It is now illegal to wear an anti-Bush shirt in west Virginia

[Otto]

Last Wednesday

A county supervisor who was wearing a Kerry shirt under a button down shirt was ejected from a Bush speech to which he had a VIP pass.

He was ordered to remove his outer shirt, exposing the t-shirt, and was then thrown out.

Now, he does say that he was told that the SS would do the same thing at a Kerry rally but somehow it never seems to happen, at least not that anyone ever seems to mention to the press…

[buttonjockey308]

@eluicidator

Unless you can demonstrate some reason to believe that the t-shirts in question presented some sort of actual threat, your strident insistence that presidential protection always applys, while accurate, is quite perfectly irrelevent.

Irrelevant. Right.

I never said the t-shirts were a threat. Never. I said that the people who wore them, disobeyed the Secret Service. In reality, I believe what happened is that when the people in question removed their outer clothes to reveal the T-shirts, they probably violated the agreement in the small print on the ticket. The whole idea of a ‘lawful ticket’ is null and void if you violate the agreement. Try to bring a professional quality video camera to your next large concert, and out you will go, lawful ticket or not. The SS probably saw them remove their shirts to reveal the propaganda, saw them as protestors, and ordered them to go to the ‘free speech zones’. They didn’t, they were detained, ticketed and released.

Let me repeat. I don’t like that fact. I don’t even believe they should have been removed, but as I have said from post one, the Secret Service has the authority to remove them, and maybe I’m wrong about where the authority came from, perhaps, now that I think of it, rather than title 18 it may have simply come from the back of the ticket, as aforementioned. The two people maybe simply violated an agreement, and when asked to leave, did not do so, and were ticketed by authorities.

FWIW, I doubt Bush even knew about the two until after his speech when he gets the daily security briefing.

@otto

Oh, so now you’re changing your little fantasy, shitstain? Before it was “they have the authority to do this under this linked statute.” Then, after it’s pointed out to you a half-dozen times that the plain language of the statute doesn’t support you you change your line to “the Secret Service Must Be Obeyed.”

You’re a liar who doesn’t have the stones to fess up when your lies are exposed. You’re worse than a four year old. At least they have the decency to pretend to be ashamed when their obvious lies get exposed.

Otto, first, let me say I’m sorry for calling you a fuckstick. Honestly. Namecalling brings nothing to the debate we’re engaged in.

Secondly. I have never deviated from my original statement. If there is an agency like the secret service, their existance and authority to operate goes hand in hand. I say the “Secret Service must be obeyed” because Title 18 in the US Code, bloody well says so. Whether or not I agree with it, is irrelevant. I have in no way been ‘exposed’ my friend. It’s you who suffers from the tunnel vision. You only see what you want to see here. Yeah, ok, Campaign stops aren’t government functions, but oddly, you’ve never shown ME anywhere in that Title 18 statute, that supports your theory, while I, OTOH, have shown you precise examples. Still, as I say, I may be wrong, in that perhaps Title 18 wasn’t even a factor here, maybe the two people violated the agreement that they themselves agreed with by taking possession of the ticket.

I disagree with the 'Free Speech zones" I disagree with Bush on many, many, many levels. I DO NOT believe those people should have ben asked to leave. But they were. They didn’t. Repercussions ensued.

Larry Mudd. Within my above statement, you’ll find the answer to your query. I believe the case would be strong if a) The ticket holders violated their ticket agreement and refused to leave or b) They were ordered to leave by individuals with lawful authority, and again refused.

[mhendo]

@Otto

Now, he does say that he was told that the SS would do the same thing at a Kerry rally but somehow it never seems to happen, at least not that anyone ever seems to mention to the press…

But Otto, that’s just because it’s a big liberal media conspiracy, dontcha know?

[Liberal]

I don’t know about the liberal media, but I’d like to know where the liberals in Congress were on July 8. Diogenes might have exaggerated with his thread title, but not by much, and Bush’s legislative victories don’t help.

[Otto]

@buttonjockey308

I say the “Secret Service must be obeyed” because Title 18 in the US Code, bloody well says so.

You’re still lying. You’re just flat-out lying. Your entire argument rested on Title 18 and your claim that a campaign speech was included under it. In the face of repeated requests for something, anything, that backs up your claim about campaign stops, you not only jettison the claim, you claim you never relied on it to begin with. Title 18 does not say “the Secret Service must be obeyed.” It says that it’s unlawful for people to do certain things at certain locations if those things interfere with the function of government as it relates to the president or other SS protectees.

@buttonjockey308

Yeah, ok, Campaign stops aren’t government functions,

There now, was that really so difficult?

@buttonjockey308

but oddly, you’ve never shown ME anywhere in that Title 18 statute, that supports your theory

What theory? That campaign stops are government functions? That’s not how statutory construction works. There has to be a statutory definition of “government function” that includes “campaign stop” and it’s incumbent on the person claiming that campaign stops are government functions to offer the evidence of it. But since you’ve now admitted that you were wrong in asserting this, I’m happy to let it drop.

@buttonjockey308

Still, as I say, I may be wrong, in that perhaps Title 18 wasn’t even a factor here, maybe the two people violated the agreement that they themselves agreed with by taking possession of the ticket.

And here we have yet another unsubstantiated claim on your part. Let’s see a copy of this agreement then.

For that matter, let’s see anything that backs up your assertion that the SS has the authority to remove people based on their peaceful expression of a political belief other than that of the speaker.

[Liberal]

From this cite:

http://www.fact-index.com/u/un/united_states_secret_service_1.html

The Service as a rule will remove protestors who disrupt events where the President is speaking. At times the Service has removed persons who make a show of disrespect even when the behavior is not overtly disruptive. In one instance, the Service was involved in removing graduates from the Ohio State University graduation who had organized to turn their backs on the speaker, George W. Bush. In most cases, actual arrests are made by local law enforcement.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

by milroyj

The United Kingdom of the United States, Great Britain, and Northern Ireland?

And what a United Kingdom it would be! Something like this occurred to me, long about June 20, when the whole world was buzzing about the dismantling of the CPA. What if the independence we’d received from King George had represented, to the British Empire, merely a “handover of sovereignty”?
Back to the OP, you know, I’ve only recently found out what the shirts in question actually said: Love America, HATE BUSH. I have therefore, only recently come to the conclusion that the Ranks are pretty stupid.

Call me out of date, tell me my collar’s still too wide, but purposefully spreading hate on July 4th is like putting your chocolate in my peanut butter. It simply isn’t done. And the first time you come across an angry gin joint, an alley or a city park, some place boiling with Beam and Bud and brawling over the flag, you’ve seen enough for a lifetime.

Therefore, unfortunately, this Rank tale is no longer a matter of Free Speech, it’s a matter of Stupid Asses. In fact, in testament to my hipness, I must in closing say they were being massive trolls. And unlike the county supervisor in Otto’s example, the Ranks are totally weak.

[mhendo]

@buttonjockey308

In reality, I believe what happened is that when the people in question removed their outer clothes to reveal the T-shirts, they probably violated the agreement in the small print on the ticket. The whole idea of a ‘lawful ticket’ is null and void if you violate the agreement. Try to bring a professional quality video camera to your next large concert, and out you will go, lawful ticket or not.

Bolding mine.

You mean, you guess. Unless you happen to know exactly what the conditions of the event were. I’m betting you don’t have them written there in front of you.

Perhaps you missed this article, linked earlier in the thread, which says:

Those who attended Bush’s speech were required to have tickets that were distributed by various employers in the area and by the office of Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.

Those who applied for tickets were required to supply their names, addresses, birth dates, birthplaces and Social Security numbers.

A two-page document given to ticket holders said they were prohibited from bringing certain items to the event, including: weapons, video-recording equipment, food, beverages, umbrellas, signs and banners.T-shirts, political buttons and lapel pins were not on the list of prohibited items.

So, given that they apparently did not violate the very specific rules required of attendees, tell me again why they should have been evicted.

Also, i want to take up an earlier argument again:

@buttonjockey308

Bullshit. People defy the law all the time. People are arrested all the time. Charges are dropped all the time.

Yes, and one of the reasons that charges are dropped is that sometimes the arresting officers overstep their authority. As this press release says:

Charleston Municipal Judge Carole Bloom dismissed the charges after a city attorney informed the court that the law enforcement officers had no authority to charge the Ranks with trespassing at the Statehouse. According to city officials, the arresting officers were acting under the direction of the Secret Service.

So, the city’s own lawyers decided that the police had overstepped their authority.

Of course, once this decision was made, the law enforcement groups all tried to pass the buck:

Charleston’s mayor says the officers acted under the direction of the Secret Service.

However, a Secret Service spokesman says the Secret Service did not order the arrests.

Interestingly enough, the local police said that the Secret Service had asked that no political t-shirts of any kind (for or against Bush) be allowed at the event. But somehow hundreds of people wearing pro-Bush and pro-Cheney shirts were allowed to remain inside.

Carpenter said local officials were acting on instructions from the Secret Service, which he said asked that no signs or shirts of any kind, for Bush or against him, be allowed.

Jeff Rank, 28, said event staffers approached him and his wife about 45 minutes before the president was to speak. He said he wasn’t sure whether they worked for the White House, the president’s re-election campaign, or for a local entity.

The Ranks were seated between the podium and a media stand, about 10 to 15 rows of people away from where the president would speak. The back of Nicole Rank’s T-shirt said “Love America, Hate Bush.” The back of her husband’s read “Regime Change Starts at Home.”

“They said ‘you need to either take those shirts off or leave,’” Jeff Rank said of the staffers. **“And we said ‘people around us have Bush-Cheney T-shirts, pro-Bush T-shirts. Why can’t we express our views?’” **

The staffers left, but 10 or 15 minutes later two officers came up and told the Ranks to “cover up, take them off, or leave completely,” Jeff Rank said.

(San Antonio Express-News, 16 July 2004, p. 8a. I can’t give a link, as this is from a Lexis/Nexis search and requires a subscription)

Bolding mine. It appears, from this, that the Secret Service may have an “official” policy of non-discrimination, but that in reality it engages in a “nudge and wink” arrangement with local law enforcement, whereby only Bush’s opponents are removed from events. Similar occurences at other Bush events, being traced by the ACLU, support this theory. And, if the next quote is any indication, it seems to wax and wane depending on the pressure placed on the SS by civil liberties groups, and on the exigencies of Bush’s stump schedule:

In September, the American Civil Liberties Union filed for a federal injunction barring the Secret Service from telling local police to keep protesters out of sight and earshot of President Bush’s public appearances. The case was dismissed after the Secret Service agreed with the ACLU, and the dozens of incidents like the Ranks’ slowed to a trickle, said ACLU lawyer Witold Walczak.

But as Bush has begun making more visits to battleground election states, the number of complaints has picked back up, Walczak said, and the ACLU is determining whether it needs to take the Bush administration back to court.

(Charleston Gazette, 16 July 2004, p. P1C. Another Lexis/Nexis source)

Finally, on a slightly different issue, i just want to clear up finally the belief that Nicole Rank was fired from her FEMA job. From the previously-cited San Antonio Express-News article:

Nicole Rank, 30, said Thursday that a FEMA official told her July 6 that her services no longer were needed on the West Virginia job, citing the July 4 incident.

Niki Edwards, a regional spokeswoman for FEMA, said agency policy dictates that employees sent to disaster areas be released from assignments if they’re arrested. They can return once the matter is cleared up, and Edwards said Rank would get other assignments.

**“She is definitely not terminated,” Edwards said. **

Edwards said Rank wouldn’t be recalled to the West Virginia job because her position had been filled.

Nicole Rank said nobody from FEMA has advised her of her status. She met with her supervisor Monday to go over “administrative formalities,” including her employment evaluation, and said she received a positive job review.

Seems to me that standard procedure was followed.