White House Manual Details How to Deal With Protesters

White House Manual Details How to Deal With Protesters

www.washingtonpost.com

A White House manual that came to light recently gives presidential advance staffers extensive instructions in the art of "deterring potential protestors" from President Bush's public appearances around the country....
...But that does not mean the White House is against dissent -- just so long as the president does not see it.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is completely insane and unamerican!!

Reading articles like this make me want to find a way to become a noisy voice of dissent at a bush function.

This attitude towards protestors just shows how little respect for the Consitution this admisistration has!

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

What can you expect from a man that consider himself above everybody else even when he was elected by the people or that is what we has been told.

Our nation is experiencing the beginning of what a real dictatorship feels like a very well manipulated one at that.

WHAT??? No shooting? No death squads? No assassins to deter protestors? What kind of dictator has Bush become? I expected more. Well...I meant others expected more from him.

Shooting and death squads are not necessary, they know that the opposition is naive and deluded enough to think there is still some possibility of peaceful change.

Believe me, if they actually thought that protesters were a threat to their personal power and to their Empire, we'd see the long knives drawn very quickly.

Now I know why I don't subscribe to the Washington Post. I'll take any and all bets that all Presidential administrations have had a manual similiar to this one. I went to a rally that Clinton was speaking at wearing my "Remember the USS Cole" shirt and was quickly turned away and I'm quite sure that if I were to try to attend a fundraiser for Hilliary wearing a "Who killed Ron Brown?" shirt I wouldn't be allowed to get near the place.

I'm not taking sides here, just trying to level the playing field.

"Individuals should have the right to express their opinion to the president, even if it's not a favorable one."

We do. We even are able to exercise that right rather powerfully every 2 years.

Problem is most protesters today aren't protesting anything. They're just rabid dogs whining about what they're told to whine about by other radical elements.

I do my part. They hang their stupid signs out into the middle of the street... I sideswipe it out of their hands. Simple.

reply to post by JIMC5499


You bring up a very valid point, that prior admins probably had similar policies. However, the question arises: what are they so scared of, that they don't want to address the protestors face to face? Are our leaders unable to take criticisms? If so, why not? How do you get to be in an elected position and not have the ability to debate, or at least address, dissenting opinions? Are our elected officials not public servants? Then when they make public appearances, they should at least listen to whatever the public has to say, whether they agree or not. To define "protest zones" that are out of the preseident's sight seems unamerican and at odds with the freedoms accorded us in the bill of rights. This country has a long tradition of open political criticism. It would be a real shame to see anything happen to our ability to openly question our leaders decisions.

reply to post by keeb333


..."long history of open political critic?".........explain that to David Koresh!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by astmonster


Ahem,

criticism != stockpiling weapons

Last time I checked, anyway. Criticism invokes that mightiest of proverbs, you know, that one about the pen being mightier than the sword. I guess Koresh had not heard that one.

**Qualifying Statement** I do not believe the events in Waco were handled properly by the .gov, even if Koresh was a nutjub.

One of things that this present administration took upon itself was to take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents, so it has been in the agenda of Mr. George Bush our president to make sure that more of our constitutional rights are scrutinized under his executive powers, all under the issue of fighting terrorism.

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.”

www.amconmag.com...

Even before 9/11 the agenda against our constitutional rights was on the table already when it comes to protestors against the government agendas.

Very interesting that already the steps were put in place. . .

Since 2002 is well known that the president wherever it goes Free speech zones are to be located out of site and out of mine

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech.

As the years has gone by and the war on terror was established our freedom of speech has been relegated to Blog sites, chat rooms, web sites and Free speech zones. All monitor by big brother.

Modern Dictatorships doesn’t have to be with firing squats, or killings civilians on site, in a Nation like ours that portrait the freedoms as per constitutional rights has been relegated as gift granted by the government as long as you are inby government established Free speech zone as far from the president as can possibly be.

Perhaps this the American the younger generation is growing and been lure to live by, But is not the American I learned to love and grew in.



[edit on 22-8-2007 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043

our constitutional rights are scrutinized under his executive powers, all under the issue of fighting terrorism.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by marg6043]

Marg6043, I whole heartedly agree with what you're saying.

My question is this: if our government is promoting their agenda by instilling fear in the people, are they not, by definition, a terrorist organization? How is Uncle Sam's brand of fearmongering any different from the islamofascists?

If the government wants to fight terrorism, maybe they should start at home.

Originally posted by keeb333
This is completely insane and unamerican!!

Not at all. It makes perfect sense that the Secret Service would want to keep potential violent protesters away from the president.

It doesn't matter if it's a dem or a republican in office ... there should NOT be protesters near the POTUS. It would be too easy for someone to get a shot off ... or to disrupt the POTUS's right to freedom of speech.

Yes .. the POTUS has a right to freedom of speech too.

Keeping protesters away from the president doesn't interfere with the protesters right of freedom of speech. They still have that right. They just can't use it near POTUS.

Perfect sense.

Originally posted by keeb333

If the government wants to fight terrorism, maybe they should start at home.

This administration has been doing that for quite a while, we have a president that has signed more executive orders using executives powers than any other and has abuse that power also.

He is fighting American citizens that disagree with his political agendas and any other nation in the world.

You are with us or against us.

When you have a government system that has not checks and balances like the first 6 years of Bush rule this is what we will have to deal for many years and presidents to come.

Dictatorship powers are not limited to one dicator per say but any other leader with the same line of thinking that have the doors open to abuse power.

Originally posted by marg6043
we have a president that has signed more executive orders using executives powers than any other ...

Executive Orders

No, he hasn't.

Bush 43 has signed 245 Executive Orders.
Clinton signed 363 Executive Orders.
Reagan signed 380 Executive Orders
Carter signed 319 Executive Orders.
Johnson signed 324 Executive Orders.
Kennedy signed 214 in just his short few years.
Eisenhower signed 486 Executive Orders.
Truman signed 896 Executive Orders.

I didn't add up the other presidents.
They could be more or less than those.

"Ill run this country by executive order if I have to" ... BILL CLINTON




[edit on 8/22/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
No, he hasn't.[/quote

He still have two more years Flyers he will match and surpass.

"Ill run this country by executive order if I have to" ... BILL CLINTON

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98) . . . Bush

""I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.


You know Flyers all politicians are all the same but this one has gone to the extreme.

Originally posted by marg6043
He still have two more years Flyers he will match and surpass.

He has one year and five months.

His Executive Order numbers are seriously lower than the other presidents.
His numbers for almost 8 years are even far lower than even those who served just four years. My god ... look at Kennedy's numbers ... and he was just in for a couple of years! Not even one full 4 year term.

Originally posted by marg6043
all politicians are all the same

Yep. They are all pretty bad.

but this one has gone to the extreme.

You are assuming something from him that hasn't happened. You really can't yell at him for 'signing more executive orders' than any other president ... when in fact he hasn't.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Yes, violent protesters should be kept out, but how is displaying a sign or wearing a t-shirt violent?

And, yes the pres has the right to free speech, but he also has a DUTY to the American public to listen to what WE have to say. As long as his yes-men and shills are surrounding him, keeping out the unwelcome masses, he will never truly know that most Americans think he's doing a poor job. Where our system breaks down is that he actually lost the popular vote and still won the presidency. The vote should have been our message to him saying get out!
Too bad he's deaf to the public, and he keeps himself that way by policies such as this protest zone baloney.

Originally posted by keeb333
how is displaying a sign or wearing a t-shirt violent?

A sign is just rude. It blocks the view for people behind the person holding up the sign. A t-shirt doesn't block the view and isn't violent. (A 'smart' assassin would not be wearing a t-shirt with a political statement anyways.)

I don't have a problem with someone wearing a t-shirt with a political statement. However, when we went to one of the POTUS speeches (we've been to a few), we were told ahead of time not to wear anything political. ALL POTUS' follow this .. not just Bush 43.

he will never truly know that most Americans think

ALL upper level politicians know exactly what Americans think. They have highly paid pollsters who tell them.

he actually lost the popular vote and still won the presidency.

No, he didn't lose the popular vote. And even if he did .. so what? Our system is set up the way it is for a good reason.

Too bad he's deaf to the public,

Like ALL upper level polliticians he knows EXACTLY what the American people think and say about him and his policies. Also - like ALL upper level politicians he will pick and choose which ones he will respond to. The POTUS has access to information that we don't (and can't) have. Sometimes he (or she ... Hillary in 2009) will have to make decisions that the public doesn't understand or agree with .. based on the information he (or she) has that we don't.

Also - in some cases it is actually US that isn't listening to POTUS.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
You are assuming something from him that hasn't happened. You really can't yell at him for 'signing more executive orders' than any other president ... when in fact he hasn't.

If he keeps signing them to give himself dictatorship power I hope he doesn't sign anymore.

He has already done enough with the ones he has to do whatever he wishes.

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency]

“National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”

Nothing more than giving himself dictatorial powers under martial law, but he will never ever do something like that. . . Right. Just like Clinton never got to rule American under executive powers.

I wonder which one will be worst, Flyers.

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

www.globalresearch.ca...

You think Bush will do a great dictator? he got the tools already at hand.

You are right Flyers he may not have signed as many as other president by he has signed the right ones.



[edit on 22-8-2007 by marg6043]