Secret Service sued for violating Constitution

Wild Thing
09-24-2003, 06:32 PM
As part of their continuing efforts to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America to better suit their ideological agenda, is the Bush Administration subverting the Secret Service? The ACLU thinks so...

We Make Our Own Rules, Chapter 2375 (http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/nation/6843442.htm)

At an airport in Columbia, S.C., Brett Bursey was arrested for refusing to move to a "protest zone" before Bush's arrival for an event. The area for protesters was more than half a mile from the area where Bush supporters were allowed to congregate. Bursey, who was carrying a sign that said "No War for Oil," was arrested on state and federal criminal charges.

Eleven members of Congress, including John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, have asked the Justice Department to drop the charges against Bursey.

"There is no plausible argument that Mr. Bursey was threatening the president by holding a sign which the president found politically offensive," they said in a May 27 letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft. "We ask that you make it clear that we have no interest as a government in zoning Constitutional freedoms."

Perhaps it's better not to bring this guy directly to Ashcroft's personal attention. Next thing you know, he'll wind up spending the rest of his life in Gitmo with the 80-year old Afghan farmers and their preteen grandchildren.

jfont
09-24-2003, 06:54 PM
there was an incident like this months ago. if this is not subverting our freedom of speech i don't know what is...i hope the aclu straighten asscroft up...

dempsey_k*
09-24-2003, 07:00 PM
What's so wrong about shutting the people you disagree with up ? When the democrats are in office I'm sure you'll appreciate the power to do that.

VO #23
09-24-2003, 07:09 PM
"No War For Oil"? I thought protesters were supposed to be creative? :dunno:

Wild Thing
09-24-2003, 07:18 PM
"No War For Oil"? I thought protesters were supposed to be creative?

Well, they lost the lyric sheet for "One, two, three, four, we don't want your frigging war"!

john g
09-25-2003, 02:33 AM
[if this is not subverting our freedom of speech ]

I believe it is actually Freedom of Assembly, but anyways....

considering the events of the past two years, they should be happy that there is someplace they are allowed to go and not just hauled off to jail

The G Man
09-25-2003, 02:38 AM
Funny. Same stuff (and worse) went on during the Clinton Administration. ACLU didn't seem concerned about it then.

The ACLU also didn't seem concerned about the voting machines in California when Gray Davis won last time either.

dempsey_k*
09-25-2003, 06:16 AM
Funny. Same stuff (and worse) went on during the Clinton Administration. ACLU didn't seem concerned about it then.

The ACLU also didn't seem concerned about the voting machines in California when Gray Davis won last time either.

Silly G Man, the ACLU was made to protect us from Republicans, as we have the united Cheerleading squad to protect us from Democrats.

avfan#21
09-25-2003, 09:57 AM
Is this the same ACLU who is defending NAMBLA? just checking..

Dr Love
09-25-2003, 10:11 AM
Personally, I don't want a moron sporting a "No War For Oil" sign anywhere near me. That said, the guy has a case.

jfont
09-25-2003, 10:48 AM
Is this the same ACLU who is defending NAMBLA? just checking..
the ACLU also represented the KKK and OJ Simpson amoung others...thats nothing new to me...these and the nambla case are all issues of freedom of speech that they were defending...

don't get me wrong...i think men having sex with boys is sickening but...

"For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. "It has to do with communications on a web site, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."

http://www.operationlookout.org/lookoutmag/aclu_to_defend_nambla.htm

avfan#21
09-25-2003, 11:12 AM
somehow, deep in the blackened recesses of my mind, I knew that would drag you out into the open. :D

The key here is that he was outside the protest zone. The sign may have been offensive and I'm sure there are more than the just the prez who are offended by it. We are allowed by the Constitution to peacably assemble, however assembly laws have been in place for years. The fact that the man "assembled" outside of an area designated for protest, and refused to go back there likely was the cause for arrest. Not the sign itself. I can clearly see the spin here. Perhaps secretly it was the sign that made people say, get that sorry SOB out of here, the refusal to protest in the protest zone is what got him hooked up. The Freedom of Speech argument is ludicrous. The ACLU has a hard on for Bush not unlike our own Rick Middleton. They also have the money to burn on stupid ass cases in an attempt to smear Dubya. I'm not the guys biggest fan, but the story was spin and the ACLU is smack in the middle of it. They can make the case for political zones but try holding a love in at Staples Center without the proper credentials and see how many of LAs finest come knocking with expandable batons.

The G Man
09-25-2003, 11:27 AM
Avsfan#21 ... welcome to my "buddy list"

jfont
09-25-2003, 11:38 AM
somehow, deep in the blackened recesses of my mind, I knew that would drag you out into the open. :D

:p

Avsfan#21 ... welcome to my "buddy list"
and i'm not? :mad: i'm hurt G! :p