PDA

View Full Version : Duplicitous Republicans


Boris
09-23-2003, 07:37 PM
By JONATHAN D. SALANT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) asked the federal courts Tuesday to prevent the U.S. Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters far away from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close.

The civil liberties group filed the lawsuit in federal court in Pennsylvania on behalf of four advocacy organizations that claimed that the Secret Service (news - web sites) forced them into protest zones or other areas where they could not be seen by President Bush (news - web sites) or Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) or be noticed by the media covering their visits.


"The pattern we found was at presidential and vice presidential appearances, protesters were restricted to areas where they were out of sight, out of earshot and often out of mind," said Witold J. Walczak, legal director for the ACLU's Greater Pittsburgh chapter.


"Protecting our nation's leaders from harm is important. Protecting our nation's leaders from dissent is unconstitutional."


The Secret Service did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.


The ACLU complaint lists several incidents where protesters were forced to assemble blocks away from where the president or vice president was speaking, while supporters of the administration's policy could hold their signs up in front of the building. They cited examples across the country, including Philadelphia; Columbia, S.C.; Phoenix; Stockton, Calif.; and St. Louis.


The plaintiffs are the National Organization for Women (news - web sites); United for Peace and Justice, an anti-war group; ACORN, an advocacy organization for low and moderate-income families; and USAction, an advocacy group that supports universal health care and better public education and opposes the Iraq (news - web sites) war and Bush's tax cuts.

Wake up CALL
09-23-2003, 11:18 PM
Boris get back to us with the result of this kooky lawsuit. Methinks the ACLU just has too much money to spend. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

As far duplicity I am missing the connection. Would you mind elaborating on the connection? It seems to me the true intentions were pretty clear and that alone eliminates any duplicity.

KJS
09-25-2003, 02:29 AM
Pro-Bush Speech: OK
Anti-Bush Speech: Not OK

Get it?

The constitution says free speech, meaning don't discriminate based on the content of the message.

KJS

Wake up CALL
09-25-2003, 10:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Pro-Bush Speech: OK
Anti-Bush Speech: Not OK

Get it?

The constitution says free speech, meaning don't discriminate based on the content of the message.

KJS

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not miss the original point but duplicity is nowhere to be found, They are quite open about what is acceptable and what is not. Please provide a real example if you are able.

Clarkmeister
09-25-2003, 10:33 AM
Hell, that's easy. Just look at any number of the Bush administrations "clarifications", admissions and outright lies over the last year.

Wake up CALL
09-25-2003, 10:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hell, that's easy. Just look at any number of the Bush administrations "clarifications", admissions and outright lies over the last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, why didn't I think of that? You got one in particular worth discussing?

brad
09-25-2003, 11:41 AM
wmd?

im sure you cant find any stories about them but oh well i'll have joe trento cast you in his next movie