Freedoms: Bush Zones Go National

[Guest guest]

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.