Protester subpoenas top Bush officials for upcoming trial

[CheshireCat]

A little background not in the article...

When he was arrested during the Bush visit to the Columbia airport, Brett Bursey was told to leave the crowd of hundreds to go to a "free speech zone" about .5 miles away. Brett asked the policeman why they were sending him away, but not the other people (the Bush supporters). "Is it because of what is written on my sign?", asked Brett. The policeman answered "yes".

The state dropped charges against him, but federal charges were brought by federal prosecutors led my young Strom Thurmond, Jr.

Two or three times, the trial has started, only to have the judge cancel it until prosecutors could state what exactly must be proved to show that Brett was guilty. AS to this day, the prosecution has not been able to do this.

The case goes to trial again next week. Progressives in SC will pack the courtroom to see if the prosecution can explain what they have to prove to find Brett guilty.

This is a landmark case for protesters. We need to watch what happens here to see this misadministration will be able to continue their practice of using "Free Speech Zones".

http://wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1514866&nav=0RaMIyC9

Protester subpoenas top Bush officials for upcoming trial


(Columbia-AP) Nov. 7, 2003 - A man charged with a federal crime as he tried to protest President Bush's visit to Columbia a year ago wants US Attorney General John Ashcroft and Bush political adviser Karl Rove to appear at his trial.

Activist Brett Bursey says if Ashcroft and Rove testify next week, it will show that the Bush administration tries to keep people critical of the president away from him during visits. The subpoena has not been served to Rove, and a spokesman for Ashcroft was unavailable.

<snip>

Bursey faces a seldom-used federal charge of entering a restricted area around the president of the United States. He faces up to six months in prison and a $5000 fine if convicted.

[theivoryqueen]

1. So let me get this straight...

If "Free Speech Zones" are allowable, is the reverse true? Can you parcel free speech into a seperate area from "regular" speech. Is it possible that we will be seeing these official no-free-speech zones identified for what they are?

[truthspeaker]

2. this security justification is bullshit

Look at previous attempted assassinations. Were John Hinckley, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, or any other assassins carrying protest signs when they pulled their guns? (rhetorical question. answer: no. --ed.) Bush has already taken a big stinking shit on the flag and now he wants to wipe his ass with the constitution. I hope this guy also subpeonas the Secret Service; rumor has it local cops are getting their no-protest orders from them.

[RandomKoolzip]

3. Bushco.'s valiant battle against that insidious first amendment rages on

Obviously, this "free speech" zone thing never existed before this president, no?

[Livadia]

4. I heard that

it was enacted under Clinton... because of violent pro-lifers, I think.

[CheshireCat]

5. Wrong

Clinton used the Free Speech Zone approach against protesters at abortion clinics. I see a difference in Clinton's and Bush's use of these zones, but I think they are unconstitutional in both cases.

We need a court ruling striking down the use of these zones. Thisis what Brett Bursey is trying to do with his case. He will take it all the way, if necessary.

BTW, if you would like to read more about this case and help by making a small donation, go to the following website:

http://www.scpronet.com/

This is the site of the SC Progressive Network which is an organization founded by Bursey. It consists of many different progressive groups in the state of SC. Do any of you have an organization like this one in your state?

[FormerMarine6055]

6. It's been in use for decades

That is why you don't see protest signs in footage from Clinton's public speeches or appearances, or GH Bush, Or Ronald Regan, Or Jimmy Carter.

[Tuttle]

8. Actually, Clinton used to engage in dialog with protestors

I hate the 'gotcha' defense of "do you have any proof?" especially when you're claiming protestors were barred... but - do you have any proof? I am sure there's a lot of proof at FreeRepublic.

Tut-tut

[Frances]

9. Clinton's problem was not that people wanted to protest him

His problem was the same as Elvis' problem. Too many women were swooning over him. Like, how many times did I see that shot of Clinton hugging Monica?

I believe that a great deal of the venom directed against Clinton comes from men who are unpopular with women.

[DakotaDemocrat]

7. The best part...

...the funniest part of the article was the last line. Mr Bursey attached $400 checks to the subpeonas to cover fees and mileage!

That is sooo classic...

Support the Troops - elect one!
CLARK '04

[RaRa]

10. So how does he get Ashcroft to show up?

If Asscroft refuses, wouldn't that be contempt of court? Do they actually get one of his employees to arrest him? (I obviously don't know who would enforce that). Just wondering, even though I know there's is NO way that these assholes would consider following the law if it doesn't serve their purposes.

[CBHagman]

11. This is beyond outrageous.

And Strom's stripling leads the prosecution. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it?

[VolcanoJen]

12. Dupe... locking

This is great analysis, CheshireCat, and I hope you'll continue the discussion in the earliest LBN thread on this topic, which can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=203951

Thanks!
VolcanoJen
DU Moderator