Bush squelching protest
Published January 05, 2004
I tend to give President Bush some slack because he seems to be doing a reasonably decent job in his very difficult central responsibility of defending the country from attack. Nonetheless, like any politician, give him an inch and he'll take a mile.
I'll even give him some leeway with the dreaded Patriot Act. Some form of judicial oversight for prisoners in Gitmo might be reasonable, but overall I'm not too worried about the fine points of the civil liberties of enemy combatants.
However, restricting the rights of innocent Americans to protest the government constitutes something unacceptable. McCain-Feingold [ultimately a collusion between all three branches of the federal government] will go down in infamy.
There's another ongoing set of abuses though, that lay entirely on the executive branch- and ultimately George W Bush personally. Story from the San Francisco Chronicle
Basically, there seem to be a lot of reports of squelching of expressions of criticism anywhere physically near the president- and by "near" we mean within sight of tv cameras along his route. This seems to include public streets.
Corralling any kind of protesters a half mile away in a "free speech zone" doesn't get it. As some have noted, AMERICA is supposed to be a free speech zone.
You give them an inch of latitutde for the sake of physically protecting the president, and he'll take a mile of leeway in suppressing little, mildly politically embarassing displays of dissent by brunt force. Alright, maybe you don't want guys carrying protest signs on pointy sticks right up to the president. It seems exceedingly unlikely that actual assassins would announce themselves by showing up carrying a protest sign to draw attention. Still, they might poke him with the pointy stick. That's pushing it, but perhaps we defer to even a somewhat unlikely security concern.
But there's just no excuse from trying to ban people from standing on a public road with a sign criticizing the president. That cannot be reasonably justified on grounds of security at all. It might be bad for the president's job security to see him surrounded by protesters at every step. But hey- that comes with the job.
These abuses are smaller, more retail level micro-censorships relative to the sweeping, formal nationwide ban on political protests by McCain-Feingold. On that basis, you could say that these smaller suppressions of dissent at presidential appearances are therefore not as serious. However, unlike the campaign finance stuff, this is ALL 100% under the control of the president. The FBI and Secret Service work for HIM, not the Congress or the courts.
I would, however, like to take a moment to bash US Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr for collusion. He is apparently prosecuting a South Carolina protester, trying to absolutely get him jailtime for carrying a derogatory sign amidst a group of sign waving presidential supporters.
However, President George W Bush has total control and thus personal responsibility for the policies and actions of federal law enforcement. At bottom, Strom Jr works for Dubya. He could stop this nonsense. He could stop Strom Jr. He could tell the FBI and the Secret Service to, oh...uhm..
Oh, yes- now I remember. President Bush could tell his subordinates to follow the frickin' constitution.
- Bush squelching protest
- Published: January 05, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Books: History, Books: Nonfiction, Books: Politics and Affairs, Books: Reference
- Writer: Al Barger
- Al Barger's BC Writer page
- Al Barger's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
BTW, Al, just to be a rabble rouser .... If Rosa Parks is "morally bankrupt" for suing Outkast about a song with her name in the lyrics, what does that make George W.?
Did you notice the difference in tone and language you used to describe two people doing similar things?
Actually Victoria, I was suggesting that the president needed to have such an incident broke off up in him back in June. [see comment #1]
That was just one complaint though, and this latest article is pulling up stuff that looks like a significant bad pattern- not just something that could be brushed off as an isolated incident that Bush might just not even know about.
BHW- whaddya want from me here? I said that there's "no excuse" for this behavior from Bush. It's somewhat different than the Rosa Parks/Outkast thing, but I'm certainly not making any excuses for the POTUS.
All I'm saying, Al, is that you were a lot angrier at Rosa Parks than you appear to be at our Prez, even though she filed a lawsuit [that will probably fail, if it hasn't already] whereas he's abusing his position of power.
There's a big difference between saying that there's "no excuse" for someone's behavior and saying someone is "morally bankrupt."
You're much easier on the President, who is doing something much worse, in my opinion.
They're just such different situations and actions. Bush's subordinates are mostly stopping people from carrying a sign along his parade route. Rosa Parks, however, is trying to stop Outkast from doing their song AT ALL.
On the other hand, you might say Dubya's side is worse because he is absolutely The President. I could see that. On the third hand, though, some of his stuff has at least a feasible excuse of security concerns.
On the fourth hand, I'm going to tend to cut him SOME slack on the grounds that he's the top guy protecting the country from the people who are trying to kill us. This is far more important than the nice symbolic gesture of a secretary refusing to give up a seat on a bus half a century ago.
If I think he's doing a credible job at this critical task- and I do- that'll probably tend to make me a little bit forgiving of some inappropriate but ultimately fairly minor stuff.
This doesn't mean I'm going to pretend it's ok. Writing a column called "Bush squelching protest" does constitute significant criticism. But stomping Al Qaeda, catching Saddam, and getting Libya to give up WMDs earns him perhaps a little consideration.
Anyway, I would not say that I'm "angry" about Rosa Parks' infractions. "Disgusted" would be a better word. A lot of that the pure sanctimonious nature of her noted public actions of the last couple of years- a quality not in evidence with Bush's actions.
I'm just saying that Bush has actually violated the constitution and infringed upon everyday people's right to disagree with him publicly -- he's restricted dissenting political speech, the type that's the most important to be allowed to be spoken freely. And he's used law enforcement and even the courts to do the silencing.
Rosa Parks boycotted an awards ceremony and sued a rap group for using her name in a way or medium she didn't like.
There's a world of difference between the two, yet when I read your posts, you display more animus toward Parks' actions and person than you do Bush.
Strikes me as odd, I guess.
But I'm still glad to hear you say Bush is wrong about this.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/11442)
Al, I couldn't agree more. Basically, one law enforcement official said verbal dissent was a form of terrorism.
Bush & Co. allow people with signs that support the president to be up close to him. People with signs that criticize him are coralled over 1/3 mile away, away from the media: the media aren't even permitted to speak with the protesters!
Bush has basically said that dissenting opinions are to be given second class status. And people with dissenting opinions who try to get out of their restricted zone are terrorists. And the courts in some cases are aggreeing with him.
It's very scary, indeed.