Anyway, this original report cropped up online today on a pretty lefty discussion board about the commencement ceremony at Ohio State University (which is at least partially corroborated by AP) and has since spread fairly widely across the net, sparking this editorial, among others.
Now, while I'm beginning to think blame must ultimately lie with stick-up-ass university types who most likely wanted to get a nice 2 minute postive plug on the national news, it is undeniable that we've reached the edge of a particularly steep section of the slippery slope.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
If so I can see a lot of court cases, sueing for their degrees and all....
At my nieces graduation the security there was gestopo like, they were working through intimidation on the people, acting like everyone was a terrorist...
So I can imagine what it was like there....
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Tin soldiers and Georgie's coming, we're finally on our own, This summer I hear the drumming.......
[ June 16, 2002, 12:20: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
*Tries to picture The_Tom getting off*
*Shoots self for trying to picture The_Tom getting off*
It doesn't really surprise me, however (re: the articles, not re: The_Tom getting off on posting stuff like this). The day of Big Government has arrived, and all those assholes whining about "Billy Klinton" are too blind to see what's happening.
With stuff like this, I don't understand why anyone would be surprised I suddenly reversed my position re: guns. I'm not worried about some heroin-addicted burglar ... I'm worried about President George W. Bush and his fascist mindset.
[ June 16, 2002, 14:57: Message edited by: Snay ]
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I feel that someone ought to argue the other side too for the sake of a vigorous adversarial debate (let the Truth rain down!). There is something to be said for demanding that the students act in a way easy to police when they receive their degrees when the leader of the free world is only several meters away.
Forget the supposed faked Air Force One warnings on the day of the attacks. What is important is that (whatever your feelings toward the man, personally or politically) he is still the one that the country elected to be its Chief Executive for the next four years (ignore the debate over the election too, for the sake of keeping this string on topic). If there is an attack on the country, whether it be by a conventional force (e.g. foreign nation sending paratroopers over OH) or by, essentially, guerilla forces (e.g. Al Qaida suicide/homicide bombers), the country still demands that it have someone to lead the country in the aftermath of whatever new attack. It is the Secret Service�s job to protect him by whatever means it deems necessary. Given that adolescents and youths tend to be more impetuous (and that most presidential assassins have been under the age of, I suppose, 35), the Secret Service knew that the profile of a likely assassin at this event was a student making a run at Bush on the stage (yes, they profiled, but let�s try not to get into that too).
Despite First Amendment concerns, �[t]he Nation undoubtedly has a valid, even an overwhelming, interest in protecting the safety of its Chief Executive and in allowing him to perform his duties without interference from threats of physical violence.� Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969). (For those who don�t spend ever waking hour plowing through the driest material known to man, case law, and my foreign brethren, that�s a United States Supreme Court case, the highest legally binding interpretation of what the Constitution says. They, and by they, I mean the liberal justices, also decided that case without a full hearing, indicating they thought the law restricting the access of the people who made even vague statements of possible intent to harm the president was plainly constitutional.) In 18 U.S.C. � 871(a), with which the Supreme Court has fully concurred, Congress has �overwhelming� interest in protecting the Chief Executive from even the threat of violence.
OK, the legal justification aside, look at the issue pragmatically. Would the citizens of the country, if given a plebiscite, say before September 11, have voted to prevent the Secret Service from preventing people from approaching the president in a manner a would-be assassin might utilize if the suspect was doing so for strictly First Amendment reasons? Even the (third) Great Dissenter, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., would not have placed so ludicrous a limitation on the security forces protecting the president; he would allow speech to be restricted if there was a �clear and present danger� to public order. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52, 39 S.Ct. 247, 249, 63 L.Ed. 470. It stands to reason that even he, a great defender of the right to freedom of speech, would have allowed restricted threatening speech around the Chief Executive.
What might happen if a terrorist group used the First Amendment to go after the President this way? Well, they could start with that and work their way down the chain of succession (think the simultaneous assassination attempts on Lincoln, Johnson, and two other members of the cabinet in 1865). Utter chaos.
But these students are not without recourse. They have an opportunity to make their word known. They can write their congressman. They can protest on Pennsylvania Avenue. They can picket the speech at the graduation. Just not too close to Bush. Even if he does not see them, his constituents and advisors will, and the message will get to him. No one has the right to make their speech in whatever form they wish without regard for the people to whom they are communicating. That�s the essence of the classically liberal society the United States was founded as. Your freedom ends where my nose begins.
We have delegated the duty of deciding how to protect the President from attack to the Secret Service. The Secret Service may not violate the Constitution to protect the President. Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (1977). But if the expert opinion of the Secret Service says that agents ought to be able to react at an earlier stage to possible physical attack that might overlap with some instances of free speech, and other avenues of speech are still maintained, that earlier reaction does not violate the First Amendment.
This is one place where the First Amendment is going to give way, and with good reason.
[ June 16, 2002, 17:29: Message edited by: David Sands ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
We're talking about turning their backs to the President, not making an aggressive move to tackle him on the third row!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Sandman, all that over the fact of turning their backs on lil' Bush???
I can see if they were trying to approach GWB, but they didn't.... It was a fucked up thing to do, and, as far as I am concerned, aided in the terrorists goals... The gov't is over re-acting when they do shit like that....
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Let's not forget, even if the students aren't terrorists, this sort of school setting is just the sort of target the Cubans will use in their inevitable invasion.
Terrible Swayze vehicles aside, Jeff's post is the perfect example of why I've lost all faith in the political process. I spent eight years listening to the most rabidly insane criticism of Clinton imaginable. His wife is a lesbian! He eats babies! By the time 2000 rolled around I was hoping we'd get a new Ford: bland, harmless, and utterly boring. Not to mention a chance to prove that mindless cries of "Nazi!" were limited to certain fringe elements of the far right.
Of course, instead we get Bush, who may share some of Ford's characteristics, but has far too many personal eccentricities and quirks to be boring. And the rants have remained exactly the same. They've just shifted sides. So why should I give any more credence to cries of "Herr Bush!" than I did to "Komrade Klinton!"?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
You shouldn't......
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I believe that the Secret Service's interpretation of a student turning their back on Bush could be that the would-be assassin is reaching for a weapon out of sight when he turns his back (yes, there are agents everywhere, but he might be making two statements at the same event). Since it is a tactical option of terrorists, and eliminating that option does not shut out all possible methods of expressive conduct, it is within their powers give the line of reasonings above.
I also want to go on record (again) as saying that I don't buy either side of the story as it is, just that I am playing the opposite side.
Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :
Following the Great Purge anyone in the Soviet Union who criticized Stalin was eligible to be jailed and executed.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I'd venture the notion that the same was true during the Great Purges.
(Oh, and welcome back, Delta Tango.)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Sounds to me like the idea to bust the students was the University's , not Bush's.
So we should be complaining about the lack of freedom allowed on modern college campuses, rather than imaginary Bush actions.
Of course, in that case, this would be one of those rare cases where the accusation of restraint of free speech on campus legitimately falls against the conservatives, rather than on the ultraleft, as it usually does.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, whatever.
You're just mad 'cuz right-wingers can't yell as loud as left-wingers.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
You know my opinion of "chanters."
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
If we just say "yes" and nod eagerly, will it stop you telling us in endless, tedious, cross-referenced, contradictory detail?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm not overly confident.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Hope springs eternal, as the old phrase goes. 'Course, these days it sounds more like a porn star's stage name.