National Archives Bars or Removes Wearers of Articles of Impeachment

[Hissyspit]

Source: indymedia.org

National Archives bars/boots wearers of articles of impeachment

12 Jan 2008 04:33:29 PM

On Jan 12, members of John Niremberg's impeachment march(which started over a month ago in Boston) were either denied entry to or expelled from the National Archives for wearing clothing printed with the articles of the Constitution concerning impeachment.

In the audio, the following interviews are presented after a short intro:

John Nirenberg speaking about the march from Boston
A participant denied entry into the Archives (over a vest)
A participant challenged by security inside the Archives, preceded by the last seconds of the guard's challenge. The security guard's words did not come out well, but the interviews did.

The last leg of John's Boston to DC march began at Union Station and ended at the Archives, with about 80 people reportedly participating. Probably there would have been more, but many people were still in jail from yesterday's Gitmo actions.

Read more: http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/142137/index.php

[Cooley Hurd]

1. If true, this truly indicates the end of MY America...

:grr:

[annabanana]

2. Over CLOTHING with the CONSTITUTION printed on it !?!

How could we have fallen so low?

[aquart]

4. When you're scared of a t-shirt....

What on earth have you got left?

[Xipe Totec]

5. My son had to remove a lapel button to board a plane

because the slogan on it was considered too provocative.





The button said,...





are you ready for this?....





Stop the Violence.

[gratuitous]

7. Damn, they should have sent him to Guantanamo

One way ticket, too. How dare your son blaspheme against our National Religion of Redemptive Violence?

[Suich]

8. Are you serious?????

It was a button, about the size of a quarter maybe, that you pin on your coat or shirt, right???

Unreal! Which airport?

:crazy:

[Xipe Totec]

29. This happened in Harlingen Texas Airport, 2003

Right in the middle of the "with us or against us" histeria after the Iraq invasion.

[Maestro]

42. That doesn't surprise me for Harlingen

They are many ultra conservative repukes down that way surprisingly. I run into quite a few of them when I head down that way including members of my wife's family who live there.

[Xipe Totec]

43. The Migra is disgustingly fascist in the Valley

that's all there is to it.

[Maestro]

44. Definitely! -nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. I was wearing my IMPEACH CHENEY hat at OHare in Chicago as I went through security

and the security people loved it. They complemented me and asked where I got my hat.

[minnesota_liberal]

14. I would have refused

Have worn my "We Will Not Be Silent" shirt (the Arabic version) on at least 3 flights. Have never been hassled about it. I've also worn my "American Apology" sweatshirt a few times.

[Xipe Totec]

32. I would have refused too

But my son was just out of the hospital, able to travel for the first time after a near death experience, and escorted by oldest son who, for reasons too complicated to to get into here, is not a US citizen (he's here legally on a temporary visa).

It was hard enough to run the gauntlet of INS goons; they tried to detain my oldest son and let only my younger son through (who is a US citizen). Big fight ensued and it took my youngest son's refusal to be separated and a warning that his death would be in their hands before they let them both through.

After that, refusing to remove the pin for final boarding and being stranded because of it, did not seem like a great idea.

The made it back to New England alive, and that's all that mattered at the time.

[minnesota_liberal]

49. In that case, I might have removed the pin and barfed on the complainer

Sounds like your son had a good reason (or two) to go comply.

I'll admit that it's easier to take a stand when traveling alone and with a flexible itinerary.

[CranialRectaLoopbak]

16. You misunderstand why the pin was removed

It is possible to take over the cockpit of the aircraft with that lethal lapel PIN.

[Xipe Totec]

33. I understand the autopilot is an inflatable doll

so the pin could be considered a lethal weapon.

[Robb]

38. LOL!

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[Ignis]

19. Well, peace is the real threat to the BFEE -- hits 'em in the pocketbook. (nt)

[tabasco]

3. Well, this is pure political speech.

Clearly an unconstitutional act by the morons at the Archives.

Did the bushistas install one of their drones at this position like everywhere else.

[1620rock]

6. Maybe the dumb-ass TSA officers thought he was going to hijack the plane with the pin.

[enlightenment]

9. I truly fear for our national institutions - they are being run by

the blind, led by the incompetent.

Just yesterday, the Library of Congress backed down from a plan to reclassify ALL books penned by Scottish authors (think Robert Lewis Stevenson, Sir Walter Scott, Robert Burns, etc) as ENGLISH.

Their reasoning? Because the works were written in English. It was pointed out to them that Mark Twain wrote in English, but that doesn't make him an English author.

This sounds funny, but it's not. It is a direct and distinct slur on a major cultural and political entity in the UK. All because the people in charge of the LOC apparently have the collective IQ of a bunch of grapes.

cripes.

[libbygurl]

10. Naomi Wolf's 'END OF AMERICA' pamphlet. Read it - this is simply part of the fascist...

...shift in the US under Bush/Cheney.

[libbygurl]

31. ...but see my reconsidered thoughts in comment no. 30! nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. I wonder if this was the shirt they were wearing:

On the back is the portion of the constitution that addresses impeachment.

[onehandle]

13. Uh...This is a building where the Constitution is displayed 75 feet from the front door.

They don't allow protests or possibly a group of 80 people with protest related t-shirts to come in.

These people waved signs around outside for a while and were barred for good reason...

This the Fucking National Archives!

The article itself says:

"At the National Archives, the Constitution and First Amendment are on permanent display,yet the exercise of the very rights enshrined in this document are prohibited both by posted signs and by security guards."

Rules are rules, people.

I've been to this building Many times. There is no way they would let them in.

AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSH!
It has always been like this and it always will be.

[Mind_your_head]

15. Uh, what's WRONG with the picture you paint?

If people can't embody the vision of the "SACRED DOCUMENT" right in front of the document itself, what good is it?

It's NOT about the document, it's about what the document SAYS, the principles that underpin it!

Geeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzz!

[CranialRectaLoopbak]

17. You miss the point

Remember, the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms, so we must give up our freedoms in order to protect our freedoms.

[Mind_your_head]

22. You're a "third party" which is desparately in need of happening......

Peace & PROSPERITY to you,
M_Y_H

[pipoman]

18. I think you are right, its not about the document

it is about a group of people who out number the security whose intentions are unknown who are acting erratically who are trying to enter the building which houses 1/2 of the national treasures this country is in possession of. It is security's job to enforce the rules and over see the safety of the other patrons and the objects in the archives. The archives is not the place to hold a rally.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

23. Try taking a group of protesters into

any .gov building, it ain't happening. Have you ever been responsible for anyone or anythings security? First rule when in doubt escort them out. There are plenty of venues in DC to hold rallys. Did they make a reservation for their group? Were they loud? Were they disruptive? Should large groups of NRA members be allowed to walk in keeping and bearing arms?

[onehandle]

24. Exactly. nt

[boricua79]

35. wearing weapons

and wearing the Constitution, are NOT the same thing.

And wearing the Constitution on your vest shouldn't be seen as a security risk.

And if they feel insecure, they can always keep surveillance and act only when the group becomes belligerent.

Until then, they are free, innocent Americans.

These are preemptive acts of fascism, and it shouldn't be tolerated in this nation.

[pipoman]

37. Ok if you don't like that example

how about Fred Phelps and his group of merry idiots, should they be allowed to show up at the archives with their "God Hates Fags" signs and shirts and converge in great numbers on the Constitution? What about the clan or skin heads?

Were you there? Do you know if they were disruptive? Have you ever been there? Do you believe everything you read on these internets? While the source may be fine, they aren't exactly mainstream. Do they have an agenda? Did you read the rules below? Should the rules be suspended when you agree with the agenda of the rule breakers or only enforced if you think their cause is "offensive"?

I see these stories everyday, a bunch of people jump on with their uninformed accusations and conspiracy notions. There are plenty of real problems for people to work themselves into a lather about without having to make up conspiracies. Just one that strikes me from the last day or so is the uninvite Dennis received from NBC's Nevada debate (I'm not a Dennis supporter at all)...that is un-Democratic.

The archives, the Parks Service, and all of the public attractions DC has to offer are manned and womanned by Democrats and Republicans and Independents and Christians and Muslims and atheists...not a bunch of political hacks or Bush lackies, in fact I dare say most of the rank and file DC .gov workers are probably Dems. This had nothing to do with these people's political leanings. Would you plan a trip for your family to visit the Archives if the place was unruly? The rules are the rules, if you don't understand that I can't help you.

[mike_c]

47. yes they should....

I don't like what they have to say, but dammit-- they have every right to say it, wear it on their shirts, and so on as long as they do it peacefully. An idea, expressed on a t-shirt, is not a danger to the integrity of the Archive.

[pipoman]

48. I don't disagree with the basic point of your post

they do have a right to say it, just not where ever they please. Try walking into the front office of your local police station and exercising your constitutional right to free speech. They may not arrest you but you will be put on the sidewalk or across the street, etc.

"An idea, expressed on a t-shirt, is not a danger to the integrity of the Archive."

Really and what happens when 80 Nation of Islam members decide to peacefully wear their Malcolm X shirts and badges on the same day 80 members of the KKK decides to wear their white power t-shirts to the archive, what then? If this clash happens in the street the mess can be cleaned up, if it happens in the archive what national treasures will be forever destroyed? If these rules were not in place, there likely wouldn't be a Constitution to go look at because there would have already been a riot in the Archive resulting in it's destruction sometime in the last 200 years.

There is a difference between public places and public right of ways. Public buildings which house such treasures as the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not the place for public discourse which may result in violence or a disruption which endangers these national treasures. When these things turn ugly, and they will turn ugly occasionally, it is too late, things are being destroyed.

[mike_c]

50. you have neatly expressed the best argument AGAINST free speech...

...i.e. that free speech leads to civil unrest because it can result in violence or discord when disagreeing parties come into conflict. The Constitution comes done unambiguously on the side of free expression, even when the outcome is "ugly." That's WHY free speech had to be codified in the Bill of Rights-- so that fearful societies, and their governments, could not use that fear to limit the rights of citizens.

That's why white supremacists get to march through neighborhoods that don't want them. It's why hate mongers like Fred Phelps can be as odious as they like, as long as they do it peacefully and don't encroach on others' rights in the process.

I'm not arguing that anyone should have the right to hold a demonstration inside the National Archives-- that is inappropriate use and preventing it is justifiable, IMO. But I disagree that simply expressing a point of view that the Archive administration disagrees with, or fears, should be suppressed in a free society, EVEN TO PROTECT ITS FOUNDING DOCUMENTS. What are those documents worth, if their lessons are ignored?

[pipoman]

53. I still think you are missing my point and the point of the archive security

It doesn't matter if the guards or administration agree or disagree. Free speech does not mean you can say what you wish where ever you feel like it. It never has and never will. Few would say that the federal court house is not a public place, try exercising free speech in the court room. The only fear is that things will go out of control and NATIONAL TREASURES WILL BE DESTROYED FOREVER. I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that people should be allowed to destroy the Constitution because they are exercising the rights they believe the document protects.

There is nobody here who is arguing against free speech, just those who are naive and those who understand the reality of maintaining security and order.

We may have to agree to disagree.

[boricua79]

62. which "may"

MAY result in violence.

Until the violence occurs, you cannot bar people from exercising their rights.

And nobody said you can't have the group followed inside the building by security. As long as security leaves them alone and they peacefully demonstrate, without offending or being too much of a noise violation, I say leave them alone. The Archives could always tell the group that they're not allowed to congregate in one single place or begin proselytizing or anything else in a political fashion. It can always say, "you may do that outside...however, inside, you may come in with your political shirts...just don't engage the patrons inside".

If the protesters don't agree, don't let them in. If they agree and they're just quietly going around the Archive with their shirts, I cannot see how you can prevent them legally.

I've seen this happen to much...people getting picked out of rallies, public events, churches, schools, movie theaters, etc. because they had a "Stop the Violence" or a "Impeach Bush" shirt. My patience for letting it slide has grown thin.

The Constitution is EXPLICIT: no law to abridge free speech or free assembly or freedom of religion.

[boricua79]

61. God Hates Fags

is unprotected, offensive speech. The Supreme Court has ruled on that, and hate speech is not allowed.

Wearing the Constitution cannot be remotely compared to wearing weapons or wearing "God Hates Fags" signs. You're stretching the Free Speech argument too much and it's showing how absurd you sound.

Most government workers aren't necessarily pillars of national citizenship. They're human beings...prone to the same fears, desires, and delusions of authority as any else. Nazi Germany should have taught us that. I don't trust a regular clerk to know what the Constitution says, or how to properly enforce it. My beef is with the fact that they prohibited these people from entering with the Constitution on their vests and that was their "infraction". If they did something else, then the equation changes, but that wasn't reported.

What I would do is sue the Archives for violations of Constitutional rights, and let the courts decide who was in the right.

And I wouldn't mind seeing people wearing "impeach Bush" or wearing the Constitution while I visited the Archive. In fact, I think it would be a great teaching moment for my children (the ones I teach), if I saw that. I'd say, "that is why this is a free country. People can ask for government redress based on the Constitution...as you can see, they're using the Constitution to argue their point".

It would be great. Too bad most teachers think teaching patriotism is just teaching the Pledge to the Swastika (I mean, allegiance, ehem) and talking about the Pilgrims and Indians.

[pipoman]

26. Whats this?

http://www.archives.gov/about/regulations/part-1280.html#parta

§1280.32 What other behavior is not permitted?

We reserve the right to remove anyone from NARA property who is:

(a) Stealing NARA property;

(b) Willfully damaging or destroying NARA property;

(c) Creating any hazard to persons or things;

(d) Throwing anything from or at a NARA building;

(e) Improperly disposing of rubbish.

(f) Acting in a disorderly fashion;

(g) Acting in a manner that creates a loud or unusual noise or a nuisance;

(h) Acting in a manner that unreasonably obstructs the usual use of NARA facilities;

(i) Acting in a manner that otherwise impedes or disrupts the performance of official duties by Government and contract employees;

(j) Acting in a manner that prevents the general public from obtaining NARA-provided services in a timely manner; or

(k) Loitering.

(l) Threatening directly (e.g., in-person communications or physical gestures) or indirectly (e.g., via regular mail, electronic mail, or phone) any NARA employee, visitor, volunteer, contractor, other building occupants, or property.

§Sec. 1280.34 What are the types of corrective action NARA imposes for prohibited behavior?

(a) Individuals who violate the provisions of this part are subject to:

(1) Removal from the premises (removal for up to seven calendar days) and possible law enforcement notification;

(2) Banning from property owned or operated by NARA;

(3) Arrest for trespass; and

(4) Any additional types of corrective action prescribed by law.

(b) The regional administrator of the facility (or the director if so designated) has the authority to have the individual immediately removed and denied further access to the premises for up to seven calendar days. During this removal period, the Assistant Archivist for Administrative Services renders a decision on whether the individual should be banned from specific or all NARA facilities permanently or temporarily (in up to one-year increments). Long-term banning under this part includes automatic revocation of research privileges, notwithstanding the time periods set forth in 36 CFR 1254.20. Research privileges remain revoked until the ban is lifted, at which time an application for new privileges may be submitted.

(c) Upon written notification by the Assistant Archivist for Administrative Services, individuals may be banned from all NARA facilities. All NARA facilities will be notified of the banning of individuals.

Oh and look at this on the same page:

§1280.72 What are the general rules for using NARA public areas?

You must adhere to the following rules when using any NARA facility for an event:

(a) Any use of NARA public areas for an event must be for the benefit of or in connection with the archival and records activities administered by NARA and must be consistent with the public perception of NARA as a research and cultural institution as articulated in our Strategic Plan.

(b) The event must be sponsored, cosponsored, or authorized by NARA.

(c) You are not allowed to charge an admission fee or make any indirect assessment for admission, and you may not otherwise collect money at the event unless specifically authorized by the Archivist of the United States for special not-for-profit events which are held by organizations sponsored by NARA. Commercial advertising or the sale of any items is not permitted.

(d) No areas on NARA property may be used to promote commercial enterprises or products or for partisan political, sectarian, or similar purposes.

(e) Use of NARA public areas will not be authorized for any organization or group that engages in discriminatory practices proscribed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

(f) You must not misrepresent your identity to the public nor conduct any activities in a misleading or fraudulent manner.

(g) You must ensure that no Government property is destroyed, displaced, or damaged during your use of NARA public areas. You must take prompt action to replace, return, restore, repair or repay NARA for any damage caused to Government property during the use of NARA facilities.

(h) Most areas are available from 8:00 a.m. until 9:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on Saturday. A NARA staff member must be present at all times when the NARA facility is in use. If the facilities and staff are available, NARA may approve requests for events that would be held before or after these hours.

(i) You must provide support people as needed to register guests, distribute approved literature, name tags, and other material; and

(j) NARA must approve any item that you plan to distribute or display at the event, and any notice or advertisement that mentions NARA, the National Archives Trust Fund Board, or incorporates any of the seals described in 36 CFR 1200.2.

It seems this probably isn't a conspiracy or a new rule which was passed the same time habeas corpus was suspended. It seems it may be part of long established (and reasonable)rules for use of the archives.

[libbygurl]

30. Well, that sounds reasonable to me, actually.

Sorry I reacted in knee jerk fashion to this story...something I keep trying not to do! Thanks for the input.

[RuleOfNah]

55. It's chilling.

(d) No areas on NARA property may be used to promote commercial enterprises or products or for partisan political, sectarian, or similar purposes.

Thank you for posting the spec.

So, is the "commercial" portion enforced strictly? Is that building a logo free space? Who gets fired if the rule is not applied evenly? Someone other than a guard?

[treestar]

56. But just quoting the part of the Constitution about impreachment

isn't partisan. They're reading that in themselves. Would they throw anyone out who had a T-shirt with the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence on it?

[pipoman]

58. Undoubtedly if 80 of them came marching up with signs..

It's not about the cause it is about maintaining security. These guards/admin. have over 200 years of experience behind them. There isn't any act, action, demonstration technique, argument against the rules, complaint about partisan enforcement, or nutty idea which hasn't already been tried, asked and answered.

Read the Bio of Dr. Allen Weinstein, Ninth Archivist of the United States, not exactly a political appointment.

[treestar]

60. But who would be all that dangerous among those who'd print

a part of the Constitution on their shirts? They aren't against the Constitution.

There's never been an attack againt the National Archives. If there were, it would in no way affect what those principles are and what they stand for.

[davsand]

41. This comment is beneath you, M_Y_H.

I understand heated debate and passionate disagreement, but that was over the top.



Laura

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. Wearing t-shirts is the same thing as a rally?

:crazy:

[pipoman]

39. they were part of a rally,no?

The article says, "On Jan 12, members of John Niremberg's impeachment march", a march generally culminates into a rally right? Why did they end up at the Archives? Were they there to make a political statement? Maybe promote partisan political purposes (see the rules below)? I may agree with their message, that is beside the point. They broke the rules and there you have it. Don't you think that the Park police and the Archives security have heard the meme, "we were only wearing shirts (wink, wink)" before? Don't you think that the inside of these public places which are to be enjoyed by all should be free of what could turn into volatile disruptions?

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. All we know for sure is they were wearing t-shirts

If they intended to hold a rally, they were prevented from doing so. So there was NO RALLY. And their only sin is WEARING T-SHIRTS.

If you can't see the problem here, I really don't know what to tell you.

[onehandle]

46. The audio indicates that they marched up to the Archives waving signs.

They were outside for a while, then a non-specified number attempted to enter.

After their outside show there is no fucking way Any public building in DC would let them in, much less the building housing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights just beyond the foyer.

And I'm glad.

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. You're glad???

DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC - Thomas Jefferson

[pipoman]

54. Again, were you there?

Have you ever been responsible for the security of anyone or anything? If there was a tiny chance of disorder erupting in te archive then the security did exactly the right thing. I believe strongly in decent. Endangering National Treasures is stupid. Demonstrate, speak, scream, picket, wear t-shirts in solidarity in venues where should something bad happen irreplaceable priceless objects are not threatened. If they wanted to enter te archive and they knew they were going to be there weeks or months in advance they should have made a reservation for their group. What is the difference between wearing t-shirts and carrying signs? Nobody said they couldn't wear their shirts or say what ever they wanted, just not inside the National Archives. Take a group down to your local library with potentially inflammatory shirts on and see how long it takes for the police to show you to the curb. Free speech, not free speech anyplace you wish.

[boricua79]

34. then it has always been WRONG

The Constitution states that people have a right to freedom of speech. Unless the act of protest is realistically offensive or vulgar, wearing a shirt with the constitution is like deciding you want to make a fashion statement with a red hat. No one should stop you because of it.

And NO ONE should be offended by the Constitution.

No one said this country's practices were fine and dandy before Bush. Before him, we also had fascist, unconstitutional practices.

If I were these guys, I'd sue the National Archives for violating their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. The courts have always upheld the rights of kids wearing Dixie-flag shirts in schools...you think they won't uphold the rights of Americans simply wearing constitutional phrases! Hah...wait and see.

[99th_Monkey]

52. Diebold is the Contractor responsible for keeping the original copy "secure" is?

of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I shit you not. check it out.
http://www.diebold.com/charters.htm

[rockybelt]

20. Fascism is here!

Remember the words of George W. Bush. "Stop waving the constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

[sofa king]

25. Um... did they have their researcher cards?

The Constitution Avenue side of the Archives is theoretically open to all, and if someone was barred entry on that side, then it's a big deal.

But the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the Archives, which marchers from Union Station could easily reach by accident, is usually open only to researchers.

That side of the building also requires a larger and different kind of security force, because the documents available for view on that side of the building are far more important than the two dozen or so pieces of paper to which our keepers no longer pay attention.

Edit: the Archives is actually two buildings compressed into one shell. Archivists tell me that the floors don't even match up between the documents side and the Constitution side.

[Robb]

40. Good question

I did some research work at the Archives in Denver, pre-2001. They were the jumpiest mofos, security-wise, I'd yet encountered, even then. Goodness knows how it is now, in D.C. for that matter.

Maybe archivists have an innate security freak-out hard-wired into them. :shrug:

[orleans]

28. .

[Hissyspit]

36. good morning, America self-kick. n/t

[Zorra]

57. Fascists working at the National archives just got a pink slip dated 1/20/09.

No Democratic Presidential Administration/Congress is going to put up with that un_American fascist bullshit.

[pipoman]

59. Oh really?

For enforcing the rules?