Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ACLU Sues to Force Secret Service to Permit Anti-Bush Protestors to Get Closer to the President
CNN ^ | CNN

Posted on 09/24/2003 7:39:57 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union asked the federal courts Tuesday to prevent the U.S. Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters far away from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close.

The civil liberties group filed the lawsuit in federal court in Pennsylvania on behalf of four advocacy organizations that claimed that the Secret Service forced them into protest zones or other areas where they could not be seen by President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney or be noticed by the media covering their visits.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aclu; aclulist; antiamerican; antibush; assassins; blackshirts; bushbashing; communistsubversion; hypocrisy; lawsuit; nationalsecurity; protection; secretservice; threats; traitorlist; usss; waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-186 next last

1 posted on 09/24/2003 7:39:58 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kristinn; Angelwood; tgslTakoma
Duly noted: these people love to sue.
2 posted on 09/24/2003 7:40:30 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
If the ACLU loses the suit they should have to immediately pay all costs related to the suit. Every penny the taxpayers have to spend should be reimbursed.
3 posted on 09/24/2003 7:42:43 AM PDT by isthisnickcool (Guns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
"rom keeping anti-Bush protesters far away from presidential appearances"

Key point, these people are protesting the president, not a policy or several policies but the president himself.

This alone means that any one of them could wish or plan to do him harm. The ACLU will lose this one.
4 posted on 09/24/2003 7:53:09 AM PDT by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
Where does the money come from that enables the ACLU to
press all these frivolous suits?
5 posted on 09/24/2003 7:54:09 AM PDT by doberville (Angels can fly when they take themselves lightly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
"Protecting our nation's leaders from dissent is unconstitutional."

Does the constitution speak of how close people need to come in order for their speech to be free? Or does the constitution really indicate that you can say what you want -- but silent on forcing folks to listen?

If the constitution says people have to listen to what you want to say, then I'd like time on NBC, CBS and ABC to tell people want a left-wing organization the ACLU has become.

6 posted on 09/24/2003 7:54:52 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (France delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
Can someone send this to Rush. He'll have some fun with this one.
7 posted on 09/24/2003 7:56:00 AM PDT by Cobra64 (Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
It's the job of the USSS to protect the President. I could be wrong, but wouldn't there be a greater threat posed by anti- Bush protesters than by supporters of the President?
8 posted on 09/24/2003 8:01:36 AM PDT by CaptRon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
I don't like the ACLU nor their tactics, but i feel everybody should have similar access. Freedom of speech is the No. 1 ammendment to the constitution, right?

If i were protesting Xlinton, i would want to be as close as any Xlinton supporter, albeit with an odor removing breathing apparatus and full foul weather gear to keep his spewing DNA off of me.
9 posted on 09/24/2003 8:02:02 AM PDT by ctlpdad (If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
Where was this group when the Clinton*istas were thugging demonstrators a few years ago?
10 posted on 09/24/2003 8:02:36 AM PDT by Khurkris (Scottish/HillBilly - Revenge is an Art Form for us. Ranger On...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khurkris
No kidding! My thoughts exactly.
11 posted on 09/24/2003 8:03:55 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ctlpdad
I don't like the ACLU nor their tactics, but i feel everybody should have similar access. Freedom of speech is the No. 1 ammendment to the constitution, right?

No. Freddom of "politcal speech" is the No. 1 amendment. Spewing hate of the man is different than disagreeing with his policies.
12 posted on 09/24/2003 8:11:06 AM PDT by LetsRok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

This was wrong when Clinton did it.

It just as wrong when Bush does it.

It used to surprise me when I see FReepers defending the same behavior as the Clintons, but hypocrisy has been the norm here for some time.

Behold hypocrites, the only 'free speech zone':


13 posted on 09/24/2003 8:14:14 AM PDT by freeeee (I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Good idea. Give the ACLU a call and press this with them. We would love to read their reaction. ;-)
14 posted on 09/24/2003 8:17:12 AM PDT by moodyskeptic (weekend warrior in the culture war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
It is high time to investigate, prosecute and convict dozens (if not hundreds) of ACLU lawyers for obvious national security reasons. They are totally out of control.

I know all about how they think and what they do. When I was in law school I worked for a professor who championed ACLU causes on a very high profile school district book burning case. For the first year after I graduated from law school I worked as a volunteer attorney for the ACLU. I grew sickened by what I saw and heard behind closed doors in ACLU meetings. Now I despise them more than any other subversive communist organization.

Today the organization has evolved into a Democratic Party tool defined by the Clintons and supported by their BIG MONEY contributors.

15 posted on 09/24/2003 8:19:06 AM PDT by ex-Texan (Read Sun Tzu: The Cold War Never Ended)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
You're kidding yourself if you think this is about speech. These anti-Bush people have proven themselves to be violent time and time again.

Look at the Inauguration Day parade -- ACLU sued to let anti-Bush protestors close to the route. Then they were destructive, taking down flags at the Navy memorial and surging toward police lines, and it all got physical.

This is not the same thing as peaceful protests against Clinton.
16 posted on 09/24/2003 8:21:25 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LetsRok
why not let them get up to the front, then have the teamsters unions drag them around out back & beat the sh!t out of them. Oh, that's right, they only do that to conservatives at Hillary!'s events.
17 posted on 09/24/2003 8:22:47 AM PDT by ctlpdad (If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ctlpdad
no one's saying they can't speak -- they're saying that people with a proven record of violence and an inclination to get physical shouldn't get too close to the president

time, place, and manner
18 posted on 09/24/2003 8:23:57 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
Was the ACLU ever worth anything?

Maybe, in the distant reaches of time, they had a noble goal.

Now they are just irritating little mosquitoes taking up worthless irrelavant causes, and taking up the time and energy of people trying to do something.
19 posted on 09/24/2003 8:24:07 AM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
If the constitution says people have to listen to what you want to say, then I'd like time on NBC, CBS and ABC to tell people want a left-wing organization the ACLU has become.

Well put. But alas, as I clearly realize you know, you don't have a First Amendment right to do that -- or to meet with the President and tell him what you think of him.
20 posted on 09/24/2003 8:25:32 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
With so much virulent hatred against Bush being shown by so-called mainstream liberals, it is all too easy to imagine even kookier people ... yeah, I guess that's possible ... deciding it would be noble to take him out.

I say protect him at all costs.

The mainstream media sees to it that he is aware of all the protesters. They don't need to be close to him to get their message out.
21 posted on 09/24/2003 8:27:09 AM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
This is about 'free speech zones' and you know it.

If any group of protesters get violent or disorderly, arrest them. That however is NOT justification for prior restraint of protesters by designating them to a 'free speech zone' well ahead of any event.

It was wrong when Clinton did it, and it's just as wrong now.

Now to be fair the ACLU didn't care when Clinton did it, and now they seem to care. So we know the ACLU is a bunch of hypocrites, just like a bunch of FReepers.

Neither side cares about free speech. They only care if they can deny it to the other side. They're just wrestling over who wields unconstututional big government.

22 posted on 09/24/2003 8:28:22 AM PDT by freeeee (I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
that's funny...
The ACLU sues to get commies closer to the prez
and the ACLU sues to keep pro lifers further away from their abortatoriums
They sue to take the real God out of the public square
while they sue to bring false gods into the schoolroom
They use the freedom given them by the founding fathers
only to turn it against those very same founders and their descendents
to the utter destruction of our nation....
And...we allow this....
23 posted on 09/24/2003 8:31:25 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
If I was a terrorist, I would hold up a pro Bush sign. The ACLU bloodsuckers are right on this one.

They allow people cheering Bush closer access, but if you are a protest group, ya get hidden to the side. It is not about security, but photo ops basically.

The Secret Service can remove all people, or neither group. Like I said, a terrorist would hang out with the Pro President group since they get to be closer to the Prez.

There should be a determination of how close any group can be due to security, and have it apply to everybody. People's right to dissent should not be suppressed just because the message is unpopular.

24 posted on 09/24/2003 8:31:41 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
What is the maximum effective range of a homicide bomber? C4, liberally packed with ballbearings and a detonator is all you need to make a human claymore mine with a 50 meter casualty radius. Do you doubt for an instant that there aren't those on the extreme Left that aren't as crazy as Palestinian suicide bombers?

Love the quotes on your profile page. Is that you with the pistola?
25 posted on 09/24/2003 8:33:37 AM PDT by IGOTMINE (He needed killin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: freeeee
Read my post #15. I agree with you about protestors and free speech.

When I was active in the ACLU, the organization did a great deal of good and that book burning case I mentioned was a noble and ethical undertaking. But by 1983 the organization began to change and rapidly evolve into a communist front.

The Clintons moved quickly to take over the already corrupt ACLU when Bubba was molesting interns in the Oval Office. Today it is funded by the same people who give tons of donations to Hillary.

27 posted on 09/24/2003 8:40:38 AM PDT by ex-Texan (Read Sun Tzu: The Cold War Never Ended)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ctlpdad
don't like the ACLU nor their tactics, but i feel everybody should have similar access. Freedom of speech is the No. 1 ammendment to the constitution, right?

The government can impose reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions upon free speech, provided the restrictions are content neutral. In the absence of a specfic threat to our President, I don't think the Secret Service can treat the anti-Bush wacko protestors differently than the pro-Bush supporters. That being said, I suspect that the facts are substantially different than what the ACUL has alleged in that both Bush protestors and Bush supporters are either treated the same or are treated differently for reasons having nothing to do with the content of the speech (i.e., the size of the group and general safety concerns.)

The bigger question is where was the ACLU during the Clintoon years when he and the first witch regularly used and abused the secret service to keep protestors far away from the spotlight.

28 posted on 09/24/2003 8:46:25 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ctlpdad
***PET PEEVE ALERT***

I don't like the ACLU nor their tactics, but i feel everybody should have similar access.

AAGGGHH!!!! No!! No! You do NOT FEEL everybody should have similar access, you believe or think or desire, but not feel! You feel hungry or happy or horny or sad, you do not feel abstract concepts devoid of physical sensations.

There's too much "feelin'" going on out there!!

rant

29 posted on 09/24/2003 8:49:00 AM PDT by lafroste
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
If any group of protesters get violent or disorderly, arrest them

Now there's an idea -- let them take a swipe at the President and arrest them later. I just thought that was such a *fantastic* idea that it deserved to be highlighted. Of course, the U.S. Constitution does not mandate such foolishness.
30 posted on 09/24/2003 8:50:52 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lafroste
I think you are correct, and I appreciate you pointing out the error in my ways. i now feel like i need lunch and think i will leave now.
31 posted on 09/24/2003 8:52:12 AM PDT by ctlpdad (If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ctlpdad
Thank you, and help me stamp out the thought muddling curse of errant "feeling"s!
32 posted on 09/24/2003 8:54:44 AM PDT by lafroste
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
If you were Mohammad Q. Jihadist, would you hold up a Pro Bush sign, or an anti Bush sign while you concealed a weapon under your jacket?

This doesn't make sense from a security stand point. It's politics. Period. Any group of people, supporters or dissidents should be at the same distance that the Secret Service considers safe. Period. My guess is that the protest group is probably infiltrated by one undercover agent at least as it is anyways.

33 posted on 09/24/2003 8:58:22 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Ed_NYC; MonroeDNA; widgysoft; Springman; Timesink; dubyaismypresident; Grani; coug97; ...
"We're gonna sue so we can let folks get close enough to take a shot at him when he gets out of his limo..."

I don't think so!

Just damn.

If you want on the new list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[As i mentioned, the B/C & JD! lists are going to float into and out of whack over the forseeable future, while I try to cobble a rig back together for myself. My apologies for any incovenience or misunderstandings in this time frame. New signups/removals may be flaky in this time-frame as well; please bear with me, and keep in mind you may have to FReemail me more than once for me to get it done. Thanks again!]

34 posted on 09/24/2003 9:00:07 AM PDT by mhking (Don't mess in the affairs of dragons; For you are crunchy, and taste great with ketchup...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Isn't the question not what I'd to, but what the anti-Bush protestors have done? They HAVE been violent -- espousing it and doing it. Not saying they're clever, but they have. The risk, sadly, isn't just from jihadist -- it's from virulently left and violent Americans.
35 posted on 09/24/2003 9:00:56 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mhking
The ACLU really has gone off the deep end.
36 posted on 09/24/2003 9:06:33 AM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy; FreeTheHostages
They have the right to protest.
They don't have the right to media coverage.
They don't have a "right" to be paid attention to.
37 posted on 09/24/2003 9:11:27 AM PDT by visualops (Two Wrongs don't make a right - but they will be on the Democratic Ticket in 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: visualops
All incontrovertibly true.

The issue is: does the President and Secret Service have a right to a zone of safety from people who espouse and practice violence?
38 posted on 09/24/2003 9:12:45 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
The plaintiffs are the National Organization for Women;United for Peace and Justice, an anti-war group; ACORN, an advocacy organization for low and moderate-income families; and USAction,Communist Party and The World Workers Party.
39 posted on 09/24/2003 9:15:27 AM PDT by visualops (Two Wrongs don't make a right, they make the 2004 Democratic Ticket!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
I guess their constitutionally protected right to be on TV is being taken away from them.
40 posted on 09/24/2003 9:20:36 AM PDT by just mimi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
I would say that the Secret Service can put people anywhere it deems ensures the safety of the President, and that includes keeping protestors on the next block. I have no problem if the shoe were on the other foot and it was FReepers protesting a Dem president.
41 posted on 09/24/2003 9:20:59 AM PDT by visualops (Two Wrongs don't make a right, they make the 2004 Democratic Ticket!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: just mimi
I guess their constitutionally protected right to be on TV is being taken away from them.

Thanks for the candidness.

This is about politics. It's about a photo-op of supporters only.

Freedom is messy and inconvenient. It means that people with unpopular opinions will be seen and heard. There is no shortage of countries where only supporters are allowed to be seen. This wasn't one of them until recently. Now we share one more trait with banana republics.

42 posted on 09/24/2003 9:25:13 AM PDT by freeeee (I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: visualops
I have no problem if the shoe were on the other foot and it was FReepers protesting a Dem president.

I've been here long enough to remember FReepers howling at the same exact treatment.

And I know this fickle crowd of hypocrites will be just as adament about their right to freely assemble, just as soon as a Dem is in office and not one moment before.

43 posted on 09/24/2003 9:27:12 AM PDT by freeeee (I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: IGOTMINE
Love the quotes on your profile page. Is that you with the pistola?

Thanks. No, that's not me.

As far as security threats, if SS isn't screening everyone who gets near W for weapons, they're not doing their job. And someone with something serious in mind isn't going to dress as a protester, they're going to dress as a supporter in order to get close.

As far as the 'violent nature' of leftist protesters, be assured that they think the very same of the right, and they'll use your very own criteria to deny you free assembly and speech in the future.

44 posted on 09/24/2003 9:34:41 AM PDT by freeeee (I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: visualops
I would say that the Secret Service can put people anywhere it deems ensures the safety of the President, and that includes keeping protestors on the next block. I have no problem if the shoe were on the other foot and it was FReepers protesting a Dem president.

Then we are in complete agreement.
45 posted on 09/24/2003 9:54:45 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Wow. That's pretty slick. What they are complaining about isn't what they are saying they are complaining about. As soon as someone (me) makes that observation, I am labeled as being for the opposite of all that is freedom! I was making an observation based on limited information (reading the article) and I added in my own biases against people that profess to be against the president but want to be closer to him.) In short, I was just griping. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your post is based on your own limited information and includes biases against people that give you an opening. So, we'll call it even. ;)
46 posted on 09/24/2003 9:55:16 AM PDT by just mimi (actually, you win -- you put words together better than I do, and I really was just griping...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: visualops; Jimmy Valentine's brother; Doctor Raoul
The plaintiffs are the National Organization for Women;United for Peace and Justice, an anti-war group; ACORN, an advocacy organization for low and moderate-income families; and USAction,Communist Party and The World Workers Party.

Our favorite DC Chant it: "Why call it ANSWER? It's the Worker's World Party."
47 posted on 09/24/2003 9:56:02 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: freeeee; tgslTakoma
"same exact treatment"

1. Not the same

2. We're not violent -- Secret Service can't ask people to back up with out a legitimate threat, and these people on the left post a threat.

3. "We're conservatives. No tear gas necessary."

Law and order: it's what we believe in.
48 posted on 09/24/2003 9:57:34 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: doberville
Start with unions and end with democrats.
49 posted on 09/24/2003 9:59:51 AM PDT by Baseballguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
There is no shortage of countries where only supporters are allowed to be seen. This wasn't one of them until recently. Now we share one more trait with banana republics.

With all due respect, protestors were the ONLY ones I've seen in the mass media this year--not supporters..

50 posted on 09/24/2003 10:23:32 AM PDT by lorrainer (Oh, was I ranting? Sorry.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-186 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson