Bursting Bush's Bubble, One ACLU Case At A Time

Photograph copyright © 2008 Rebecca Wilson

President Bush's first short journey as president was an uncomfortable one for him, and it appears he and those around him have done everything in their power -- and also a few things not within their constitutional power -- to ensure he never has to experience such humiliation again.

Immediately after being sworn in for his first term as president, Bush got into his limousine for the inaugural parade from the Capitol to the White House. This is traditionally a triumphant event, complete with cheering crowds. Some presidents even walk the route, since it is not that great a distance. But in January of 2001, the sidewalks of Pennsylvania Avenue were lined with 20,000 protesters who were angry with the outcome of the election. Even from within his speeding limo, Bush doubtlessly heard people screaming at him and saw the obscene gestures made... and he could not have failed to notice that at least one person hit his vehicle with a well-thrown egg.

Thus the "Bush bubble" was born. From this point on, protesters were to be safely shunted out of sight of Bush's motorcade, into Orwellian "free speech zones." There's only one problem with this tidy and sanitized arrangement -- that pesky First Amendment. It inconveniently guarantees Americans the right to peaceably assemble, to free speech, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. These three bedrock rights cover anyone who wants to peaceably stand on a public road and hold up a sign for the president to see -- no matter what the sign says. Outside of an outright threat ("I'm going to kill Bush," for instance), your right as a citizen to do so is absolute.

At least it's supposed to be. It should come as no surprise that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is fighting yet again to preserve this right. They've done so in two other instances which have made news during Bush's tenure. The first was the case of the "Denver Three" who were kicked out of a Bush event because of a "No More Blood For Oil" bumper sticker on their car (this case is still ongoing). The second of these cases was in West Virginia, where two people were arrested for the anti-Bush T-shirts they were wearing. In this case, the local town apologized, and the Bush administration settled the case just before it went to court by paying the plaintiffs $80,000 of our tax money -- assumably because they knew they were likely to lose the case.

Today in New Mexico, the ACLU has filed a third such case in federal court, on behalf of a number of people who were discriminated against solely for the messages on their signs. The event in question was a fundraising lunch for Senator Pete Domenici held last August, which took place in the private home of an Albuquerque suburb's mayor. The mayor's house is on an upscale dirt-lined residential street of large houses sitting on even larger semi-rural lots. The motorcade for President Bush was to approach the mayor's driveway from the north.

 

Photograph copyright © 2008 Rebecca Wilson

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Jeanne Pahls (co-founder of the grassroots Albuquerque organization Stop The War Machine), explained what happened next:

"I was standing slightly to the north of where the president's luncheon would be. One officer had told me that it appeared the president would be coming from the north. As the time for the arrival of the president neared, a police officer approached and told me in a rather angry way that I needed to move to the south (which was a good ways down the street, away from where I thought the president's car would be). I moved, and was surprised to see pro-Bush demonstrators a few minutes later standing not only near where I had been, but closer to the luncheon entrance than I had been standing! No one asked them to move."

According to ACLU lawyer Catherine Crump, the group which was asked to move was a "peaceful, nonthreatening group" composed of "grandmothers, children, war veterans, and school teachers." The police forced them to a spot 150 yards away (a football field and a half's distance), where they were stationed behind police cruisers and mounted policemen -- which effectively and quite conveniently blocked any possible view of the protestors from the motorcade. The group which was allowed to stay near the mayor's driveway consisted of seven children and two adults. They held up a large homemade sign which read: "God Bless George Bush! We pray for you!"

If this weren't enough to show the blatantly illegal discrimination on the part of the police, what happened next should remove all doubt. From the text of the legal complaint itself:

"Prior to the President's arrival, Alice Lloyd drove up to [plaintiffs] Ms. Wilson, Ms. Moffitt, and other individuals on Rio Grande Blvd. in a beige Chevrolet Tahoe with her 13-year old daughter. Ms. Lloyd offered some of the plaintiffs a place to stand and to hold up their signs. The place was a property belonging to Ms. Lloyd's friend, and was approximately the third property north of Mayor Abraham's estate on Rio Grande Blvd. Because the woman's property was north of the Mayor's driveway, plaintiffs would have been more visible to the President as the President's motorcade later arrived from the north side of Rio Grande. In addition, plaintiffs would not have been blocked from the President's view by the parked police cars and officers on horseback. The BCSD [Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department], however, informed Ms. Lloyd that she had to move her car immediately, and refused to allow some of the plaintiffs to go north with Ms. Lloyd to the woman's property."

This might have been written off as merely a case of overzealous local police, if it weren't already an established pattern at Bush events. Beginning with Bush's first inaugural -- for the first time -- the crowd had their belongings searched while entering the parade route. And although there was a federal court order to search everyone equally, people who were obviously protesters were searched thoroughly, while people with tickets to the bleachers were waved through with bags unsearched.

This pattern of behavior was later codified into the "Presidential Advance Manual," a White House handbook for dealing with presidential visits. In a previous court case, the ACLU obtained a heavily-redacted copy of this document (only 6 out of 103 pages were not completely blanked-out in the copy the White House was forced to provide). Crump explains, "Whatever evidence we gather about the policy helps us in all of our cases. One of the best things to come out of our previous litigation was uncovering the Presidential Advance Manual, which explains to event workers on the ground how to minimize the impact protesters are able to have and how to keep them away from the President -- and, equally important, the media." From page 34 of this manual, a section titled "Preparing For Demonstrators" helpfully explains the official Bush policy:

"There are several ways the advance person can prepare a site to minimize demonstrators. First, as always, work with the Secret Service and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route."

This is why this case, and others like it, are important. Because even though the policy is carried out by local police, they're not the ones creating the policy itself. As Crump points out, although the suit currently only names two local police departments, "We've also sued five John Doe defendants. In other cases, the orders to discriminate against protesters based on their political views have come directly from the White House. We have reason to believe that the White House may be responsible for what happened to our clients in New Mexico. But we don't know what the names of the federal officials involved are, so we've sued them as John Does for now. We will use litigation to learn their names."

The facts of the case are plain. It was a peaceful demonstration. There was no violence. Nobody was arrested. The police had no justification whatsoever for their actions. Two groups of people standing on a public street wanted to personally speak their message to the president. One group was allowed to do so. One group was not. The only difference between the two was their respective messages. This is exactly the sort of abuse the Bill of Rights was enacted to prevent.

Peter Simonson, the Executive Director of the ACLU of New Mexico, spoke of the principles involved in the case: "Law enforcement gave Bush supporters front row seats and made those who disagreed with the President stand behind a wall of cars and horses. Officials went to great lengths to shield the president from viewing the people who disagreed with him, which just isn't how a free society should operate."

Plaintiff Pahls summed it up nicely: "I don't understand why I was not allowed to stand where President Bush could see my sign, but the pro-Bush demonstrators were permitted. Do we live in a country where the police shield the president completely from any opinion that is not in agreement with his own? The events of that day suggest that this is the case."

 

[The ACLU has set up a convenient page on their website to cover news from all these types of cases: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/protest_president.html]

[ACLU lawyer Catherine Crump has her own article up on Huffington Post today about the case.]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[nurseattorney]

The Secret Service and the local cops know that they are violating the 1st Amendment when they keep protestors away from Bush, but they think their job is to keep Bush and his local organizers happy. If protestors are swept up or herded away from the presidents motorcade just before he passes, and then they are released without charges 15 minutes later, Bush and friends are happy. The protestors get an apology which costs no one anything. No one gets sued. The only effect is to supress free speech, but try to sue for a violation of that Constitutional right in a court system stuffed with right wing Bush appointees.

[geobushono]

"they hate us for our freedom"

[Listen2me]

Republicans: They hate us for our freedoms.

[ArmandAllegro]

That's why I love the "Freeway Blogger."

[FarmworkerLawyer]

While I agree that this is a typically arrogant and unconstitutional thing to do, at least these folks haven't been convicted of a crime. In South Carolina, Columbia, specifically, one Bush I appointed federal judge found a demonstrator guilty of violating the "security zone" because he wanted to display his anti-Shrub sign. Even though there were literally dozens of Shrub fertilizers with their happy face signs who actually did pose a security threat and a threat to the airline passengers, Judge Joe Anderson decided that Shrub's sensibilities outweighed the Constitution. Be afraid, be VERY afraid. And don't come to South Carolina where you can go to jail for offending a Shrub.

[seted]

I've got to be honest, I'm still learning how to be a good person after years of programing (mostly from family) and being taught the language of Newspeak. I used to think that the ACLU mostly went around creating problems where none existed before, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the guy who sued because he couldn't be a Hooter's Girl. But articles like this make me realize we need organizations like this if just to point out to us we were done wrong even when we didn't realize they had taken something from us.
My voice deserves to be heard whether they like the sound or content of my words, Being in power assures them that I will have to listen to them. Anyway, thanks ACLU.

[GoodwithWood]

If the UCLA wins then the repubs will just start hiring Blackwater Mercenaries.

[ultomatt]

This all just underlines what we already know, Bush is a coward. His tender sensibilities can't take the stress of seeing people who don't adore him, and thus, the Constitution is null and void.

[helonias]

Well some folks just are more equal then others.

[realpolitic]

Why do local police follow directives to shield the President from all criticism? Is Bush so thin-skinned that he would faint if he saw a few protest banners. He should know how unpopular his policies are with the American people. Local police should not be involved with monitoring what is said on placards and then forcibly moving dissenters. These actions move us closer to being a police state. It is both sad and funny how Bush always trumpets democracy and every action he takes diminishes it. Then it is sadder yet that all this irony is beyond his grasp.

[JoDeeVa]

A note on the lighter side of dissent and protest..
In 1968, my grandmother and I, who were DEFINITELY NOT NIXON SUPPORTERS, decked ourselves out in Nixon regalia and schlepped off to see him and Pat at the Santa Monica Civic. We scoped out the area, bantering with protesters on both sides and using our feminine wiles, cozied up to those manning a broadcast truck outside. We found out where they would be entering and exiting, went in to hear the rhetoric and left before he finished, stationing ourselves at the appointed spot for their hasty exit.

I will never forget the look on Pat's face as they both, surrounded by their posse, approached, thanking us for our support..as my kickass Nana lit into them about how she MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT a supporter and proceeded to explain why. I don't know if they were stunned or what, but they actually stood there listening and then politely, really!..thanked us for coming, as they made their way to the car. I still have a picture of Dick and Pat, waving at us as they sped off in their topless limousine, thanks to those guys in the broadcast truck!

The best defense can often be really good offense. These days, subterfuge and some funtime monkey-wrenching might be the best defense, ie..anti-Bush wolves in pro-Bush sheep clothing! Times being what they are, the outcome may not be quite the same as ours, but still..whipping off the disguise at the perfectly-timed moment might be exactly the ticket to challenge the supporters and police, as well as making your point, however brief the encounter! Being a pacifist at heart, especially after my own experiences with violent protests during the tumultuous Vietnam era, I tend to seek the path of least resistance. Still, my warrior spirit served me well during the WTO protests here in the Pacific Northwest, when there was very little recourse and no time for fun. But, I never forget that just sometimes, being a kickass Nana can do the trick(y Dicky)!

[TommyMcCarthy]

Excellent article (no surprise...check the byline.)

Couple of things:
A little off point...but... you've got to be a real dumbshit or have a death wish to THROW SOMETHING at the President and expect that to be okay. The secret service takes that s**t pretty seriously, and I don't feel anyone's rights, including my own, are infringed because they do.

Love the phrase "Orwellian free speech zones"!!
I've long thought that the object of moving protesters away from an event was not so much to protect GW from seeing them, and possibly finding out how truly REVILED he is by the citizenry (he can be pretty dense but I doubt he's missed THAT!)....­...No...se­ems to me the primary motivation is to keep dissenters away from the all-inmportant media lenses. (control the story!)

I KNOW this was what I saw first-hand when a number of us went up to Portland awhile back to wear funny hats, hold up banners, and otherwise express our love and admiration for "Big Swingin'" Dick Cheney when he came to town.

Indeed, the "aproved" protest area was BLOCKS away from the hotel but the motorcade zoomed right by us. The advance people just didn't want Cheney seen being hustled past hundreds of angry protesters. (Control the story!)
Of course, you know Portland (well, maybe you don't)...suffice it to say the protest WAS the story. Being too old to outrun most policemen now, we stayed put....but God bless those hundreds of kids who didn't!

I've been kicking in to the ACLU since I was a kid. It really points up just how Successful the wingnut/talk radio campaign has been over the last 25 yrs. or so, that I've personally known DOZENS of otherwise intelligent people who actually believe the crap spewed about the organization.

We know better. Pretty simple really.....If I want a 1st amendmant for me....I've got to defend it for YOU even if I disagree. This priciple is on display daily here at Huffpo. and other blogs like it.

Great post Chris!!...­..........­..........­..........­...tm

[MACS]

"To announce that there must be NO criticism of the pResident, or that we are to stand by the pResident right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is MORALLY trteasonable to the American Public."

Theodore Roosevelt (Nov 1918)

[fedup07]

This is really old news. Bush (and his minions) have been blocking out the general public (and inserting their own people) the ENTIRE time Bush has been in office. And the media??? What a frickin joke -they REFUSE to cover any protests or anything. The US media should be shut down. They are just as corrupt and criminal as BushCo.

I was floored the first time I saw the protesters on Bushie's inaugural parade -the mainstream media NEVER showed even a minute of it!! SHAME SHAME SHAME on the US government and the US media for all the evils it has committed!!

[desmirl]

Bush, and the Republicans, will not stop abusing the rights of Americans (and the Constitution) until they are forced to by court action. The ACLU can be an effective tool in the fight against the repressive acts of a malignant administration that is all but out of control. Bush isn't a dictator... yet. But unless people keep fighting against repression, that possibility is always there.