Fw: Bush suppresses dissent wherever he goes. Wouldn't want to know what people really feel about him would we?

[Guest guest]

dissenters place in R politics...

-

J

N

Saturday, August 07, 2004 10:10 PM

Bush suppresses dissent wherever he goes. Wouldn't want to know what

people really feel about him would we?

 

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816 & s=hightower

 

 

--

 

Bush Zones Go National

by JIM HIGHTOWER

 

[from the August 16, 2004 issue]

 

At the 2000 GOP nominating convention in Philadelphia, candidate Bush created a

fenced-in, out-of-sight protest zone that could only hold barely 1,500 people at

a time. So citizens who wished to give voice to their many grievances with the

Powers That Be had to:

 

(1) Schedule their exercise of First Amendment rights with the decidedly

unsympathetic authorities.

 

(2) Report like cattle to the protest pen at their designated time, and only in

the numbers authorized.

 

(3) Then, under the recorded surveillance of the authorities, feel free to let

loose with all the speech they could utter within their allotted minutes

(although no one--not Bush, not convention delegates, not the preening members

of Congress, not the limousine-gliding corporate sponsors and certainly not the

mass media--would be anywhere nearby to hear a single word of what they had to

say).

 

Imagine how proud the Founders would be of this interpretation of their

revolutionary work. The Democrats, always willing to learn useful tricks from

the opposition, created their own " free-speech zone " when they gathered in Los

Angeles that year for their convention.

 

Once ensconced in the White House, the Bushites institutionalized the art of

dissing dissent, routinely dispatching the Secret Service to order local police

to set up FSZs to quarantine protesters wherever Bush goes. The embedded media

trooping dutifully behind him almost never cover this fascinating and truly

newsworthy phenomenon, instead focusing almost entirely on spoon-fed soundbites

from the President's press office.

 

An independent libertarian writer, however, James Bovard, chronicled George's

splendid isolation from citizen protest in last December's issue of The American

Conservative (www.amconmag.com). He wrote about Bill Neel, a retired steelworker

who dared to raise his humble head at a 2002 Labor Day picnic in Pittsburgh,

where Bush had gone to be photographed with worker-type people. Bill definitely

did not fit the message of the day, for this 65-year-old was sporting a sign

that said: The Bush Family Must Surely Love the Poor, They Made so Many of Us.

 

Ouch! Negative! Not acceptable! Must go!

 

Bill was standing in a crowd of pro-Bush people who were standing along the

street where Bush's motorcade would pass. The Bush backers had all sorts of

Hooray George-type signs. Those were totally okey-dokey with the Secret Service,

but Neel's...well, it simply had to be removed.

 

He was told by the Pittsburgh cops to depart to the designated FSZ, a ballpark

encased in a chain-link fence a third of a mile from Bush's (and the media's)

path. Bill, that rambunctious rebel, refused to budge. So they arrested him for

disorderly conduct, dispatched him to the luxury of a Pittsburgh jail and

confiscated his offending sign.

 

At Bill's trial, a Pittsburgh detective testified that the Secret Service had

instructed local police to confine " people that were making a statement pretty

much against the President and his views. " The district court judge not only

tossed out the silly charges against Neel but scolded the prosecution: " 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'? "

 

This was no isolated incident. Bovard also takes us to St. Louis, where George

appeared last year. About 150 sign-toting protesters were shunted off to a zone

where they could not be seen from the street, and--get ready to spin in your

grave, Jimmy Madison--the media were not allowed to talk to them, and protesters

were not allowed out of the protest zone to talk to the media.

 

Now meet Brett Bursey. He committed the crime of holding up a No War for Oil

sign when sensitive George visited Columbia, South Carolina, last year. Standing

amid a sea of pro-Bush signs in a public area, Bursey was commanded by local

police to remove himself forthwith to the FSZ half a mile away from the action,

even though he was already two football fields from where Bush was to speak. No,

said Brett. So, naturally, they arrested him. Asked why, the officer said, " It's

the content of your sign that's the problem. "

 

Five months later, Brett's trespassing charge was tossed on the rather obvious

grounds that--yoo-hoo!--there's no such thing as a member of the public

trespassing on public property at a public event. But John Ashcroft is oblivious

to the obvious, so the Justice Department of the United States of America

(represented in this case by--can you stand it?--US Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.)

inserted itself into this local misdemeanor case, charging our man Brett with a

federal violation of " entering a restricted area around the president. " Great

Goofy in the Sky--he was 200 yards away, surrounded by cheering Bushcalytes who

were also in the " restricted area. "

 

Ashcroft/Thurmond/Bush attempted to deny Bursey's lawyers access to Secret

Service documents setting forth official policy on who gets stopped for

criticizing the President, where, when and why. But Bursey finally obtained the

documents and posted them on the South Carolina Progressive Network website,

www.scpronet.com; they reveal that what the Secret Service did goes against

official policy.

 

Then there's the " Crawford Contretemps. " In May of 2003 a troupe of about 100

antiwar Texans were on their way by car to George W's Little Ponderosa, located

about five miles outside the tiny town of Crawford. To get to Bush's place, one

drives through the town--but the traveling protesters were greeted by a police

blockade. They got out of their cars to find out what was up, only to be told by

Police Chief Donnie Tidmore that they were violating a town ordinance requiring

a permit to protest within the city limits.

 

But wait, they said, we're on our way to Bush's ranchette--we have no intention

of protesting here. Logic was a stranger that day in Crawford, however, and

Chief Tidmore warned them that they had three minutes to turn around and go back

from whence they came, or else they'd be considered a demonstration, and, he

reminded them, they had no permit for that. (Tidmore later said that he actually

gave them seven minutes to depart, in order to be " as fair as possible. " )

 

Five of the group tried to talk sense with Tidmore, but that was not possible.

Their reward for even trying was to be arrested for refusing to disperse and

given a night in the nearby McLennan County jail. The chief said he could've

just given them a ticket, but he judged that arresting them was the only way to

get them to move, claiming that they were causing a danger because of the

traffic.

 

This February, the five were brought to trial in Crawford. Their lawyer asked

Tidmore if someone who simply wore a political button reading " Peace " could be

found in violation of Crawford's ordinance against protesting without a permit.

Yes, said the chief. " It could be a sign of demonstration. "

 

The five were convicted.

 

The Bushites are using federal, state and local police to conduct an undeclared

war against dissent, literally incarcerating Americans who publicly express

their disagreements with him and his policies. The ACLU and others have now sued

Bush's Secret Service for its ongoing pattern of repressing legitimate,

made-in-America protest, citing cases in Arizona, California, Virginia,

Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas--and coming soon to a theater near you!

 

If incarceration is not enough to deter dissenters, how about some old-fashioned

goon-squad tactics like infiltration and intimidation of protesters? In May of

2002 Ashcroft issued a decree terminating a quarter-century-old policy that bans

FBI agents from spying on Americans in their political meetings and churches.

 

Not only were federal agents " freed " by Bush and his attack dog Ashcroft to

violate the freedoms (assembly, speech, privacy) of any and all citizens, but

they were encouraged to do so. This unleashing of the FBI was done in the name

of combating foreign terrorists. The Bushites loudly scoffed at complaints that

agents would also be used to spy on American citizens for political purposes

having nothing to do with terrorism. While officials scoffed publicly, however,

an internal FBI newsletter quietly encouraged agents to increase surveillance of

antiwar groups, saying that there were " plenty of reasons " for doing so, " 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. "

 

Likewise, in May of last year, the Homeland Security Department waded butt-deep

into the murky waters of political suppression, issuing a terrorist advisory to

local law enforcement agencies. It urged all police officials to keep a

hawk-eyed watch on any homelanders who [Warning: Do not read the rest of this

sentence if it will shock you to learn that there are people like this in your

country!] have " expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the US

government. "

 

MEMO TO TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF HSD: Sir, that's everyone. All 280 million of

us, minus George Bush, you and the handful of others actually making the

decisions. You've just branded every red-blooded American a terrorist. Maybe you

should stick to playing with your color codes.

 

Last November, Ashcroft weighed back in with new federal guidelines allowing the

FBI to make what amount to pre-emptive spying assaults on people. Much like the

nifty Bush-Rumsfeld doctrine of attacking countries to pre-empt the possibility

that maybe, someday, some way, those countries might pose a threat to the United

States, the Bush-Ashcroft doctrine allows government gumshoes to spy on citizens

and noncitizens alike without any indication that the spied-upon people are

doing anything illegal. The executive directive gives the FBI authority to

collect " information on individuals, groups, and organizations of possible

investigative interest. "

 

The language used by Ashcroft mouthpiece Mark Corallo to explain this directive

is meant to be reassuring, but it is Orwell-level scary: What it means, says

Corallo, is that agents " can do more research. " " It emphasizes early

intervention " and " allows them to be more proactive. " Yeah, they get to do all

that without opening a formal investigation (which sets limits on the snooping),

much less bothering to get any court approval for their snooping. A proactive

secret police is rarely a positive for people.

 

With the FBI on the loose, other police powers now feel free to join in the

all-season sport of intimidating people. In Austin, even the Army was caught

snooping on us. At a small University of Texas conference in February to discuss

Islam in Muslim countries, two Army officers were discovered to be posing as

participants. The next week two agents from the Army Intelligence and Security

Command appeared on campus demanding a list of participants and trying to grill

Sahar Aziz, the conference organizer. Alarmed by these intimidating tactics,

Aziz got the help of a lawyer, and the local newspaper ran a story. The Army

quickly went away--but a spokeswoman for the intelligence command refused even

to confirm that the agents had been on campus, much less discuss why the US Army

is involved in domestic surveillance and intimidation.

 

In California an antiwar group called Peace Fresno included in its ranks a nice

young man named Aaron Stokes, who was always willing to be helpful.

Unfortunately, Aaron died in a motorcycle wreck, and when his picture ran in the

paper, Peace Fresno learned that he was really Aaron Kilner, a deputy with the

sheriff's department. The sheriff said he could not discuss the specifics of

Kilner's infiltration role, but that there was no formal investigation of Peace

Fresno under way. He did insist, however, that there is potential for terrorism

in Fresno County. " We believe that there is, " the sheriff said ominously (and

vaguely). " I'm not going to expand on it. "

 

If the authorities think there is terrorist potential in Fresno (probably not

real high on Osama's target list), then there is potential everywhere, and under

the Bush regime, this is plenty enough reason for any and all police agencies to

launch secret campaigns to infiltrate, investigate and intimidate any and all

people and groups with politics that they find even mildly suspicious...or

distasteful.

 

The attitude of police authorities was summed up by Mike van Winkle, a

spokesperson for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (another

spinoff of the Homeland Security Department--your tax dollars at work). After

peaceful antiwar protesters in Oakland were gassed and shot by local police, van

Winkle [Note: I do not make up these names] explained the prevailing thinking of

America's new, vast network of antiterrorist forces:

 

You can make an easy kind of 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. I've heard terrorism described as anything that

is violent or has an economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and

killing people.