed and still agree we had the right to--local Republicans will attempt to thwart any of your attempts to hold any kind of counter rally. 5) MAKE SURE YOU LOOK FOR ANY UNIFORMED OFFICERS OF THE MILITARY, this is totally illegal and violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Hatch Amendment. We have filed formal papers--supported by the leading Jag Corps Officer of the Fort--against his commander for arranging and using military at a partisan political event. The Army Reserve Command is now investigating the matter from Atlanta. Bring supportive Veterans who understand the illegality of these actions to document what they see. This was done in Iowa, Prairie du Chien, La Crosse WI.; Sterling and Kalamazoo, MI during the Prez's last campaign swing. 6) We filed complaints with the City of La Crosse Police Department and an investigation has been underway for 4 weeks. You need to be prepared for the visit of this President. They clearly and actively attempt to circumnavigate their way around local and federal laws. Be prepared, be creative and flexible. If you need further assistance--feel free to contact us at: wolfclan2@earthlink.net The local Republicans--from elected officials on down publicly stated that the Prez is unlikely to return to La Crosse because of all the investigations we began! BE PREPARED!! Guy Wolf, Chair of La Crosse Coalition for Peace and Justice
December 15, 2003 issue Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative “Free-Speech Zone” The administration quarantines dissent. By James Bovard On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” Some commentators feared that Ashcroft’s statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft’s comment was not a mere throwaway line. When 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 came 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 local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though 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. 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.” At Neel’s trial, police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine “people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views” in a so-called free speech area. Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service “come in and do a site survey, and say, ‘Here’s a place where the people can be, and we’d like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.’” 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’?” Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, “At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators—two of whom were grandmothers—were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome.” One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, “War is good business. Invest your sons.” The seven were charged with trespassing, “obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct.” Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 2003, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined. Denise Lieberman of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri commented, “No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn’t allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media.” When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her five-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars. The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a “No War for Oil” sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a “free speech zone” half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the “free speech zone.” Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the policeman if “it was the content of my sign, and he said, ‘Yes, sir, it’s the content of your sign that’s the problem.’” Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, “The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing.” Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department—in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.—quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding “entering a restricted area around the President of the United States.” If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5000 fine. Federal magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey’s request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a “petty offense.” Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide. Bursey’s trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access. Bursey sought to subpoena John Ashcroft and Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, “We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached.” The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the “free speech zone” but refused to co-operate. Magistrate Marchant is expected to issue his decision in December. The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, “These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or non-support that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way.” Except for having their constitutional rights shredded. Marr’s comments are a mockery of this country’s rich heritage of vigorous protests. Somehow, all of a sudden, after George W. Bush became president people became so stupid that federal agents had to cage them to prevent them from walking out in front of speeding vehicles. The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern-and-practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas, and elsewhere. The ACLU’s Witold Walczak said of the protesters, “The individuals we are talking about didn’t pose a security threat; they posed a political threat.” The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs—as has happened in some demonstrations—is pointless, since potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Presuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity. The Bush administration’s anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries. When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, “The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by the US President, George Bush, and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can’t be heard.” Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area. For Bush’s recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city, and impose a “virtual three day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters,” according to Britain’s Evening Standard. But instead of a “free speech zone”—as such areas are labeled in the U.S.—the Bush administration demanded an “exclusion zone” to protect Bush from protesters’ messages. Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the “forward strategy of freedom” and declared, “We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings.” Regarding the protesters, Bush sought to turn the issue into a joke: “I’ve been here only a short time, but I’ve noticed that the tradition of free speech—exercised with enthusiasm—is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well.” Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department’s recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May 2003 terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government.” If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of “suspected terrorists.” Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington, and elsewhere. Film footage of a February New York antiwar rally showed what looked like a policeman on horseback charging into peaceful aged Leftists. The neoconservative New York Sun suggested in February 2003 that the New York Police Department “send two witnesses along for each participant [in an antiwar demonstration], with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution” since all the demonstrators were guilty of “giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein.” One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the port of Oakland, injuring a number of people. When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, “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.” Van Winkle justified classifying protesters like terrorists: “I’ve heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn’t just bombs going off and killing people.” Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration’s advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies. On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans’ everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists “for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox.” The FBI took a shotgun approach towards protesters partly because of the FBI’s “belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps towards the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal,” according to a Senate report. On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is now actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators—supposedly to “blunt potential violence by extremist elements,” according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official. Given the FBI’s expansive defintion of “potential violence” in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor. The FBI is also urging local police to report suspicious activity by protesters to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is run by the FBI. If local police take the hint and start pouring in the dirt, the JTTF could soon be building a “Total Information Awareness”-lite database on those antiwar groups and activists. If the FBI publicly admits that it is surveilling antiwar groups and urging local police to send in information on protestors, how far might the feds go? It took over a decade after the first big antiwar protests in the 1960s before the American people learned the extent of FBI efforts to suppress and subvert public opposition to the Vietnam War. Is the FBI now considering a similar order to field offices as the one it sent in 1968, telling them to gather information illustrating the “scurrilous and depraved nature of many of the characters, activities habits, and living conditions representative of New Left adherents”—but this time focused on those who oppose Bush’s Brave New World? Is the administration seeking to stifle domestic criticism? Absolutely. Is it carrying out a war on dissent? Probably not—yet. But the trend lines in federal attacks on freedom of speech should raise grave concerns to anyone worried about the First Amendment or about how a future liberal Democratic president such as Hillary Clinton might exploit the precedents that Bush is setting. ______________________________________________ James Bovard is the author of Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil. December 15, 2003 issue Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative link
Dude, where is my country? surely even great patriots like troll_j, basso, bammaslammer, and Faos will come out and shout out their condemnation !? surely they are equally appalled at the blatent trampling of our basic civil rights?? this sh#t needs to be stopped right now!
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it " ----George W. Bush, July 2001
Your country is right here. http://www.redhouse.us/bushvisitslacrosse.htm Your civil rights are right here. http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/17652 Traveshamockery?
so your official stance is that the content of the message is what determines if it deserves equal protection ? IMO, the content is irrelevent to this discussion I would be equally angry if Kerry pulled this on protestors This is not and should not be a partisan debate
Me thinks they are taking a page out of the PRC's Tiananmen Square handbook: If they are all in one place, they are easier to manage and eliminate.
