Bush To Criminalize Protestors Under Patriot Act

[Hardrock69]

By Patriot Daily
News Clearinghouse
1-13-6

George Bush wants to create the new criminal of "disruptor" who can be jailed for the crime of "disruptive behavior." A "little-noticed provision" in the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to charge protesters with a new crime of "disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics."

The Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with "breaching security" and to charge for "entering a restricted area" which is "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.

Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse's diary:

Who is the "disruptor"? Bush Team history tells us the disruptor is an American citizen with the audacity to attend Bush events wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush; or a member of civil rights, environmental, anti-war or counter-recruiting groups who protest Bush policies; or a person who invades Bush's bubble by criticizing his policies. A disruptor is also a person who interferes in someone else's activity, such as interrupting Bush when he is speaking at a press conference or during an interview.

What are the parameters of the crime of "disruptive behavior"? The dictionary defines "disruptive" as "characterized by unrest or disorder or insubordination." The American Medical Association defines disruptive behavior as a "style of interaction" with people that interferes with patient care, and can include behavior such as "foul language; rude, loud or offensive comments; and intimidation of patients and family members."

What are the rules of engagement for "disruptors"? Some Bush Team history of their treatment of disruptors provide some clues on how this administration will treat disruptors in the future.

(1) People perceived as disruptors may be preemptively ejected from events before engaging in any disruptive conduct.

In the beginning of this war against disruptors, Americans were ejected from taxpayer funded events where Bush was speaking. At first the events were campaign rallies during the election, and then the disruptor ejectment policy was expanded to include Bush's post election campaign-style events on public policy issues on his agenda, such as informing the public on medicare reform and the like. If people drove to the event in a car with a bumper sticker that criticized Bush's policies or wore T-shirts with similar criticism, they were disruptors who could be ejected from the taxpayer event even before they engaged in any disruptive behavior. White House press secretary McClellan defended such ejectments as a proper preemptive strike against persons who may disrupt an event: "If we think people are coming to the event to disrupt it, obviously, they're going to be asked to leave."

(2) Bush Team may check its vast array of databanks to cull out those persons who it deems having "disruptor" potential and then blacklist those persons from events.

The White House even has a list of persons it deems could be "disruptive" to an eventand then blacklists those persons from attending taxpayer funded events where Bush speaks. Sounds like Bush not only has the power to unilaterally designate people as "enemy combatants" in the global "war on terror," but to unilaterally designate Americans as "disruptive" in the domestic war against free speech.

(3) The use of surveillance, monitoring and legal actions against disruptors.

Bush's war against disruptors was then elevated to surveillance, monitoring, and legal actions against disruptor organizations. The FBI conducts political surveillance and obtains intelligence filed in its database on Bush administration critics , such as civil rights groups (e.g., ACLU), antiwar protest groups (e.g., United for Peace and Justice) and environmental groups (e.g., Greenpeace).

This surveillance of American citizens exercising their constitutional rights has been done under the pretext of counterterrorism activities surrounding protests of the Iraq war and the Republican National Convention. The FBI maintains it does not have the intent to monitor political activities and that its surveillance and intelligence gathering is "intended to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at demonstrations, not to quell free speech."

Surveillance of potential disruptors then graduated to legal actions as a preemptive strike against potential disruptive behavior at public events. In addition to monitoring and surveillance of legal groups and legal activities, the FBI issued subpoenas for members to appear before grand juries based on the FBI's "intent" to prevent "disruptive convention protests." The Justice Dept. opened a criminal investigation and subpoenaed records of Internet messages posted by Bush`s critics. And, the Justice Dept. even indicted Greenpeace for a protest that was so lame the federal judge threw out the case.

So now the Patriot Act, which was argued before enactment as a measure to fight foreign terrorists, is being amended to make clear that it also applies to American citizens who have the audacity to disrupt President Bush wherever his bubble may travel. If this provision is enacted into law, then Bush will have a law upon which to expand the type of people who constitute disruptors and the type of activities that constitute disruptive activities. And, then throw them all in jail.


http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/blog/bush-to-criminalize-prote.shtml

[LoungeMachine]

The Emperor has much to fear....

[jhale667]

The Emperor needs to get over himself. So anyone with a differing opinion is now a "disruptor" (isn't that a Star Trek reference ;) ?)...so he's going to want to classify 50% of the NATION as criminals? Has he seen his approval ratings lately?

[FORD]

Let there be no mistake what we are dealing with here........

http://www.germanhelmet.com/4029a.jpg

Don't even bother pretending otherwise anymore. It is here.

SIEG OIL!!!

[LoungeMachine]

In case anyone hasn't noticed, BushCO is more more afraid, suspicious, and vindictive of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE than any so called "terrorists"

In Chimpy's mind, anyone not in Goosestep with him, IS a terrorist

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
Let there be no mistake what we are dealing with here........


Don't even bother pretending otherwise anymore. It is here.

SIEG OIL!!!

It's fucking creepy when he stands in front of giant banners promoting "The Homeland"


4 years ago I laughed off the Nazi comparisons with Chimpy.......


Look where were are now, and look at the direction we're headed in.

We're a few Brownshirts away from abolishing the Boy Scouts in favor of The Chimpy Youth:(

[Warham]

4 Years ago you weren't getting your daily supply of FORD drilling those Nazi comparisons in that rock star brain of yours either.

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Warham
4 Years ago you weren't getting your daily supply of FORD drilling those Nazi comparisons in that rock star brain of yours either.


Oh, puh-leez :rolleyes:

FORD, what have we told you about brainwashing rock stars....?

[Unchainme]

See heres the thing, whenever you hear something about Buch its either he's evil or he's an idiot. Okay how are both possible?. I've never heard of an idiot leading a dictatorship. Pick one or the other please. The [Insert Republican Name Here] is a Nazi comparison have been going for years. Remember Rock Against Reagan?. If there would be one person I would be concerned ever got elected president and converted our country to the third reich would be Pat Robertson or some other Telvevanglist shitbag like him. So Stop with the Hitler Comparsions, becasue you know who else is sick of it?, Hitler!, He work too hard to become the most evil dictator of all time, and by every tom, dick and Harry to make a comparison to him. :D, I stole that line from John Stewart BTW.

[blueturk]

This article is over two years old, but is still very relevant. Even if you disagree with the Nazi comparisons , it's really hard to overlook the similarities to "1984".

"Free-Speech Zone”
December 15, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

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.

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

[jhale667]

The best quote of that entire article is "I disagree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"...that USED to be what America was about...:(

[Unchainme]

Originally posted by blueturk
This article is over two years old, but is still very relevant. Even if you disagree with the Nazi comparisons , it's really hard to overlook the similarities to "1984".


Bush administration is comparative to House Of Pain? :D, Just kidding, 1984 does sound more accurate in a comparison rather than Hitler. Big Brother is watching you could be coming sooner than you think If this Patriot Act were to expaned even more.

[frets5150]

IT'S ALL GOING TO FUCKIN HELL!!!

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a83/FRETS5150/Untitledkyk.jpg


:o

[FORD]

Originally posted by jhale667
Oh, puh-leez :rolleyes:

FORD, what have we told you about brainwashing rock stars....?

Just wait until Warham's programmed by the subliminals that I told Brian Wilson to put on his new album :cool:

[FORD]

Originally posted by Unchainme
Bush administration is comparative to House Of Pain? :D, Just kidding, 1984 does sound more accurate in a comparison rather than Hitler. Big Brother is watching you could be coming sooner than you think If this Patriot Act were to expaned even more.

If you want to be 100 technically correct about it.....

The BCE is following the political road map of Hitler, while incorporating the corporatist model of Mussolini. They are using the fear tactics and internal police state of Stalin, and the propaganda doublespeak of Orwell's 1984.

It's a fascism supergroup, if you will.

[diamondD]

How about specifically pointing out the "little known provision" instead of just referring to it and instead of talking about "the Bush team history" as a theory, show where this has actually been enforced.


Before the neo-con BS labels start flying, I just need a little more actual facts before I start labeling my president who's term will expire in '08 a "dictator" :rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
Just wait until Warham's programmed by the subliminals that I told Brian Wilson to put on his new album :cool:


LMMFAO

" Wouldn't it be nice to be The Fuhrer, then we wouldn't have to wait so lo-ong........wouldn't it be nice to spy on our own, and put them all where they belo-ong......."


:D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by diamondD



Before the neo-con BS labels start flying, I just need a little more actual facts before I start labeling my president who's term will expire in '08 a "dictator" :rolleyes:


There's been a few dictators who've lasted 8 years or less....

Besides, if you don't think Team Diebold is picking Chimp II the sequel............

[jhale667]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LMMFAO

" Wouldn't it be nice to be The Fuhrer, then we wouldn't have to wait so lo-ong........wouldn't it be nice to spy on our own, and put them all where they belo-ong......."


:D
:baaa: :lol:

[FORD]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LMMFAO

" Wouldn't it be nice to be The Fuhrer, then we wouldn't have to wait so lo-ong........wouldn't it be nice to spy on our own, and put them all where they belo-ong......."


:D

And now our Fourth Reich will reign forever.
Feed sheep more lies about the "war on terror"
Oh wouldn't it be nice......

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
There's been a few dictators who've lasted 8 years or less....

Besides, if you don't think Team Diebold is picking Chimp II the sequel............

I'd like to read this list of dictators.

[LoungeMachine]

Everybody.......

You know the words....

Sing along with us...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I'd like to read this list of dictators.

Idi Amin lasted exactly 8 years as I recall 71-79

I'll check google for you. Many Central and South American Dictators we installed, only to overthrow.

Although Hitler was 14 years [I think] about.....I'll make sure to keep it under 9 years for you Warren ;)

[LoungeMachine]

Manuel Noriega

Former Maximum Leader of Panama, currently resides in a Florida jail for being a drug mastermind in his spare time, or for just inconveniently being in the way of America, depending on who you talk to.

In 1988, Noriega told his deputy in the Panamanian Defense Forces: "I've got Bush by the balls."

See also Oliver North, and John Poindexter.


Timeline
11 Feb 1934 Manuel Noriega born.
Oct 1968 Participates in a coup d'etat against President Arnulfo Arias.
Dec 1969 Participates in a counter coup, favoring Gen. Omar Torrijos.
c. 1970 Becomes a CIA operative.
5 Feb 1988 Indicted on federal drug charges.
7 May 1989 Guillermo Endara wins the Panamanian election by a 3:1 margin. Three days later, Manuel Noriega vacates the result.
3 Oct 1989 A failed coup attempt against Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.
15 Dec 1989 Panama's National Assembly bestows the title of "Maximum Leader" upon dictator Manuel Noriega. During his acceptance speech, Noriega declares that "the North American scheme, through constant psychological and military harassment, has created a state of war in Panama." The U.S. government opts to interpret this statement as a declaration of war against the United States.
3 Jan 1990 Surrenders to American authorities from his refuge in the Papal Nuncio.
10 Jul 1992 Manuel Noriega is sentenced to 40 years without parole in a federal prison for eight counts of drug smuggling, conspiracy, and racketeering. In his statement, Noriega decries President George HW Bush for "causing the deaths of innocent people" during the 1989 Panama invasion.

[LoungeMachine]

I LOVE the see also: Oliver North and John Poindexter part.....

LMMFAO

[Hardrock69]

Of course these dictatyors do not last long.

They are installed by the CIA, and when they grow too big for their britches, the CIA installs a new puppet.

All of the above mentioned like Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, etc. were "elected" after "insurgents" funded by the CIA overthrew the old regime.

Eventually they started fucking up, and the same thing happened to them.

They got replaced.

Call the CIA the "Manpower Employment Agency FOr World Puppets On An International Scale".

If you have what it takes to be the ruler of a Third-World country, just go to CIA HQ Virginia, and tell them you want to fill out an application for the job of "Dictator".

Ability to make inspiring speeches about nothing are a must. Public Relations and Martketing background strongly desired (to sell one's self to the masses).

Hey....As a 'politician' (on a related note) your ambition is to sell yourself to the public, isn't it?


Hmmm I am going to post a thread on this....