My candidate of choice? You may want to ask some of the conservatives around here if Bush is my candidate of choice.
No, he didn’t. Reingold effectively “yadda yaddas” what he said. He says, I called Bush a bigger asshole than bin Laden. Things started getting more heated and the rhetoric was escalated then yadda yadda yadda I got a visit from the FBI. Uh-huh. Quite frankly, I’ve probably said more provacative things about GWB than he’s a bigger asshole than bin Laden on these very message boards and I’m pretty sure that Diogenes has. I’ve never gotten a visit from the FBI or the USSS and I don’t think Diogenes has either.
Quite frankly, you have to say some pretty out there stuff to get a visit from the FBI and I want to know what he said. Reingold doesn’t tell us what he said - he just says, “Oh, some stuff about oil and Bush and bin Laden.”
“Well chief, this one guy was investigated thoroughly but cleared of any wrongdoing … But let’s lean on him some more, because he was associating! With a guy who made a piece of art we don’t approve of! And even though we couldn’t get anything to stick for that other thing, we can still sweat him a while … You know. Just to show him who his daddy is.”
(Assuming of course there was anything to “worry about” in the first place, which I would think it be ever so clear to everyone there was not.)
What always strikes me about the US, and which is I think something that many outsiders observe but which Americans may not necessarily see all the time, is how outright paranoid the US is. I am well aware that the position of the US as the world’s most powerful and richest country gives them cause to be paranoid, but the degree to which this paranoia is bred into the American psyche is startling. It’s interesting when reading this discussion to see how this comes through.
That said, I definitely won’t stand firm by my assessment that this was just an intimidation tactic, since I didn’t know the degree of paranoia inherent in the Secret Service’s mandate. But I still bet there’s an element of that here. And that’s where I’m truly saddened with those posting that this is just their job, because I don’t think that that is at all reasonable and desirable. If it truly is the SS’s job to be that paranoid that they investigate like the KGB (if not actually emulate) any perceived threat, and this falls into that category, then I really think that’s a sad thing for a free and liberal democracy like the US. Because really, honestly, in what reasonable way can this art exhibit and any of the art contained therein be perceived as a legitimate threat? Really.
And before someone says “the SS wouldn’t know if it’s a reasonable threat without investigating”, remember that’s a slippery slope to suspecting anyone. If this is reasonable, then indeed why not a poster on a message board? Why not a college student with some stupid Marxist newspaper? Why not anyone? I think the principles of liberty and freedom of expression should come first. I’d love to know what a libertarian has to say about this, like Liberal.
And of course with all that said, I’ll reiterate my agreement that this is probably nothing serious in the end (but still sad).
Good thing I’m open to changing my mind or I may have to commit suicide after reading this. :dubious:
What is the debate here? If Kerry had won, and an artist was showing a painting of Kerry with a bulls-eye over his head and the letters “KOS” (Kill on Sight) beneath, the Secret Service would investigate it. The Secret Service is a non-partisan group who’s only interest is in the protection of the president.
However there seems to be two underlying ideas in this thread that is debatable.
1- That artistic expression is sacrosanct.
2- Art should only be judged artistically, even political art.
No argument there, but I think that, when it comes to the USSS (thanks for the heads up on that, manhattan), that paranoia is actually justified. There are a lot of people who want to kill the president. Any president. Most of them are too crazy to ever get close, but sometimes one gets lucky. It’s understandable, I think, that the USSS takes every threat seriously, no matter how unlikely.
Well, I think you could argue that there’s an element of intimidation inherent in any law enforcement agency, the secret service included. I’m sure they would really, really prefer it if people did not make any idle threats on the presidents life, if for no other reason than it creates more work for them, and who wants that? But there are a few things to keep in mind, here. First, this is very much a non-partisan intimidation. This wasn’t a case of the Bush administration leaning on people who criticize them. This was the USSS doing what they always do, no matter who’s in the Oval Office or what party put him there. And, considering that they’ve always done this, the argument that it will have some sort of chilling effect on free speech is ridiculous on that face of things. They’ve been doing this for years, and yet we still have as much free speech as always. Which brings us to the third point that needs to be considered: intimidation only really works when they have something to intimidate you with. The KGB was intimidating because they could fucking kill you if they wanted. The worst the USSS can do is show up in their dark suits and sunglasses and funny little earpieces and ask you if you really meant it when you said the president should be disembowled and hung from the capitol dome by his guts. And so far as I know, even if you say “Yes,” they still can’t actually do anything to you until they get some evidence that you’re actually going to try to do it.
Yeah, they investigate them, too. Someone posted a “threat” to the president on her blog and got called on by the service. Here’s a pretty good essay about it. Note that Eric Burns is very much a leftist, a writer, and a huge supporter of free speech. So am I, for that matter, although I don’t write very much any more (and never did so professionally). And I agree that the principle of liberty and freedom of expression has paramount importance in a democratic society. But this investigation in no way infringes or restricts that. It’s just a sensible precaution that allows people to continue to say whatever they like, while still making sure our head of state is protected as much as possible.
Because it’s got a piece of art that could be construed as a call for people to try and assassinate the president. What else would you call a painting showing someone putting a gun to the president’s head and titling it “Patriot Act.” Isn’t it a very good possibility that a person is saying that a true patriot would be someone willing to kill the tyrant?
Let’s go up the line. Surely if I go around telling everyone that I’m planning on killing the president, I should be investigated, right? What if I just go around trying to convince other people to kill the president? Is that reason for the USSS to come investigate? What if I just stand on the corner and pass out pamphlets encouraging people to assassinate the president? Does that merit an investigation? What if I just put up a couple of posters that say “A good American would kill President Bush!”…should that be investigated?
You see where I’m going with this. The Secret Service’s job is to be paranoid. That doesn’t mean they get to go around and break the law, but there’s nothing wrong with interviewing someone who makes what could be reasonably construed as a threat against the president. Because if they dismiss it and that person winds up killing the president, then they’ve massively blown it.
Did the person on the message board make a threat against the president? If he did then, yes, if not, the no.
Why would the college student with a Marxist paper be investigated? Simply because he has a Marxist paper? No. And he wouldn’t be. But if he puts in an editorial that says it’s the duty of the proletariate to assassinate this capitalist running dog named GW Bush, then yes, he should be.
I fail to see your slippery slope.
I don’t think you’re open to changing your mind. I think you’re determined to reinforce your pre-existing notion that the country south of you is inferior in some way.
Yeah, and if the mafia visits your new store and does the same thing, there’d be no cause for concern either, is there?
“Oh, don’t mind us, just lookin’ around at your new place here. Really nice, I like. Sure wouldn’t want anything to happen to it, knowhutImean? Thanks fer cooperatin’, have a nice day…”
I guess I have a hard time understanding what the problem is with the Secret Service investigating someone or something. OK, so they shouldn’t investigate harmless political art installations. Um, but how can the Secret Service determine whether it is a harmless political art installation or something else unless they investigate it?
They have to determine if they guy is a dangerous loon or a garden-variety non-dangerous kook. In order to do that they have to investigate him. Turns that the result of the investigation is that he’s just a non-dangerous kook. Case over.
How exactly can the Secret Service determine that someone is a harmless kook exercizing their first amendment rights to free speech and free association and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, or a nutter who sleeps with his sniper rifle under his pillow if they can’t investigate?
Wait, I know. Perhaps they should perform an investigation to determine whether an investigation is warranted. If the investigation determines that there is no need to investigatate, then they won’t investigate. However, if the investigation reveals the need to investigate, then and only then will the Secret Service be allowed to investigate. Wouldn’t that compromise satisfy both the law-and order conservative types and the civil-rights liberal types?
rjung, when the Secret Service kneecaps a loudmouth/artist over nothing but threatening words, you let me know and I’ll start agreeing with you. Until then, let’s just say the mafia has a history of unnecessary violence and the Secret Service doesn’t.
Now that is just a silly analogy. The mafia is feared for their reputation of casual violence, and to compare them to the Secret Service does your argument a disservice.
You know what the irony is? If you had called the FBI after the the mafiosi left and told them that you were threatened by the Mafia, they would come down and:
take a look around
write down your name and address
say “Well, looks like there’s nothing to be concerned about, thanks for your cooperation.”
leave
Would you have been intimidated by the FBI as well, or is there such a thing as context?
I guess I don’t see how the lack of physical action makes everything peachy-keen, being one of those touchy-feely folks who thinks threats and intimidation aren’t welcome from anybody.
It’s only a threat if you think it’s going to go further than talk. If the mafia comes into my new store and starts chatting it up about how “nice” it is and how they hope it “all works out for me” I will be intimidated. If my neighbor comes in and chats up the same way, I won’t be intimidated. Why? Because the mafia has a history of extortion and violent attacks, and my neighbor doesn’t.
Does the Secret Service have a history of arresting people because they speak out against the president? Not as far as I know.
The Service is responding to a complaint. They must actually show up and look around in order to deem the complaint without merit. Their only other option is to ignore the complaint entirely sight unseen, which is ridiculous to expect of law enforcement.