I was about ready to step off in your ass for cheap Bush bashing, but actually reading your argument I have to say you're right. This arrest looks totally bogus. I don't generally see much suppression of the right to protest like a lot of the commie types are carrying on about, but this one looks bad. The administration deserves to have this one broken off up in them.

Good job, Kriselda.

I'm curious about whether this arrest came at Bush's request, or if it was carried out to further someone else's agenda. It seems to me that a politician doesn't get to be POTUS by having such a thin skin that he would be mortally offended by one little dissenting sign with four words on it. Either way, this arrest is crap, and whoever is responsible for it needs a refresher course in Bill of Rights 101.

One way or another, it's Bush's Justice Department doing the prosecuting, and his people surely know. It would take but a wave of the hand for Ashcroft to make this nonsense go away. I damn well expect him to do so.

Wonder why this isn't a top news story here in the U.S.?

Yes, I'm sure Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, and Joe Scarborough would gladly hold their tongues if Clinton's Justice Department pulled this stunt. Good thing we have a "Liberal Media" to set the record straight!

Yep, thank God for that liberal media.

Oh--and also that "libertarian" wing of the Republican party. I like how they're so up in arms about this, too.

Al - thank you.

Andrew - The arrest was originally made by the local police, and the state charges stemming from the arrest were dismissed. After the dismissal, however, the arrest apparently came to the attention of federal attorneys who proceeded to file charges against him on the federal crimes. I do know that John Ashcroft has been at least made aware of this case, as 11 Congressmen have written to him asking him to drop the charges.

Brian - I have no idea why it's not a top story. That's one reason I chose this article to post here. I wanted more people to know about what's happening - especially since it appears that Ashcroft may be using this case to determine how the law behind it can effectively be used to prevent other dissenters from getting too close to Bush.

Thomas - You're exactly right. In some ways, I'm very pleased that the Democrats don't handle this like this the same way so many Republicans would if the situation were to be reversed, but at the same time, I have to admit I sometimes wish they would respond a bit more harshly, just to get the point out. The trick, of course, is figuring out how far to push legitimate concerns without crossing the line into hysteria and over-hyped accusations.

Kriselda,

Look for a story soon. I emailed all four of the big-time pundity bloggers I mention here, and one of them just wrote me back to say he's been working on a "piece" about this issue.

I'm glad you posted this story. I actually had read that story, shook my head, and moved on (wrapped up in copyright-reform celebration). But seeing it again in your post made me realize how important this is.

Excellent! I hadn't even though of doing that...

Actually, John Leo wrote a column about this back in May, and I posted on it on my blog at the time. So it hasn't actually been ignored, though I agree that it deserves more attention than it's gotten.

It's also not a new problem -- they did the same thing under Clinton, and have been this way, though growing steadily worse, since Reagan was shot.

Interesting. I hadn't heard of any cases lke this prior to this one, though that certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm glad to hear that this has been posted about elsewhere, and I hope it can get more publicity. Prosecuting someone for expressing the wrong opinion is, in my book, wrong, regardless of whether it's being done by a Republican administration or a Democrat one.

Thanks also for the link to the earlier column - I'll be adding that to the post at my own blog so that others can read it as well.

No, I don't think so. It's common practice for the Secret Service to set up specific areas for protesters when any President is at a public venue. This was the case when Bush was in Manhattan the other day, and a few hundred protesters showed up. They stayed in the area to which they were assigned, waved their signs, and screamed their heads off. Great, more power to them.

However, the guy in this article did not. He broke the rules, and went outside the prescribed area. The Secret Service does everything it can to profile anything and everything at a given event and remove whatever possible threats to the President's safety they can. One could argue this guy wasn't a threat any more than the pro-Bush crowd. However, the decision of what is a threat and what isn't is a decision left up to the Secret Service. That's their job.

Did they over-react in this case? Possibly. Did they suppress this guy's freedom of speech? No. They told him to go to the specified area, and he obviously refused, so he was arrested. His arrest, as far as I can tell, had nothing to do with his political views, and everything to do with the fact that he didn't play by the rules.

You may not approve of anti-establishment protesters being required to be in specific areas, but that is not a suppression of free speech. It's called crowd control.

When the Secret Service starts arresting people by the hundreds for what they say, when they do play by the rules, then you'll have a valid case in my eyes.

Sorry, Glenn. Missed those other stories when I searched your site (searched for the guy's name). Obviously you're ahead of the curve on this, not behind.

Wish I could read that Leo column. $ only.

If the Secret Service really is enforcing this law to remove possible threats to the President's safety, then why don't they ask everyone to stand in the secure, free-speech zone?

As Kriselda said: "If someone wanted to hurt or kill the president, they could easily blend in with a pro-Bush crowd if they needed to."

Glenn's been ahead of the curve since 20 minutes ago.

I have to say, after seeing some of the hate spewed toward President Bush since he came into office (often under the banner of belief of that guy's sign), I don't blame the Secret Service for being protective. We don't have any idea just how bad it is out there for him, and he is hated by the left (in a scary way) a lot more than Reagan.

Thomas: I already answered that in my original comment. They made a judgement call.

It's easy to criticize, but I think it's a fairly safe bet to assume that no one doing so was there to witness every contributing factor.

I don't think that Bush is necessarily that much more hated than Clinton was - but I must admit that I don't know how much the Secret Service was enforcing this kind of a rule during his term. If it was being enforced then the same way it is now, with people being charged under the federal statutes, facing jail time and a stiff fine, it would, in my opinion, have been just as wrong then as it is now.

As I noted in the original post, though, I don't see how this can truly be justified as a "safety" measure, as it does nothing to make the President safer. Anyone who wanted to harm him would simply need to bring a pro-Bush sign or wear a pro-Bush t-shirt and they would be allowed to hang out as part of the crowd nearest to him (unless, of course, they did something else to draw attention to themselves or make authorities suspicious.) If the concern were truly making the President safer, they'd need to restrict all crowds to the zone that's further away.

So, if it's not a safety issue, that leaves only the issue of the content of the opinions being expressed, and one set of opinions is being allowed - given a governmental stamp of approval, as it were - while another is being repressed. Making a "free speech zone" gives the appearance of allowing expression of a contrary opinion, but by pushing the protesters off to an area out of sight of the President, they are effectively being shut out.

There is always some sort of balance between "free speech" and various public safety issues. What has made America stand out in the world is that on paper, free speech wins, while many other countries have codified exceptions that end up making speech theoretically unfree.

The problem is that what is on paper isn't always what happens, and you get things like this which seems to be obviously wrong.

Still, I suspect one reason this isn't getting major coverage is because it happens all the time. I don't think that makes me feel any better, though. Rather, it makes me feel worse.

I've known Brett Bursey back to the days when I reviewed books for his now-defunct newspaper, The Point; there's no more kindly, pleasant, or less threatening a gentleman. The intention of the arrest was obvious: allow Bush to arrive in a Republican stronghold where the dissenters have all been safely herded into a corner.

Of course, there are two views on this. From the Columbia, S.C. State:

The federal government will argue that Bursey refused to leave a restricted area created to protect the president.

"The big puzzle to resolve by the judge is that I was told that I had to go to a free-speech zone and was arrested for trespassing," Bursey said. "Five months later, the feds charged me with refusing to leave a cordoned-off area."

U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.'s office charged Bursey under a statute that allows the U.S. Secret Service to restrict access to areas during the president's travels.

"That wasn't what I got arrested for," Bursey said. "That wasn't what they were telling me at the time."

Luckily, he has a precedent on his side -- a precedent he helped establish. As I think The Economist article pointed out, Brett was arrested in 1969 for "trespassing" when he protested then-President Nixon's arrival at the same airport. The charge was tossed by the S.C. Supreme Court for the fairly obvious reason that you can't trespass on public property.

Brett thought he was going to get his day in court this past Tuesday, but the judge held it up to decide what prosecutors must prove to convict him. If they have to prove there was some sort of clear and intentional danger, then I'd say their goose is cooked -- but, as Brett himself has said, it could go either way.

If he wins, he plans to sue to recover trial costs.

If he doesn't, he's prepared for that, too -- he spent two years in prison in 1971 for spray painting "Hell no, we won't go" on a wall at a draft board office in Columbia.

"Fear of the unknown is like one of the greatest fears and so I don't have that great fear," he told The State newspaper. "Having been there and knowing that they can do whatever it is that they want to do, I have some trepidation that we have to convince the judge that the police aren't telling the truth."

It's just bogus to claim this was from fear of a threat to the president. It's not reasonable to presume that he's a threat just because he's critical of the president. That's utter nonsense.

Just being on the safe side, I could maybe accept if they had stopped him and patted him down for weapons, considering the heavy security issues. I wouldn't be thrilled, but 30 seconds of being searched might be half reasonable.

Arresting the guy was just utterly bogus, though, and claiming that he simply didn't follow the rules does not BEGIN to justify it. The rules, in this case, are bogus and unconstitutional as all hell.