Thou Dost Protest Too Much

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2107012&
Depending on where you stand, Brett Bursey is either the world's greatest protester or a giant, unmitigated pain. He's been a thorn in the side of Columbia, S.C., authorities since 1969?when he got two years in prison for spray-painting "HELL NO, WE WON'T GO" on the wall of his draft board office. Except for a stretch in the early 1970s spent hiding in the mountains of northern Georgia, Bursey's been a fixture of Lexington County, protesting everything protestable since Nixon and Vietnam.

So, you'd be excused for thinking that Bursey's recent federal conviction stemming from his protest of a 2002 visit by President Bush?a conviction upheld last Wednesday?is his own, special problem. But it comes at a time when hundreds of protesters are being rounded up at presidential visits all over the country, making Bursey the 56-year-old canary in a demonstrators' coal mine.

On Friday, the antiwar-T-shirt-clad mother of a slain soldier was pulled out of a Laura Bush speech in New Jersey and threatened with arrest. A West Virginia couple was detained by the Secret Service for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts at a July 4 rally?they filed a lawsuit last week?and AIDS activists were removed and kept away from reporters at a Sept. 9 presidential event in Pennsylvania. Most notably, some 1,800 protesters, monitors, and passersby were jailed in indiscriminate raids during the Republican Convention in New York, while several hecklers were dragged off the Madison Square Garden convention floor. All were arrested or threatened with arrest, and hundreds expect to stand trial. And that's why Bursey's is not the story of an isolated troublemaker, but a harbinger of what protesters might expect in the future.

The strange catalyst here is a new weapon in the federal antiprotest arsenal or?more precisely?a previously unused one. The government nailed Bursey with an arcane 1970 Secret Service provision?Title 18, Section 1752(a)(1)(ii) of the U.S. Code?which makes it a federal crime to "knowingly and willfully" enter an area restricted by the Secret Service during a presidential visit. The law was originally drafted by legislators scarred by the assassinations of the 1960s, in the hopes of preventing the next attempt on the life of a president. Turns out the law can be used to prevent criticism as well.

In Bursey's case, the government contended that on Oct. 24, 2002, the protected zone encompassed an intersection near the Columbia Metropolitan Airport where Brett Bursey was standing with a sign that read "No War for Oil." Bursey said that hundreds of Bush supporters stood around him, along with four other protesters, all awaiting the president. In a scene that has played itself out repeatedly during this campaign, most anti-Bush protesters that day were kept in a "free-speech zone" located three-quarters of a mile away?well out of ear- and camera-shot of the president. Bursey and the other protesters were told several times to move?and did?but Bursey never went quite far enough away to placate the Secret Service.

Secret Service agent Holly Able testified at trial that she then gave him four options: He could go to the demonstration area, get in line for the rally (if he had a ticket), go home, or go to jail. When he refused to disappear from sight, Bursey was arrested by airport police, thrown into a police wagon, and taken away. He was slapped with a local charge at first?trespassing?but that was quickly dropped. Bursey, after all, had been standing on public land. Then the federal charges were trotted out.


Most demonstrators' prosecutions don't get that far. Once a protester has been removed from the target of his or her protest, authorities tend to quickly lose interest. If charges are filed, they are often dropped, and few cases make it to trial. But something was different about Bursey. A lifetime's worth of justice-system enemies decided to get even, perhaps, or maybe his prior arrests and convictions made him too vulnerable a target to let slip by. Regardless, within days, U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. slapped Bursey with a federal bill of information for violating the rarely cited law, of which Bursey (and most everyone else) had never heard.

Bursey was convicted in January and fined $500?far less than the potential prison time and $5,000 fine maximum. But there are a couple of elements to his conviction under this statute that should make everyone sit up and take notice.

The first is U.S. Magistrate Bristow Marchant's ruling that Bursey was not unreasonably singled out from the rest of the crowd for arrest, or the victim of selective prosecution. Yes, Marchant said, there were other people there. But those others never refused to leave (having, of course, never been asked), and thus they weren't breaking any laws. This has some resonance: At the Republican Convention, hundreds of delegates were free to scream whatever pro-administration thoughts crossed their mind, during speeches or otherwise. But the few credentialed hecklers who found their way onto the floor were mobbed, subdued, and dragged out by security before they could even be heard?their sloganeering drowned out by delegates' chants of "Four more years!" If Marchant's legal reasoning were adopted in the New York courts?and New York is certainly not bound by a South Carolina court, but may be persuaded by its thinking?this justification for the partisan singling out of protesters as opposed to cheerleaders might gain even more legitimacy.

It's also worth noting how easily the government made its case for setting up a seemingly boundless no-protest zone around the president's route. In court, prosecutors argued that the restricted area was about 100 yards wide, stretching approximately a mile down Airport Boulevard. But there was no way to know that on Oct. 24?when there were no visible markers and nobody willing to tell the protesters where the boundaries might be. More confusingly, cars and trucks were being allowed to travel through the area the whole time?some of which were dropping off ticket-holders planning to attend the rally. Marchant noted all this, but found none of those conditions unreasonable. Fast forward again to New York, where there were numerous cases of pedestrians arrested simply for walking down a sidewalk that moments before had been open to all passers-by. The Washington Post reported Monday on a man who'd been arrested on his way to buy soup at the Second Avenue Deli, when he walked into a police sweep; he was reportedly detained for 25 hours. Another sweep grabbed an Associated Press photo courier who was then held for nine hours without charges. Federal and local authorities are making a habit of restricting randomly configured public spaces in the name of security. Bursey's conviction gives that tactic some legal weight.

The third and perhaps most troubling aspect of this conviction was how easily the threat of terrorism overrode concern about Bursey's First Amendment rights. Because this is the "age of suicide bombers," the Secret Service should have latitude to get rid of anyone suspicious who is standing near the president's route, Marchant said. Fair enough. But Bursey could only have been singled out for suspicion by one thing?the slogan on his sign. Even allowing the strange notion that the Secret Service expects terrorists to begin their assassination plot by carrying a noticeable antiwar placard, it's enough to make anyone with a dissenting view think twice before deciding to stand out from a crowd.

Bursey's lawyers will appeal to the Fourth Circuit of Appeals in Richmond, he said Monday. After all, what's two years of legal wrangling when you've been fighting the power since before man walked on the moon? But most protesters have enough to deal with?between negotiating nets and barricades, police with video cameras, and random detentions that cut arrested demonstrators off from the press?without having to worry about years of wrangling in the courts, much less time in federal prison. Bursey's conviction sharpens the teeth of police threats and gives the discontented one more reason to keep quiet. It's certainly not the end of protest in America. But it's a step in that direction.


Jonathan M. Katz is a writer living in Louisville, Ky. He reported from the Republican Convention for the Associated Press.

Had to leave that last little bit in there...YEAH for the hometown boy! :)



Anyway...it's amazing how far this administration will go to suppress any form of dissent. From firing Cabinet members, firing economic advisors, blackmailing gov't employees to keep quiet or be fired, outing CIA operatives, refusing FOIA requests, signing loyalty oaths to attend a rally, etc.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Shameful. Absolutely shameful, and completely contrary to the founding principles of the United States of America. It is time for new leadership in Washington, people who mean it when they swear to uphold the Constitution.

Hey Cad. What was that you were saying about the First Amendment NOT being under assault?
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2107012&
Depending on where you stand, Brett Bursey is either the world's greatest protester or a giant, unmitigated pain. He's been a thorn in the side of Columbia, S.C., authorities since 1969?when he got two years in prison for spray-painting "HELL NO, WE WON'T GO" on the wall of his draft board office. Except for a stretch in the early 1970s spent hiding in the mountains of northern Georgia, Bursey's been a fixture of Lexington County, protesting everything protestable since Nixon and Vietnam.

So, you'd be excused for thinking that Bursey's recent federal conviction stemming from his protest of a 2002 visit by President Bush?a conviction upheld last Wednesday?is his own, special problem. But it comes at a time when hundreds of protesters are being rounded up at presidential visits all over the country, making Bursey the 56-year-old canary in a demonstrators' coal mine.

On Friday, the antiwar-T-shirt-clad mother of a slain soldier was pulled out of a Laura Bush speech in New Jersey and threatened with arrest. A West Virginia couple was detained by the Secret Service for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts at a July 4 rally?they filed a lawsuit last week?and AIDS activists were removed and kept away from reporters at a Sept. 9 presidential event in Pennsylvania. Most notably, some 1,800 protesters, monitors, and passersby were jailed in indiscriminate raids during the Republican Convention in New York, while several hecklers were dragged off the Madison Square Garden convention floor. All were arrested or threatened with arrest, and hundreds expect to stand trial. And that's why Bursey's is not the story of an isolated troublemaker, but a harbinger of what protesters might expect in the future.

The strange catalyst here is a new weapon in the federal antiprotest arsenal or?more precisely?a previously unused one. The government nailed Bursey with an arcane 1970 Secret Service provision?Title 18, Section 1752(a)(1)(ii) of the U.S. Code?which makes it a federal crime to "knowingly and willfully" enter an area restricted by the Secret Service during a presidential visit. The law was originally drafted by legislators scarred by the assassinations of the 1960s, in the hopes of preventing the next attempt on the life of a president. Turns out the law can be used to prevent criticism as well.

In Bursey's case, the government contended that on Oct. 24, 2002, the protected zone encompassed an intersection near the Columbia Metropolitan Airport where Brett Bursey was standing with a sign that read "No War for Oil." Bursey said that hundreds of Bush supporters stood around him, along with four other protesters, all awaiting the president. In a scene that has played itself out repeatedly during this campaign, most anti-Bush protesters that day were kept in a "free-speech zone" located three-quarters of a mile away?well out of ear- and camera-shot of the president. Bursey and the other protesters were told several times to move?and did?but Bursey never went quite far enough away to placate the Secret Service.

Secret Service agent Holly Able testified at trial that she then gave him four options: He could go to the demonstration area, get in line for the rally (if he had a ticket), go home, or go to jail. When he refused to disappear from sight, Bursey was arrested by airport police, thrown into a police wagon, and taken away. He was slapped with a local charge at first?trespassing?but that was quickly dropped. Bursey, after all, had been standing on public land. Then the federal charges were trotted out.


Most demonstrators' prosecutions don't get that far. Once a protester has been removed from the target of his or her protest, authorities tend to quickly lose interest. If charges are filed, they are often dropped, and few cases make it to trial. But something was different about Bursey. A lifetime's worth of justice-system enemies decided to get even, perhaps, or maybe his prior arrests and convictions made him too vulnerable a target to let slip by. Regardless, within days, U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. slapped Bursey with a federal bill of information for violating the rarely cited law, of which Bursey (and most everyone else) had never heard.

Bursey was convicted in January and fined $500?far less than the potential prison time and $5,000 fine maximum. But there are a couple of elements to his conviction under this statute that should make everyone sit up and take notice.

The first is U.S. Magistrate Bristow Marchant's ruling that Bursey was not unreasonably singled out from the rest of the crowd for arrest, or the victim of selective prosecution. Yes, Marchant said, there were other people there. But those others never refused to leave (having, of course, never been asked), and thus they weren't breaking any laws. This has some resonance: At the Republican Convention, hundreds of delegates were free to scream whatever pro-administration thoughts crossed their mind, during speeches or otherwise. But the few credentialed hecklers who found their way onto the floor were mobbed, subdued, and dragged out by security before they could even be heard?their sloganeering drowned out by delegates' chants of "Four more years!" If Marchant's legal reasoning were adopted in the New York courts?and New York is certainly not bound by a South Carolina court, but may be persuaded by its thinking?this justification for the partisan singling out of protesters as opposed to cheerleaders might gain even more legitimacy.

It's also worth noting how easily the government made its case for setting up a seemingly boundless no-protest zone around the president's route. In court, prosecutors argued that the restricted area was about 100 yards wide, stretching approximately a mile down Airport Boulevard. But there was no way to know that on Oct. 24?when there were no visible markers and nobody willing to tell the protesters where the boundaries might be. More confusingly, cars and trucks were being allowed to travel through the area the whole time?some of which were dropping off ticket-holders planning to attend the rally. Marchant noted all this, but found none of those conditions unreasonable. Fast forward again to New York, where there were numerous cases of pedestrians arrested simply for walking down a sidewalk that moments before had been open to all passers-by. The Washington Post reported Monday on a man who'd been arrested on his way to buy soup at the Second Avenue Deli, when he walked into a police sweep; he was reportedly detained for 25 hours. Another sweep grabbed an Associated Press photo courier who was then held for nine hours without charges. Federal and local authorities are making a habit of restricting randomly configured public spaces in the name of security. Bursey's conviction gives that tactic some legal weight.

The third and perhaps most troubling aspect of this conviction was how easily the threat of terrorism overrode concern about Bursey's First Amendment rights. Because this is the "age of suicide bombers," the Secret Service should have latitude to get rid of anyone suspicious who is standing near the president's route, Marchant said. Fair enough. But Bursey could only have been singled out for suspicion by one thing?the slogan on his sign. Even allowing the strange notion that the Secret Service expects terrorists to begin their assassination plot by carrying a noticeable antiwar placard, it's enough to make anyone with a dissenting view think twice before deciding to stand out from a crowd.

Bursey's lawyers will appeal to the Fourth Circuit of Appeals in Richmond, he said Monday. After all, what's two years of legal wrangling when you've been fighting the power since before man walked on the moon? But most protesters have enough to deal with?between negotiating nets and barricades, police with video cameras, and random detentions that cut arrested demonstrators off from the press?without having to worry about years of wrangling in the courts, much less time in federal prison. Bursey's conviction sharpens the teeth of police threats and gives the discontented one more reason to keep quiet. It's certainly not the end of protest in America. But it's a step in that direction.


Jonathan M. Katz is a writer living in Louisville, Ky. He reported from the Republican Convention for the Associated Press.

Had to leave that last little bit in there...YEAH for the hometown boy! :)



Anyway...it's amazing how far this administration will go to suppress any form of dissent. From firing Cabinet members, firing economic advisors, blackmailing gov't employees to keep quiet or be fired, outing CIA operatives, refusing FOIA requests, signing loyalty oaths to attend a rally, etc.

Thou dost POSTEST too much.. please, my cable modem can't handle all these new threads.. calm down.. take a breath.. spare your poor keyboard.
 

fjord

Senior member
Feb 18, 2004
667
0
0
A Death Knell for Liberty
Responding to the War on our Rights Before it?s Too Late
by Michelle Chen

The war on civil liberties is now three years old. It was conceived at the instant that the September 11 attacks spurred a government with imperialist designs to exploit the perfect combination of widespread ignorance and fear. The post-attack panic instantly legitimized the distortion of constitutional freedom to accommodate a new concept of ?national security.? An era of homegrown, state-sponsored terror was born.

September 11 set the stage for a crackdown on immigrants of unprecedented vigor and brutality. Within weeks, over 1200 mostly Muslim and Arab immigrants were locked up; many were later deported. The Department of Justice has admitted prison staff frequently abused detainees at New York?s Metropolitan Detention Center, where 762 immigrants were held on minor immigration violations. Arab and Muslim communities across the country have suffered through FBI harassment and ?volunteer? interrogations.

Recent legislative proposals belatedly attempt to repair some of the deterioration of our constitutional rights. The Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act, for example, gives teeth to the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within the Department of Homeland Security. Currently, this position, despite its cool-sounding name, can merely provide ?constructive advice so that policy is shaped in ways that are mindful of and consistent with civil rights and civil liberties,? according to DHS?s Strategic Plan. (More succinctly, the Officer could do what activists and legal experts have been doing for years?and share the privilege of being ignored.) The bill would establish the Officer?s powers of oversight over the DHS, and would make information regarding internal investigations publicly accessible. Though it will by no means guarantee transparency, it will at least provide a legal framework to counter DHS authority.

The Civil Liberties Restoration Act would check some of the broadest powers granted to police and officials in the anti-terrorist hysteria. First, it would rescind the DOJ?s executive order, issued days after September 11, that all immigration hearings related to the attacks be closed to the public as well as friends and relatives. The DOJ?s swift trashing of due process ultimately led to the shielding of 600 court proceedings from any sort of public oversight. The CLRA would provide some protection for immigrants as they negotiate the system, preventing detention without disclosure of charges, and ensuring the right to bail (with the ominous exception of loosely defined ?flight risks? and ?security threats?). Jail or deportation could not be used as punishment for ?technical registration violations,? whereas under the Patriot Act, neglecting to fill out a change-of-address form could be grounds for deportation. The CLRA would also create an Immigration Review Commission to assess the conduct of immigration courts, whose authority has been handicapped by the DOJ.

Other legislation designed to prevent the Patriot Act from suffocating civil liberties includes the Senate?s SAFE (Security and Freedom Ensured) Act, which would prohibit FBI wiretaps and secret searches without a search warrant; and the Patriot Oversight Restoration Act, which would curb reckless enforcement of immigration regulations and the labeling of political protest as ?terrorism.? Introducing the bill, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont reflected somber regret among legislators two years after passing the Patriot Act: ?In the quarter-century that I have served in the Senate, no administration has been more secretive, more resistant to congressional oversight, and more disposed to acting unilaterally, without the approval of the American people or their democratically elected representatives.?

Yet many members of Congress seem either content with the Patriot Act or astonishingly ignorant of the threat it poses, and several bills have aimed to strengthen it. The Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act multitasks in its assault on human rights by automatically making any terrorist act ?that results in the death of a person? punishable by death. The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, which recently passed in both houses, swells the FBI?s powers to search personal financial records as part of any ?terrorist investigation.? The Antiterrorism Tools Enhancement Act enhances the tools of dictatorship by authorizing DOJ officials to subpoena information and testimony in so-called terrorism cases even if they cannot demonstrate probable cause.

Along with the upcoming elections, in which all 435 House seats are up for grabs, these pieces of legislation may reshape the public?s conception of the legitimate scope of government power and the skewed balance of freedom and security. But as we?ve seen in the mass round-ups of immigrants and the slowly tightening noose around our everyday freedoms, the gap between the law and reality in our communities stretches each day. Protective legislation will barely begin to mend the systematic destruction of the legal basis of our liberties?the Bill of Rights. The green light for the ruthless abuse of power by the executive branch is not the permissiveness of laws per se, but the passive trust of an ill-informed public. After all, Bush and the DOJ officially ?banned? racial profiling last year?but quietly exempted the racist targeting of Arabs, South Asians and Muslims in terrorism investigations. When no one is watching, even policies that seem to protect equal rights can be enforced in ways that further entrench discrimination.

More pivotal than the congressional debates on the Patriot Act is the public dialogue about defending our rights and resisting abuse of authority?a discourse that has colored every social movement in recent history and must now be renewed with greater urgency than ever before. Legislative actions on civil liberties reveal a growing awareness among lawmakers that we have taken a drastic, possibly irreversible step backward. But nothing will be achieved unless society as a whole is conscious and vocal?not only about our rights, but also our responsibility to protect them from authoritarian power and bigotry.

Three years after the anti-terror alarm became a death knell for liberty, countless lives have been wrecked by deportations, detentions, and presumption of guilt, with no progress in ?national security? to show for it. If we do not rise against this injustice but instead surrender to fear, allowing our government to cripple the spirit of democracy?we?ll know where the greatest damage has been done.

Michelle Chen (cainzine@yahoo.com) is a freelance writer who recently returned from China after spending a year on a Fulbright research fellowship. Her writing has appeared in South China Morning Post, Clamor, ZNet, IntheFray.com, Working for Change, Asia Times and other publications.