Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Oakland Teacher Calls Secret Service on Students!!
An Oakland teacher called the Secret Service on two 16 year old Oakland students because the alluded to offing Bush in a fired up conversation in their class about how Bush is killing people all over the world!! This is the type of thing that students say all the time.
Oakland Tribune
Secret Service grills students Oakland teacher calls U.S. security agents after teens make in-class comments threatening President Bush
Oakland teacher calls U.S. security agents after teens make in-class comments threatening President Bush
By Alex Katz
STAFF WRITER
Sunday, May 04, 2003 - OAKLAND -- Two students at Oakland High School were interrogated last month by the U.S. Secret Service after allegedly threatening the life of President Bush in a classroom discussion, school officials have confirmed.
English teacher Sandy Whitney said she called the Secret Service after two boys in her English class, both 16, made comments about getting a sniper to "take care" of Bush.
Oakland High sophomores John and Billy, who did not want their last names published, said Friday that their comments were made in jest. They said the April 23 interviews with federal agents left them scared and upset.
Although John admitted he made an ill-worded comment about Bush, one that he didn't want to repeat Friday, Billy said his only remark was "Bush is wacked," slang for crazy or deranged.
After the meeting with Secret Service agents, "I was traumatized," John said. "I was just sitting in class, just looking at the door to see if they were going to come get me or whatever."
"I was just trying to be funny," Billy said.
The way Whitney remembers it, John "said something like, 'We need a sniper to take care of Bush,' and Billy said, 'Yeah, I'd do it.'"
The class in question is at times "challenging," Whitney said.
Whitney said she called the San Francisco office of the Secret Service, now under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to ask what her responsibilities were if one of her students had made a threat.
Under federal law, making a threat against the president's life is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
"I wasn't saying, 'Come and get these buzzards,' nothing like that," she said. "If you say, 'fire' in a crowded theater, that's not a good thing to do. If you say, 'Let's kill the president,' you have to be prepared for the consequences."
A few hours after Whitney's call, Oakland High received a visit from U.S. Secret Service Agents Julie Pharo and Eric Enos, said Principal Clement Mok.
Mok said the agents told him to pull the students out of their sixth period class. The agents grilled each one separately in a conference room with Mok present. The boys' parents were not called.
"I can't, in my position, determine what is or is not a national security threat," Mok said. "It is unusual (for the Secret Service to come to a school), but we don't get in the way of federal agents trying to do their jobs."
California law allows peace officers to question students on school grounds without notifying parents.
"People have a right to free speech, we're not trying to infringe on that," said Richard Stribling, a Secret Service official in San Francisco. "But there is a line there."
Stribling said he did not know about the Oakland High case. He said his office gets a lot of reports of threats against the president, and agents determine which ones to follow up on. But it is rare for agents to go to schools, he said.
The boys said the agents asked questions such as, "Are you a terrorist?", "What is your opinion of the president?" and "What would you say to the president if he was here?" Both said they would apologize.
John said the questions were intimidating, and claimed the agents told him he had no rights after what he had said about Bush.
The agents asked whether his family had guns at home, and whether he considered himself a good shot, John said. He answered yes to the first question and no to the second.
Billy said the agents also wanted to know if he had a picture of Bush with a target on it, and if he had ever been to Washington, D.C.
"I was crying at the moment," Billy recalled. He has not returned to Whitney's class since the incident.
Some of Whitney's colleagues said they would have used the boys' comments as an opportunity to discuss the consequences of threats.
"To think the Secret Service would come in, it's just outrageous to me," Oakland High English teacher Larry Felson said.
Dorothy Ehrlich, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Northern California office, questioned Mok's decision not to call the boys' parents.
Legislators in Sacramento are considering a bill backed by the ACLU that would make it mandatory for high school principals to tell students they can have a parent present during on-campus police interviews.
"If they thought it was serious enough of an incident to call in the Secret Service, it should have been serious enough to get the parents involved," Ehrlich said.
Secret Service grills students Oakland teacher calls U.S. security agents after teens make in-class comments threatening President Bush
Oakland teacher calls U.S. security agents after teens make in-class comments threatening President Bush
By Alex Katz
STAFF WRITER
Sunday, May 04, 2003 - OAKLAND -- Two students at Oakland High School were interrogated last month by the U.S. Secret Service after allegedly threatening the life of President Bush in a classroom discussion, school officials have confirmed.
English teacher Sandy Whitney said she called the Secret Service after two boys in her English class, both 16, made comments about getting a sniper to "take care" of Bush.
Oakland High sophomores John and Billy, who did not want their last names published, said Friday that their comments were made in jest. They said the April 23 interviews with federal agents left them scared and upset.
Although John admitted he made an ill-worded comment about Bush, one that he didn't want to repeat Friday, Billy said his only remark was "Bush is wacked," slang for crazy or deranged.
After the meeting with Secret Service agents, "I was traumatized," John said. "I was just sitting in class, just looking at the door to see if they were going to come get me or whatever."
"I was just trying to be funny," Billy said.
The way Whitney remembers it, John "said something like, 'We need a sniper to take care of Bush,' and Billy said, 'Yeah, I'd do it.'"
The class in question is at times "challenging," Whitney said.
Whitney said she called the San Francisco office of the Secret Service, now under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to ask what her responsibilities were if one of her students had made a threat.
Under federal law, making a threat against the president's life is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
"I wasn't saying, 'Come and get these buzzards,' nothing like that," she said. "If you say, 'fire' in a crowded theater, that's not a good thing to do. If you say, 'Let's kill the president,' you have to be prepared for the consequences."
A few hours after Whitney's call, Oakland High received a visit from U.S. Secret Service Agents Julie Pharo and Eric Enos, said Principal Clement Mok.
Mok said the agents told him to pull the students out of their sixth period class. The agents grilled each one separately in a conference room with Mok present. The boys' parents were not called.
"I can't, in my position, determine what is or is not a national security threat," Mok said. "It is unusual (for the Secret Service to come to a school), but we don't get in the way of federal agents trying to do their jobs."
California law allows peace officers to question students on school grounds without notifying parents.
"People have a right to free speech, we're not trying to infringe on that," said Richard Stribling, a Secret Service official in San Francisco. "But there is a line there."
Stribling said he did not know about the Oakland High case. He said his office gets a lot of reports of threats against the president, and agents determine which ones to follow up on. But it is rare for agents to go to schools, he said.
The boys said the agents asked questions such as, "Are you a terrorist?", "What is your opinion of the president?" and "What would you say to the president if he was here?" Both said they would apologize.
John said the questions were intimidating, and claimed the agents told him he had no rights after what he had said about Bush.
The agents asked whether his family had guns at home, and whether he considered himself a good shot, John said. He answered yes to the first question and no to the second.
Billy said the agents also wanted to know if he had a picture of Bush with a target on it, and if he had ever been to Washington, D.C.
"I was crying at the moment," Billy recalled. He has not returned to Whitney's class since the incident.
Some of Whitney's colleagues said they would have used the boys' comments as an opportunity to discuss the consequences of threats.
"To think the Secret Service would come in, it's just outrageous to me," Oakland High English teacher Larry Felson said.
Dorothy Ehrlich, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Northern California office, questioned Mok's decision not to call the boys' parents.
Legislators in Sacramento are considering a bill backed by the ACLU that would make it mandatory for high school principals to tell students they can have a parent present during on-campus police interviews.
"If they thought it was serious enough of an incident to call in the Secret Service, it should have been serious enough to get the parents involved," Ehrlich said.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Fire this stinking, Nazi teacher, Sidney Whitney, right now . That is what the parents of these two boys and everyone else should demand. We do not want stinking Nazis calling the cops, Secret Service or any other thugs to terrorize schoolchildren. The Secret Service are not peace officers; the parents should have been called if anything serious had taken place, and nothing serious had taken place. The parents should sue the bastards, that is to say Sidney Whitney and the school district, for terrorizing these boys. It is the US government that is the terrorist, just like Nazi Germany was the leading terrorist of the 1930s and 1940s. The US government is Nazi USA. It is well known that children have no intention of carrying out their dramatic statements. They are not lawyers and they are not adults; they do not always pick and choose their words carefully.
To all of you who are teachers: Do not ever call the Secret Service, the cops or any other thugs. If you cannot handle the students, find another job. Quite frankly, you make more money with less problems working as a word processor or a legal secretary than you do as a teacher, and there is work in the clerical field.
As to the classroom scenes, no such discussions or running off at the mouth, to use the vernacular, ever took place in any classroom where I was a student, and we were 35-40 students per class. The teacher had a planned daily lecture every day, regardless of the subject. We were expected to take notes, take the 2 tests per semester, namely, the mid-term and final (usually essay exams) and turn in a term paper. This was for all high school classes. The teachers had much to say in their lectures and there was no time for joking around. Our tests were based on the textbook, the lectures which always supplemented the textbook, and the reading which we did for our term paper.
I also think the teachers should stop spending money on supplies. If there are not enough supplies, the students can go home to their parents and have the parents demand the schools provide the supplies, which would necessarily mean cutting the prison budget to increase the school budget. That would wake the parents up to the agenda of the reactionary Democrat-Republicans they have been voting for, who vote for prisons and tax cuts for the rich, while the schools suffer.
To all of you who are teachers: Do not ever call the Secret Service, the cops or any other thugs. If you cannot handle the students, find another job. Quite frankly, you make more money with less problems working as a word processor or a legal secretary than you do as a teacher, and there is work in the clerical field.
As to the classroom scenes, no such discussions or running off at the mouth, to use the vernacular, ever took place in any classroom where I was a student, and we were 35-40 students per class. The teacher had a planned daily lecture every day, regardless of the subject. We were expected to take notes, take the 2 tests per semester, namely, the mid-term and final (usually essay exams) and turn in a term paper. This was for all high school classes. The teachers had much to say in their lectures and there was no time for joking around. Our tests were based on the textbook, the lectures which always supplemented the textbook, and the reading which we did for our term paper.
I also think the teachers should stop spending money on supplies. If there are not enough supplies, the students can go home to their parents and have the parents demand the schools provide the supplies, which would necessarily mean cutting the prison budget to increase the school budget. That would wake the parents up to the agenda of the reactionary Democrat-Republicans they have been voting for, who vote for prisons and tax cuts for the rich, while the schools suffer.
BS"D
Thank goodness this teacher had the common sense to call the Secret Service. The Columbine and the Malvo cases show that these days, you can never be too careful. She may have saved lives.
Thank goodness this teacher had the common sense to call the Secret Service. The Columbine and the Malvo cases show that these days, you can never be too careful. She may have saved lives.
I'll bet this Sandy Whitney is a scab, too! The teachers' union (Oakland Education Association) had better keep an eye on her!
Actually, this is a valid example of how the intellectually challenged can, in fact, "be too careful". There is a difference, which some of our lesser brethren fail to grasp, between words spoken and plans layed. What is lacking here is any sort of evidence (do you remember evidence?) that there was any sort of planning underway. Obviously there was not. There were no notebooks scrawled with plans prior to a pending Presidential visit or anything of the sort.
What the dimwitted and cowardly can never seem to wrap their tiny brains around is that idle comments are different than concrete plans. It is these people who are the problem, because they are the flipside of the physically violent crowd. They are the reason that pre-emptive strikes against those who could possibly (and here I quote them), "maybe, me don't know, me no smart, me scared, me cry", pose a threat to us someday in the unforeseeable future.
Which is what makes the current GOP junta's plan more objectionable than those of other, also fairly vile, administrations in recent memory. Being the world's policeman was one questionable, at best, thing, but being the world's thought police is an entirely and far more troubling other.
Do forgive me if I seem a tad harsh, but I have little patience for mentally and morally weak imbeciles of either the kill them all or lock them all up crowds. They are merely different sides of the same coin, and neither has any place in a free society.
So, Mr. or Mrs. "can't be too careful", take your subconcious lust for an Orwellian future and shove them up your cowardly, thought police loving backside. Some of us are concerned with preserving freedom.
Further
"out of my way, I have a country to save"
ps Email addresses for Whitney, her boss, and others are available at
http://webtest.ousd.k12.ca.us/OAKLAND/general/staff.html
Try to be civil and yet suitably harsh, though, if possible. Hey, I'm being polite :-p
What the dimwitted and cowardly can never seem to wrap their tiny brains around is that idle comments are different than concrete plans. It is these people who are the problem, because they are the flipside of the physically violent crowd. They are the reason that pre-emptive strikes against those who could possibly (and here I quote them), "maybe, me don't know, me no smart, me scared, me cry", pose a threat to us someday in the unforeseeable future.
Which is what makes the current GOP junta's plan more objectionable than those of other, also fairly vile, administrations in recent memory. Being the world's policeman was one questionable, at best, thing, but being the world's thought police is an entirely and far more troubling other.
Do forgive me if I seem a tad harsh, but I have little patience for mentally and morally weak imbeciles of either the kill them all or lock them all up crowds. They are merely different sides of the same coin, and neither has any place in a free society.
So, Mr. or Mrs. "can't be too careful", take your subconcious lust for an Orwellian future and shove them up your cowardly, thought police loving backside. Some of us are concerned with preserving freedom.
Further
"out of my way, I have a country to save"
ps Email addresses for Whitney, her boss, and others are available at
http://webtest.ousd.k12.ca.us/OAKLAND/general/staff.html
Try to be civil and yet suitably harsh, though, if possible. Hey, I'm being polite :-p
Nice try yomama,
"Thank goodness this teacher had the common sense to call the Secret Service. The Columbine and the Malvo cases show that these days, you can never be too careful. She may have saved lives."
That is too ignorant of statement to be real..
peace..
"Thank goodness this teacher had the common sense to call the Secret Service. The Columbine and the Malvo cases show that these days, you can never be too careful. She may have saved lives."
That is too ignorant of statement to be real..
peace..
Bush is a traitor to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as are the various members of his administration and anyone who does not oppose the USA Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the (not yet introduced) Domestic Security Enhancement Act.
Those boys are patriots and Whitney is a cowardly witch.
I'd shit in Bush's mouth, but I wouldn't want to contaminate my shit!
Those boys are patriots and Whitney is a cowardly witch.
I'd shit in Bush's mouth, but I wouldn't want to contaminate my shit!
While this teacher obviously took an overly alarmist move in calling the Secret Service on a comment made by two 16 year-old boys, that is not something people say "All the time." Whether or not it is right, threatening the life of ANY president in ANY administration has always been serious. It is only common sense that in the ever tightening situations you need to be more careful. You can use the argument of free speech, but unfortunately not all speech is free and it never has been. You can call her a Nazi, but really now, I am tired of hearing people on every side pointing their fingers and yelling "NAZI!". This is a completely different time and a completely different situation. Stand up, but be smart.
Can any of the right-wing PR hacks out there explain why threatening the president in a private conversation between two students should not be protected by the constitutional right to free speech? Please tell me where the clear and present danger is. Thanks.
Here's the skinny on threatening the President:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/871.html
Sec. 871. - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
(a)
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b)
The terms ''President-elect'' and ''Vice President-elect'' as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase ''other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President'' as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20
I beleive that it was written into the US Code in or around 1955.
Presidential Shooting Gallery?
Okay, maybe the Secret Service does stretch semantics in the case above, but can they afford not to?
Consider this: While the murder rate among private Americans is 1 out of 13,530 people, 1 out of 10 US Presidents has been assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy) and a fifth (Reagan) was shot. Eleven others were uninjured in failed assassination attempts. That's 27 out of 43 presidents that have been injured due to an assassination attempt.
That means that if you are the President, you have a 1 in 1.5 chance of being injured or killed in an assassination attempt.
I'd say for the Presidents case, that's one of those times where you're just going to have to deal with having to shut up AND NOT THREATEN TO KILL SOMEONE!
Can you imagine the turmoil that would occur with a presidential assassination? Geez....
...and for all you anarchists out there who would support someone taking out the president, I don't really care what you have to say. That's just not nice.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/871.html
Sec. 871. - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
(a)
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b)
The terms ''President-elect'' and ''Vice President-elect'' as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase ''other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President'' as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20
I beleive that it was written into the US Code in or around 1955.
Presidential Shooting Gallery?
Okay, maybe the Secret Service does stretch semantics in the case above, but can they afford not to?
Consider this: While the murder rate among private Americans is 1 out of 13,530 people, 1 out of 10 US Presidents has been assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy) and a fifth (Reagan) was shot. Eleven others were uninjured in failed assassination attempts. That's 27 out of 43 presidents that have been injured due to an assassination attempt.
That means that if you are the President, you have a 1 in 1.5 chance of being injured or killed in an assassination attempt.
I'd say for the Presidents case, that's one of those times where you're just going to have to deal with having to shut up AND NOT THREATEN TO KILL SOMEONE!
Can you imagine the turmoil that would occur with a presidential assassination? Geez....
...and for all you anarchists out there who would support someone taking out the president, I don't really care what you have to say. That's just not nice.
All that code talks about are mailed threats. It says nothing about ordinary conversation. Also, the issue of whether this law is just, or even something that ought to be considered in accordance with the Bill of Rights has not been addressed, as the mere existence of a law does not make it just or constitutional. All-in-all, I would say that harassing people (minors even!) for anything they say in ordinary conversation is truly despicable and anti-freedom.
"....or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President..."
That covers speech.
Also, if I had your phone number, could I call you multiple times a day and tell you I want to kill?
Another....What if I know some people that you know...and I tell them how I want you to die. I tell them I want to kill you and that I would like a chance to kill you. Would you like them to let you know or the cops know? Or....would you not want someone to tip off the cops if I was (THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL) going to kill you?
No consider that the chances of someone actively trying to kill you versus the President is an order of about FOUR MAGNITUDES LESS, I would understand why they have alot of leeway on this.
Interesting paradox, isn't it?
The supreme court has ruled that you have the right to free speech, but you can not yell "fire" in a crowded theater. This applies here as well. When the odds are more than 50% likely that someone will attempt to kill you and injure you in the process, and that you have a 1 in two chance of surviving the injury, I'd say that the rationale is sound.
I'm not arguing that the Secret Service was over-cautious in this one case. That's pretty evident.
What I do argue is that the law is in place for a reason and that reason is sound.
That covers speech.
Also, if I had your phone number, could I call you multiple times a day and tell you I want to kill?
Another....What if I know some people that you know...and I tell them how I want you to die. I tell them I want to kill you and that I would like a chance to kill you. Would you like them to let you know or the cops know? Or....would you not want someone to tip off the cops if I was (THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL) going to kill you?
No consider that the chances of someone actively trying to kill you versus the President is an order of about FOUR MAGNITUDES LESS, I would understand why they have alot of leeway on this.
Interesting paradox, isn't it?
The supreme court has ruled that you have the right to free speech, but you can not yell "fire" in a crowded theater. This applies here as well. When the odds are more than 50% likely that someone will attempt to kill you and injure you in the process, and that you have a 1 in two chance of surviving the injury, I'd say that the rationale is sound.
I'm not arguing that the Secret Service was over-cautious in this one case. That's pretty evident.
What I do argue is that the law is in place for a reason and that reason is sound.
"Okay, maybe the Secret Service does stretch semantics in the case above, but can they afford not to?"
So you are saying the SS is above the law? Why don't you go move to China where you don't have to worry about laws and other such inconveniences?
"Consider this: While the murder rate among private Americans is 1 out of 13,530 people, 1 out of 10 US Presidents has been assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy) and a fifth (Reagan) was shot. Eleven others were uninjured in failed assassination attempts. That's 27 out of 43 presidents that have been injured due to an assassination attempt."
I think we have some fuzzy math here. Let's see 5 =27? Even if 11 others were injured instead of uninjured as you say, then you have 5+11=27. How old are you?
So you are saying the SS is above the law? Why don't you go move to China where you don't have to worry about laws and other such inconveniences?
"Consider this: While the murder rate among private Americans is 1 out of 13,530 people, 1 out of 10 US Presidents has been assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy) and a fifth (Reagan) was shot. Eleven others were uninjured in failed assassination attempts. That's 27 out of 43 presidents that have been injured due to an assassination attempt."
I think we have some fuzzy math here. Let's see 5 =27? Even if 11 others were injured instead of uninjured as you say, then you have 5+11=27. How old are you?
Type-o. It should have read "27 UN injured..."
15 out of 27 Presidents ACTUALLY attacked AND injured. Four dead, one shot, eleven others injured in the process.
How many attempts were made against Presidents who weren't actually injured?
Hell...a couple were even made against Clinton.
BTW....I'm glad you obviously agree with the need for the law since you response had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in it even remotely logical or debateable about the law itself, just my type-o, a rather weak attempt at an insult to my intelligence, and a extremely gross exaggeration.
The Secret Service has a job to do. They are given leeway to do what is necessary to keep the president safe YET still be constrained from violating personal rights. They were tipped off, they examined the situation, and then they went away.
Of course, I could approch this from your exaggerated logic perspective and ask this:
If you're so adamant about having the right to threaten the Presidents life, then does that mean that you ACTUALLY want to KILL the President?
15 out of 27 Presidents ACTUALLY attacked AND injured. Four dead, one shot, eleven others injured in the process.
How many attempts were made against Presidents who weren't actually injured?
Hell...a couple were even made against Clinton.
BTW....I'm glad you obviously agree with the need for the law since you response had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in it even remotely logical or debateable about the law itself, just my type-o, a rather weak attempt at an insult to my intelligence, and a extremely gross exaggeration.
The Secret Service has a job to do. They are given leeway to do what is necessary to keep the president safe YET still be constrained from violating personal rights. They were tipped off, they examined the situation, and then they went away.
Of course, I could approch this from your exaggerated logic perspective and ask this:
If you're so adamant about having the right to threaten the Presidents life, then does that mean that you ACTUALLY want to KILL the President?
>The supreme court has ruled that you have the right >to free speech, but you can not yell "fire" in a crowded >theater. This applies here as well. When the odds >are more than 50% likely that someone will attempt >to kill you and injure you in the process, and that you >have a 1 in two chance of surviving the injury, I'd say >that the rationale is sound.
It is obvious that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater passes the test of presenting a clear and present danger. It is *clear*, because these words have the potential to incite panic and cause injury, leading to *danger*. It is *present* because the danger that is produced is in the immediate vicinity of the speaker. Now lets consider a spoken threat to the president that is overheard. It is a clear danger? No, because saying something and planning something are two totally different things. So it is not a *clear* danger. Is it a *present* danger? No, because the students were speaking in Oakland, and the president was not in the room. The students' conversation fails *both* tests, and is therefore constitutionally protected speech.
It is obvious that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater passes the test of presenting a clear and present danger. It is *clear*, because these words have the potential to incite panic and cause injury, leading to *danger*. It is *present* because the danger that is produced is in the immediate vicinity of the speaker. Now lets consider a spoken threat to the president that is overheard. It is a clear danger? No, because saying something and planning something are two totally different things. So it is not a *clear* danger. Is it a *present* danger? No, because the students were speaking in Oakland, and the president was not in the room. The students' conversation fails *both* tests, and is therefore constitutionally protected speech.
The Secret Service has a job to do. They are given leeway to do what is necessary to keep the president safe YET still be constrained from violating personal rights. They were tipped off, they examined the situation, and then they went away.
----------------------------------------------
So you _are_ saying they are above the law. Why even have laws then?
----------------------------------------------
So you _are_ saying they are above the law. Why even have laws then?
Actually, their powers are GRANTED BY LAW.
What they do is within the LEGAL scope of their Department.
It's legal.
Don't like it? Elect someone who'll change the laws.
What they do is within the LEGAL scope of their Department.
It's legal.
Don't like it? Elect someone who'll change the laws.
Apparantly you didn't read everything I said, did you?
You can be arrested and hauled in for questioning if someone reports you for having begun planning activities to kill or injure the president, much less another citizen.
You are also overlooking one very important piece to this puzzle:
The Teacher.
You see, Kathy, the Teacher...someone who is expected to know her students as much as a firefighter is supposed to know how to put out a fire.....called the Secret Service.
Apparantly, what the Teacher said convinced the Secret Service to come and interview the students.
So, let's look at it from a Secret Service perspective.
A worried/concerned/hysterical teacher calls up the Secret Service and manages to convince them that students in her class are planning to make an attempt to kill the president.
What's the job of the Secret Service? To passively AS WELL AS actively protect the life of the President.
The come, they interview, they make sure that the students really pose no threat, then they let them go.
If you want someone to be mad at about this, be mad at the teacher for over-reacting, not at the Secret Service for doing their job.
10-year olds have managed to steal rifles from neighbors houses and gun down their own classmates from the cover of treelines. Considering that, why would you not take seriously the very convincing story of a teacher who claims that her students are going to atleast try to kill the President?
It only takes one good shot to take someone out. Do you play the odds with the life of the leader of your country, or do you make sure that the odds are almost completely in your favor by investigating those who would kill him/her?
The Teacher made the call. The Secret Service did their job. The students should have known better, but now they know what not to do and are none-the-less for it.
You can be arrested and hauled in for questioning if someone reports you for having begun planning activities to kill or injure the president, much less another citizen.
You are also overlooking one very important piece to this puzzle:
The Teacher.
You see, Kathy, the Teacher...someone who is expected to know her students as much as a firefighter is supposed to know how to put out a fire.....called the Secret Service.
Apparantly, what the Teacher said convinced the Secret Service to come and interview the students.
So, let's look at it from a Secret Service perspective.
A worried/concerned/hysterical teacher calls up the Secret Service and manages to convince them that students in her class are planning to make an attempt to kill the president.
What's the job of the Secret Service? To passively AS WELL AS actively protect the life of the President.
The come, they interview, they make sure that the students really pose no threat, then they let them go.
If you want someone to be mad at about this, be mad at the teacher for over-reacting, not at the Secret Service for doing their job.
10-year olds have managed to steal rifles from neighbors houses and gun down their own classmates from the cover of treelines. Considering that, why would you not take seriously the very convincing story of a teacher who claims that her students are going to atleast try to kill the President?
It only takes one good shot to take someone out. Do you play the odds with the life of the leader of your country, or do you make sure that the odds are almost completely in your favor by investigating those who would kill him/her?
The Teacher made the call. The Secret Service did their job. The students should have known better, but now they know what not to do and are none-the-less for it.
<b>I'm not a hack...</b> writes:
<blockquote>
Consider this: While the murder rate among private Americans is 1 out of 13,530 people, 1 out of 10 US Presidents has been assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy) and a fifth (Reagan) was shot. </blockquote>
True, but the average U.S. President has killed millions of people around the world. So there's a lot more need for a service to protect the world from U.S. presidents than vice versa. It's not even close!
<blockquote>
Consider this: While the murder rate among private Americans is 1 out of 13,530 people, 1 out of 10 US Presidents has been assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy) and a fifth (Reagan) was shot. </blockquote>
True, but the average U.S. President has killed millions of people around the world. So there's a lot more need for a service to protect the world from U.S. presidents than vice versa. It's not even close!
So its ok to support political assassination? Isn't this what most people decry about Israel? Geez, talk about hipocracy.
This is the warning everyone has been trying to give America befor and during their implementation of the homeland security. The very thing our government say they are fighting other countries about is the very thing they are taking away from their own people. People please READ the issue before you VOTE.
Just like every other government, ours seems to be missing a rather vital point. They were not created to GIVE us freedom of speech, only ensure it. I was born with a language in my tongue and I will use it to say anything I like. This right was not handed to me by a flag or a piece of paper or even a dead white guy. I doesn't even matter if I say their pledge. I think that's what's meant by 'inalienable'.
They can also have your tongue surgically removed and then those rights from birth you are talking about are gone forever.
For more information:
http://NA
Anyone else remember the Scared Straight series from the 70s/80s? This is a perfect example of using that approach.
And does anyone else think the kids deserved some type of retribution? Regardless of whether they were kidding, one of them advocated shooting him, and one said he'd do it! Kids are getting away with way too much of that kind of loose bullshit talk these days.
Bet they never do it again.
And does anyone else think the kids deserved some type of retribution? Regardless of whether they were kidding, one of them advocated shooting him, and one said he'd do it! Kids are getting away with way too much of that kind of loose bullshit talk these days.
Bet they never do it again.
The schools should be teaching that Freedom of Speach requires that the speaker take responsibility for his/her words. The comments of the students reasonably reflect the conversations taking place in their homes. The teacher was right to call the authorities. The teachers that teach that Freedom of Speach means say anything at anytime about anyone or anything whether you mean it or not are missing the point of Freedom of Speach and reflect some of the problem with our school system today. Thank you Ms. Whitney. You did the right thing.
Is it plausible that, in the context of an emotional discussion about war (which includes killing), some children (especially ones whose articulation skills might be limited due to the education they receive in the struggling and bankrupt Oakland School District) might express their feelings about the subject with extreme words?
Through her actions, this "teacher" seems more qualified to work as an informant as opposed to an educator.
Through her actions, this "teacher" seems more qualified to work as an informant as opposed to an educator.
An important observation here is that this is exactly what is wrong with the Bush approach to problem solving. What war essentially teaches people is that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflict. If you have a leader you don't like, then it is okay for you to threaten and even kill him/her. Is this not what Bush did in Iraq? This is one of the many reasons I disagree with the war: It maintains a culture of violence that can only cause further death and destruction. Perhaps rather than call the cops, the teacher could have started a discussion on legal and non-violent ways to get rid of an unpopular leader: impeachment, recall, constitutional amendment, political pressure to resign, etc. While these seem too difficult to be real effective, so does planning to assassinate a president, and they have the advantage of not involving the death penalty when (not if) you are caught implementing your plan.
I wasn't there, so I don't know how seriously the teacher should have taken the comments, but the treatment of the students by the SS is unacceptable. There is no reason to violate an individual's rights. Those rights exist to protect the guilty as well as the innocent, and when we forget that, we are forgetting the very things that make this a great country.
I wasn't there, so I don't know how seriously the teacher should have taken the comments, but the treatment of the students by the SS is unacceptable. There is no reason to violate an individual's rights. Those rights exist to protect the guilty as well as the innocent, and when we forget that, we are forgetting the very things that make this a great country.
Notice the names of the SS agents? Both "minorities" so they can look all PC. Yo, fascists, back off!!!!!!! And if you ask me if I has Bush pix with target on it, take a wild guess, man!!!!!!!!!!!!
My strong impression is that this teacher wanted to hurt these boys and, as is starting to be a trend, used the Patriot Act to do so. This teacher never believed the students had a chance of hurting George Bush. After all, millions of people around the world hate Bush, but most don't pose any threat. Boy talk is just boy talk.
What would have happened if they had made an offhand proposal about killing a rock star? Would that have been followed up with such aciduity?
What would have happened if they had made an offhand proposal about killing a rock star? Would that have been followed up with such aciduity?
I'd like to say a lot of things, but I won't. Why? Because our country has been turned into a freakin' police-state, thanks to the mindless, flag-waving, "Proud To Be An American" Lee Greenwood singing, bible-thumping morons who don't like the principles upon which this country was founded - including that monkey who hijacked OUR White House (NOW THERE'S A CRIME!) As such, I can't spare the time/energy/expense required to defend myself when the Nazi government agents use all the finest resources taxpayer funds can provide, to track me down and endlessly harass me for exercising the rights we used to take for granted. Paranoid? Nope. Very enlightened. This little episode in Oakland isn't the only instance of unbridled SS activity - particularly during this George II reign. Do some searches and you will find what the mainstream media fails to report. When you do find it, go forth and spread the word. Do something before it's too late. Nah - I won't say anything.
I'd like to say a lot of things, but I won't. Why? Because our country has been turned into a freakin' police-state, thanks to the mindless, flag-waving, "Proud To Be An American" Lee Greenwood singing, bible-thumping morons who don't like the principles upon which this country was founded - including that monkey who hijacked OUR White House (NOW THERE'S A CRIME!) As such, I can't spare the time/energy/expense required to defend myself when the Nazi government agents use all the finest resources taxpayer funds can provide, to track me down and endlessly harass me for exercising the rights we used to take for granted. Paranoid? Nope. Very enlightened. This little episode in Oakland isn't the only instance of unbridled SS activity - particularly during this George II reign. Do some searches and you will find what the mainstream media fails to report. When you do find it, go forth and spread the word. Do something before it's too late. Nah - I won't say anything.
look up facist in the dictionary, genius.
>>"Okay, maybe the Secret Service does stretch >>semantics in the case above, but can they afford not >>to?"
>So you are saying the SS is above the law? Why don't >you go move to China where you don't have to worry >about laws and other such inconveniences?
He doesn't need to move anywhere. He should stay the hell in America--the Land of the unFree, and the Home of the Slave. A nation that runs its mouth about the "Rule of Law" but practices the Rule of the Jungle on a global Level. A sick and twisted Empire that spouts self-congratulatory lies that it represents Freedom and Democracy when in fact it only represents Fascism and Hypocrisy.
All these patriotic American fascists--either for or against the Secret Service in this case--are two sides of the same coin. Both of these groups don't have the guts to face the fact that America has never represented freedom and democracy to begin with, and it never will.
The rhetoric of "Freedom and Democracy" have long ago been hijacked and perverted by arrogant American fucks as essenially an ideological and propaganda tool to attack other nations with and
beat their chest about.
Regardless, these AmeriNazis--regardless of their political disposition--will find out what their evil America Empire is about soon enough.
>So you are saying the SS is above the law? Why don't >you go move to China where you don't have to worry >about laws and other such inconveniences?
He doesn't need to move anywhere. He should stay the hell in America--the Land of the unFree, and the Home of the Slave. A nation that runs its mouth about the "Rule of Law" but practices the Rule of the Jungle on a global Level. A sick and twisted Empire that spouts self-congratulatory lies that it represents Freedom and Democracy when in fact it only represents Fascism and Hypocrisy.
All these patriotic American fascists--either for or against the Secret Service in this case--are two sides of the same coin. Both of these groups don't have the guts to face the fact that America has never represented freedom and democracy to begin with, and it never will.
The rhetoric of "Freedom and Democracy" have long ago been hijacked and perverted by arrogant American fucks as essenially an ideological and propaganda tool to attack other nations with and
beat their chest about.
Regardless, these AmeriNazis--regardless of their political disposition--will find out what their evil America Empire is about soon enough.
just because it is the law does not make it constitutional
ex: flag burning was against the law. the supreme court found it to be unconstitutional threw out the law
ex: abortions was against the law, and the supreme court found the law to be unconstitutional and threw it out.
ex: flag burning was against the law. the supreme court found it to be unconstitutional threw out the law
ex: abortions was against the law, and the supreme court found the law to be unconstitutional and threw it out.
"True, but the average U.S. President has killed millions of people around the world. So there's a lot more need for a service to protect the world from U.S. presidents than vice versa. It's not even close! "
Do you have a link to it? The average American president kills millions during its term? Or are you just blowing shit out of your ass?
Do you have a link to it? The average American president kills millions during its term? Or are you just blowing shit out of your ass?
It is sad to see how our country has changed from a happy and carefree nation into one that is fearful of informants and secret service in just a few years, from a nation of abundance into a nation where many jobless, homeless, pennyless people could be seen on our city streets.
I don't know what the big deal is. If you talk about the assination of a president in public then you are bound to get ibn trouble.
Free speech is fine and dandy, but whether they were kidding or not, it was still a threat. Hell, I would you like it if someone came up to you and said, "I know where you live and I am going to kill you" will you respond my saying "HEY DOOD I RESPECT FREE SPEECH! KEEP PREACHING!"
And it's always been a law to say you are going to hurt a president in any way. You're subject to 5 years in prison if caught. These kids were questioned and released. They got off easy.
Free speech is fine and dandy, but whether they were kidding or not, it was still a threat. Hell, I would you like it if someone came up to you and said, "I know where you live and I am going to kill you" will you respond my saying "HEY DOOD I RESPECT FREE SPEECH! KEEP PREACHING!"
And it's always been a law to say you are going to hurt a president in any way. You're subject to 5 years in prison if caught. These kids were questioned and released. They got off easy.
Story last updated at 7:03 a.m. Thursday, May 8, 2003
S.C. man files injunction after Secret Service took protest sign
Associated Press
COLUMBIA--A South Carolina man is taking the federal government to court because he says the Secret Service is unfairly treating him and other anti-Bush protesters.
Businessman Gerald Rudolph said Wednesday he decided to file for a temporary injunction after he said the Secret Service took his protest sign and told him to leave a restricted area during President Bush's visit to an airport hangar in Columbia last October.
Bush supporters were allowed to keep their signs and stay in the area, Rudolph said. And he doesn't want that to happen again when Bush visits Friday to speak at the University of South Carolina's commencement.
A judge will hear the injunction request today.
"They can't restrict access based on the content of our message," Rudolph said. "If they allow any signs ... inside the Secret Service's perimeter up to the door, then we'll be carrying our signs up there as well if we get the injunction."
Secret Service spokeswoman Jean Mitchell said it's not the agency's policy to discriminate against protesters, no matter who they are against. "We don't designate a protest area based on the message."
Rudolph said he and the group of protesters were told to go to a free speech area about a half-mile from where Bush was speaking, where no one could see the protest.
Source: http://www.charleston.net/stories/050803/sta_08protest.shtml
Story last updated at 7:11 a.m. Friday, May 9, 2003
Bush at USC today
Middle East peace plan to be focus of speech
BY SCHUYLER KROPF
Of The Post and Courier Staff
President Bush will promote his road map for Middle East peace, focusing strongly on the need for political and economic reforms in the Arab world, when he delivers the commencement address today at the University of South Carolina.
He'll use the words of John F. Kennedy to do it.
White House officials say Bush will go back in time and draw on USC's 1957 spring graduation in which Kennedy, then a Massachusetts senator with presidential aspirations, gave the keynote speech.
Kennedy predicted discord would continue unless the West intervened. He spoke of solving "the knotty, complex problems of war and peace, (and) of untangling the strife-ridden, hate-ridden Middle East."
White House officials released hints of the speech's contents Thursday, just hours after Bush announced he was sending Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Middle East today.
Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush's address will "focus on the hopeful moment in the Middle East," adding that he "will touch on other areas around the world, as well, particularly in the war on terror."
A senior official, requesting anonymity, said Bush will suggest the creation of a Middle East free trade zone within a decade that one day could link the economies of Israel and its Arab neighbors. The tone of the speech, he said, would be that Bush sees the Arab world as a potential democratic trading partner and that adopting western-style business and political practices will bring stability for all and prosperity to the lowest rung of Arab society.
"Over the long-run, it's really America's pursuit of liberty that is going to bring lasting security, because people who are free and people who live under representative governments have the ability to also be at peace with their neighbors," the official said.
Today's 3 p.m. graduation inside the 19,000-seat Carolina Center will go forward under tight security and a strictly enforced admission schedule. Doors will open at 12:15 p.m. and close promptly at 2:20 p.m. Only ticket-holders will be allowed in. Bush will receive an honorary doctor of laws degree during the ceremony.
Today's visit to Columbia is Bush's fourth trip to South Carolina in the past year, but it is the first that didn't involve a fund-raiser or stump appearance on behalf of GOP candidates. Gov. Mark Sanford will meet Bush on the tarmac of Columbia Metropolitan Airport and ride in the presidential motorcade to Carolina Center, while several other ranking Republicans will also be on hand to greet the president.
Although the state's congressional delegation has been invited to fly along with Bush from Washington to Columbia, the House of Representatives is scheduled to take up Bush's tax cut and economic stimulus package today. It was unclear Thursday whether any House members would be able to make the flight.
Bush will face at least one formal opposition demonstration. A group of USC students will hold an alternative graduation outside the Carolina Center to protest his selection as the graduation speaker.
Amanda Martin of Connecticut, who will receive dual master's degrees in social work and public health, said her group will wear caps and gowns outside the ceremony site as they protest Bush's appearance for reasons ranging from his "No Child Left Behind" effort being an unfunded mandate to the White House's decision to confirm his attendance last Friday, the same day that the nine Democrats running for president were arriving in Columbia for their televised debate.
"I feel that the university graduation ceremony should not be the forum for George W. Bush's speech to begin his political campaign of 2004," Martin said. She accused USC of selling out "to get its name in the paper."
Opponents of Bush's visit said they won a significant concession Thursday, as the Secret Service said it would not push out protesters carrying anti-Bush messages in a city-approved protest area outside the graduation site.
Columbia businessman Gerald Rudolph sought a court injunction to prevent the Secret Service from removing anti-Bush protesters. U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Perry declined the injunction because there was not enough evidence that the agency planned to infringe on Rudolph's right to free speech, but the Secret Service agreed to treat all demonstrators the same regardless of their messages.
"Sometimes you receive a beneficial result just by bringing the case," said Rudolph's attorney Jay Bender.
The legal fight came after a demonstrator, social activist Brett Bursey, said he was unfairly singled out during Bush's last appearance in Columbia, right before the November 2002 elections.
The senior White House official said the speech's tone will show that Bush is serious, after winning the war in Iraq, about expanding reforms in the Arab world.
"As the president has said, there are a lot of rich, cultural and historical traditions that have prospered in the Middle East, but prosperity itself has not reached the Middle Eastern people," the official said.
About 1,500 graduates will get their degrees today. The other half of USC's graduating class will take part in their ceremony Saturday when Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association, is guest speaker. Students graduating Saturday can still get in to see Bush if they have a ticket.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
source: http://www.charleston.net/stories/050903/sta_09bush.shtml
May 9, 2003--Iowa City
Student Answering to the Secret Service?
The University of Iowa's student newspaper is reporting a Junior is being investigated by the Secret Service for threatening comments the student made towards President Bush in a paper. Secret Service agents to we talked with would neither confirm or deny the investigation. The student's name is Joe Versgrove an English major. We do know the situation has something to do with one of his classes within the English and Philosophy department. The chair of the department, Brooks Landon, cancelled the last two days of Versgrove's class as a precaution.
"I cancelled based on what i did not know, rather than based on anything I did know," says Landon.
We did stop at Versgrove's apartment. His roommate telling us over the phone that Joe has gone home to Illinois for the summer, and would only add that this whole situation is pretty strange.
Senior Jake Lancaster was in the same class as Versgrove calling him a normal student. Lancaster says it's confusing because their English class had nothing to do with politics.
"The concessions is it just really bizarre situation. I didn't know what to think about it. I though, I didn't see anything especially out of this course, anything political coming out of his papers," says Lancaster.
source: http://www.kwwl.com/global/story.asp?s=1272229&ClientType=Printable
Secret Service in Santa Clara:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/05/1606791.php
S.C. man files injunction after Secret Service took protest sign
Associated Press
COLUMBIA--A South Carolina man is taking the federal government to court because he says the Secret Service is unfairly treating him and other anti-Bush protesters.
Businessman Gerald Rudolph said Wednesday he decided to file for a temporary injunction after he said the Secret Service took his protest sign and told him to leave a restricted area during President Bush's visit to an airport hangar in Columbia last October.
Bush supporters were allowed to keep their signs and stay in the area, Rudolph said. And he doesn't want that to happen again when Bush visits Friday to speak at the University of South Carolina's commencement.
A judge will hear the injunction request today.
"They can't restrict access based on the content of our message," Rudolph said. "If they allow any signs ... inside the Secret Service's perimeter up to the door, then we'll be carrying our signs up there as well if we get the injunction."
Secret Service spokeswoman Jean Mitchell said it's not the agency's policy to discriminate against protesters, no matter who they are against. "We don't designate a protest area based on the message."
Rudolph said he and the group of protesters were told to go to a free speech area about a half-mile from where Bush was speaking, where no one could see the protest.
Source: http://www.charleston.net/stories/050803/sta_08protest.shtml
Story last updated at 7:11 a.m. Friday, May 9, 2003
Bush at USC today
Middle East peace plan to be focus of speech
BY SCHUYLER KROPF
Of The Post and Courier Staff
President Bush will promote his road map for Middle East peace, focusing strongly on the need for political and economic reforms in the Arab world, when he delivers the commencement address today at the University of South Carolina.
He'll use the words of John F. Kennedy to do it.
White House officials say Bush will go back in time and draw on USC's 1957 spring graduation in which Kennedy, then a Massachusetts senator with presidential aspirations, gave the keynote speech.
Kennedy predicted discord would continue unless the West intervened. He spoke of solving "the knotty, complex problems of war and peace, (and) of untangling the strife-ridden, hate-ridden Middle East."
White House officials released hints of the speech's contents Thursday, just hours after Bush announced he was sending Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Middle East today.
Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush's address will "focus on the hopeful moment in the Middle East," adding that he "will touch on other areas around the world, as well, particularly in the war on terror."
A senior official, requesting anonymity, said Bush will suggest the creation of a Middle East free trade zone within a decade that one day could link the economies of Israel and its Arab neighbors. The tone of the speech, he said, would be that Bush sees the Arab world as a potential democratic trading partner and that adopting western-style business and political practices will bring stability for all and prosperity to the lowest rung of Arab society.
"Over the long-run, it's really America's pursuit of liberty that is going to bring lasting security, because people who are free and people who live under representative governments have the ability to also be at peace with their neighbors," the official said.
Today's 3 p.m. graduation inside the 19,000-seat Carolina Center will go forward under tight security and a strictly enforced admission schedule. Doors will open at 12:15 p.m. and close promptly at 2:20 p.m. Only ticket-holders will be allowed in. Bush will receive an honorary doctor of laws degree during the ceremony.
Today's visit to Columbia is Bush's fourth trip to South Carolina in the past year, but it is the first that didn't involve a fund-raiser or stump appearance on behalf of GOP candidates. Gov. Mark Sanford will meet Bush on the tarmac of Columbia Metropolitan Airport and ride in the presidential motorcade to Carolina Center, while several other ranking Republicans will also be on hand to greet the president.
Although the state's congressional delegation has been invited to fly along with Bush from Washington to Columbia, the House of Representatives is scheduled to take up Bush's tax cut and economic stimulus package today. It was unclear Thursday whether any House members would be able to make the flight.
Bush will face at least one formal opposition demonstration. A group of USC students will hold an alternative graduation outside the Carolina Center to protest his selection as the graduation speaker.
Amanda Martin of Connecticut, who will receive dual master's degrees in social work and public health, said her group will wear caps and gowns outside the ceremony site as they protest Bush's appearance for reasons ranging from his "No Child Left Behind" effort being an unfunded mandate to the White House's decision to confirm his attendance last Friday, the same day that the nine Democrats running for president were arriving in Columbia for their televised debate.
"I feel that the university graduation ceremony should not be the forum for George W. Bush's speech to begin his political campaign of 2004," Martin said. She accused USC of selling out "to get its name in the paper."
Opponents of Bush's visit said they won a significant concession Thursday, as the Secret Service said it would not push out protesters carrying anti-Bush messages in a city-approved protest area outside the graduation site.
Columbia businessman Gerald Rudolph sought a court injunction to prevent the Secret Service from removing anti-Bush protesters. U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Perry declined the injunction because there was not enough evidence that the agency planned to infringe on Rudolph's right to free speech, but the Secret Service agreed to treat all demonstrators the same regardless of their messages.
"Sometimes you receive a beneficial result just by bringing the case," said Rudolph's attorney Jay Bender.
The legal fight came after a demonstrator, social activist Brett Bursey, said he was unfairly singled out during Bush's last appearance in Columbia, right before the November 2002 elections.
The senior White House official said the speech's tone will show that Bush is serious, after winning the war in Iraq, about expanding reforms in the Arab world.
"As the president has said, there are a lot of rich, cultural and historical traditions that have prospered in the Middle East, but prosperity itself has not reached the Middle Eastern people," the official said.
About 1,500 graduates will get their degrees today. The other half of USC's graduating class will take part in their ceremony Saturday when Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association, is guest speaker. Students graduating Saturday can still get in to see Bush if they have a ticket.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
source: http://www.charleston.net/stories/050903/sta_09bush.shtml
May 9, 2003--Iowa City
Student Answering to the Secret Service?
The University of Iowa's student newspaper is reporting a Junior is being investigated by the Secret Service for threatening comments the student made towards President Bush in a paper. Secret Service agents to we talked with would neither confirm or deny the investigation. The student's name is Joe Versgrove an English major. We do know the situation has something to do with one of his classes within the English and Philosophy department. The chair of the department, Brooks Landon, cancelled the last two days of Versgrove's class as a precaution.
"I cancelled based on what i did not know, rather than based on anything I did know," says Landon.
We did stop at Versgrove's apartment. His roommate telling us over the phone that Joe has gone home to Illinois for the summer, and would only add that this whole situation is pretty strange.
Senior Jake Lancaster was in the same class as Versgrove calling him a normal student. Lancaster says it's confusing because their English class had nothing to do with politics.
"The concessions is it just really bizarre situation. I didn't know what to think about it. I though, I didn't see anything especially out of this course, anything political coming out of his papers," says Lancaster.
source: http://www.kwwl.com/global/story.asp?s=1272229&ClientType=Printable
Secret Service in Santa Clara:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/05/1606791.php
Before castigating someone's argument on the basis of a Webster's definition, I would advise you to find "facist" in the dictionary yourself. It won't be there. Genius.
"It is sad to see how our country has changed from a happy and carefree nation into one that is fearful of informants and secret service in just a few years, from a nation of abundance into a nation where many jobless, homeless, pennyless people could be seen on our city streets."
Its sad to see deluded American jackasses who believe that America was ever NOT a nation of jobless, homeless, pennyless people.
Ever heard of the LA Riot, fool?
Its sad to see deluded American jackasses who believe that America was ever NOT a nation of jobless, homeless, pennyless people.
Ever heard of the LA Riot, fool?
"Its sad to see deluded American jackasses who believe that America was ever NOT a nation of jobless, homeless, pennyless people. "
Realist... I blame the myth of the founding of this country that is taught in school's and maintained by the press. As long as this myth is taught and sustained, people will keep on believing it. And I agree that is sad to see such a deluded people.
Realist... I blame the myth of the founding of this country that is taught in school's and maintained by the press. As long as this myth is taught and sustained, people will keep on believing it. And I agree that is sad to see such a deluded people.
Should be no surprise that Secret Service came in. Maybe they will think twice before making stupid comments in the future. In Russia or Iraq, those students would be tortured and then murdered. They should count themselves lucky. They acted like fools.
This is another example of why you should pull your precious children out of the government indoctrination camps and Home School. We Home School!
These are children. minors. they were kidding around. They were not capable of murder of anyone especially the president. People that think like you will deserve the police state that you are helping to bring about, You are a mean spirited self rightious low life. If I was in power would you want me to have power over you.
These are children. minors. they were kidding around. They were not capable of murder of anyone especially the president. People that think like you will deserve the police state that you are helping to bring about, You are a mean spirited self rightious low life. If I was in power would you want me to have power over you.
are you, or have you ever been a terrorist???
hmmm....history repeats itself...
be afraid, be very very afraid
hmmm....history repeats itself...
be afraid, be very very afraid
I am not surprised, we live in a world full of fear and unfairness. The teacher is wrong. The parents should have been contacted. The opportunity for constructive learning was lost , fear and terrorism reinforced.
Not long ago, a little kid was suspended from school and questioned by cops, for making a "shooting motion" with a chicken leg! Everything we do teaches some lesson to kids. Unfortunately, all too often that lesson is "the authorities are idiots and can't be trusted."
For more information:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/05/160736...
What is going on when kids can't speak their minds in an open forum? The teacher should lose her job and be deported to Cuba. She's an idiot who over reacted and emotionally scarred two kids permanently.
And to the narrow minded folks saying they would have been killed for their comments in another country, that's why they live in America, because we're supposed to be better than other countries in personal freedoms. We're supposed to be able to speak our minds even if those opinions are diametrically opposite to the national viewpoint. We're supposed to be celebrating diversity, not turning our schools into police states.
I'm sickened by stories like this. And by the growing epidemic of teachers turning into rats whenever they overhear anything that might remotely indicate a Columbine-like atmosphere. NOT EVERY KID IS A PSYCHOTIC KILLER. In fact, most kids are just that, kids. Relax!
And to the narrow minded folks saying they would have been killed for their comments in another country, that's why they live in America, because we're supposed to be better than other countries in personal freedoms. We're supposed to be able to speak our minds even if those opinions are diametrically opposite to the national viewpoint. We're supposed to be celebrating diversity, not turning our schools into police states.
I'm sickened by stories like this. And by the growing epidemic of teachers turning into rats whenever they overhear anything that might remotely indicate a Columbine-like atmosphere. NOT EVERY KID IS A PSYCHOTIC KILLER. In fact, most kids are just that, kids. Relax!
I hope one of these boys grows up to be a civil rights lawyer. I am sure they will both at least be CR advocates for life.
Traumatizing high school students??? Shame! Shame! Shame! Secret Service! Shame!!!
Traumatizing high school students??? Shame! Shame! Shame! Secret Service! Shame!!!
what, are you the spelling police? At least the poster's vocabulary includes the word fascist. Editors are for newspapers, Flamers are for the internet.
if he had used the word out of context I would have noticed. ~That~ would have deserved a snide comment.
as did you ;)
if he had used the word out of context I would have noticed. ~That~ would have deserved a snide comment.
as did you ;)
"Hail, Hail Freedonia,
Land of the Free and Proud!"
Land of the Free and Proud!"
Why do two federal agents have the time to grill high school students who make hyperbolic remarks? We may as well arrest everyone in the stands at the football and baseball games. Of all the people in the world, George W. Bush, is probably the safest, most protected person in human history. Is he really that afraid of kids or are his helper monkeys dumber than he is?
When I was 16, I was not a child. Neither were my classmates. We carried guns and knives concealed in our purses and bookbags to school. We had to protect ourselves from each other. 16 year olds can be tried as adults. Shall I direct everyone's attention back to Columbine? Those "children" slaughtered their own classmates and teachers. What would stop a "child" from attacking the President? Nothing. The Secret Service has much larger fish to fry than a couple of "children". My tax money pays them to protect the President, and if they felt his life was in danger, then my tax money was well spent in protecting him.
Telly McGregor you are an idiot!!!
Seriously, such a washed out brain like yours I haven't seen in a long time.This incident is comparable to a dictatorshipand US under Bush's regime is becoming one.Have you heard of Patriot Act passed in Oct.2001?It ruins several points of the constutution and severly limits civil freedoms.See I used to live under a communist regime in Poland at the end of 80s and one day the secret police came to school and quetioned me in the same exact manner just because the teacher denounced me that I listen to Radio Free Europe which was speaking against the regime.The difference was:that regime was totalitarian!!!
If this is what you call freedom then how do you define a police state dictatorship?
Seriously, such a washed out brain like yours I haven't seen in a long time.This incident is comparable to a dictatorshipand US under Bush's regime is becoming one.Have you heard of Patriot Act passed in Oct.2001?It ruins several points of the constutution and severly limits civil freedoms.See I used to live under a communist regime in Poland at the end of 80s and one day the secret police came to school and quetioned me in the same exact manner just because the teacher denounced me that I listen to Radio Free Europe which was speaking against the regime.The difference was:that regime was totalitarian!!!
If this is what you call freedom then how do you define a police state dictatorship?
Ever since January 1, 2000, we have been living in the New World Order. The Global Elite have obviously initiated their NWO because the police have deliberately increased their criminal violations of our Constitutional Rights.
If you cannot defend yourself from violations of your Constitutional Rights -- YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Wake Up America !!!
If you cannot defend yourself from violations of your Constitutional Rights -- YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Wake Up America !!!
why'd the kids take back their statements? i know there were a couple of secret service agents starin' 'em down and trying to assert their penis size and bank account status...but i would have answered the agents' question "what would you say to the president if he were here right now?" not as "i apologize," but as "FUCK YOU! why don't you kill yourself so someone in possession of higher intelligence and a conscience doesn't have to do it for you?!"
you know.
also, what kind of dumb-ass would ask a kid a question avbout having a photo of bush with a target on it?! "uh, do you also have a sticker on your lunchbox that says 'saddam rocks'? 'cause if you do..."
kiss my ass, big brother.
you know.
also, what kind of dumb-ass would ask a kid a question avbout having a photo of bush with a target on it?! "uh, do you also have a sticker on your lunchbox that says 'saddam rocks'? 'cause if you do..."
kiss my ass, big brother.
I just thought of the underlying cause of all this and I invite you to do some thinking with me.Here we go:
Every totalitarian regime uses essentially the same tactics:
1. Arranges provocations (trains maniacs or addicts to perform some dreadful acts, the more shocking the better,- sounds familiar?)
2. Uses propaganda (media, equipped with nicely fabricated evidence) to blame someone and hence create a national (or better still - universal) enemy
(sounds familiar?)
3. Uses the pretext of "fighting" the newly created enemy to "justify" whatever it likes to do, like jailing intelligent citizens of its own country in concentration camps or wage a war somewhere.(sounds familiar?)
Great Inquisition, Stalin, Hitler - all used the same old strategy and propaganda to mislead their flocks. Even the "laws" that they introduce to "justify" their actions are strikingly similar (such as "assumed guilty until proven innocent" for example)...
However,such a strategy is laughably transparent, especially for someone who lived under a totalitarian regime and has a trace of intelligence.
I hope this will help to clarify the truth about september 11th and the susequent madness and paranoia that has followed and that this school incident is a consequence of.
God save America!
Every totalitarian regime uses essentially the same tactics:
1. Arranges provocations (trains maniacs or addicts to perform some dreadful acts, the more shocking the better,- sounds familiar?)
2. Uses propaganda (media, equipped with nicely fabricated evidence) to blame someone and hence create a national (or better still - universal) enemy
(sounds familiar?)
3. Uses the pretext of "fighting" the newly created enemy to "justify" whatever it likes to do, like jailing intelligent citizens of its own country in concentration camps or wage a war somewhere.(sounds familiar?)
Great Inquisition, Stalin, Hitler - all used the same old strategy and propaganda to mislead their flocks. Even the "laws" that they introduce to "justify" their actions are strikingly similar (such as "assumed guilty until proven innocent" for example)...
However,such a strategy is laughably transparent, especially for someone who lived under a totalitarian regime and has a trace of intelligence.
I hope this will help to clarify the truth about september 11th and the susequent madness and paranoia that has followed and that this school incident is a consequence of.
God save America!
The Bush family and the BinLadin family have done or do business together through The Carlisle Group. Why isn't Resident Bush and retired President George Henry Walker Bush locked up in Guantonimo Bay for being suspected terrorist conspirators, and/ or a suspected terrorist cell.
Frank Zappa fan
Frank Zappa fan
Whitney should be fired for the Oakland School System, and the boys need to sue her to the hilt.
The US has as strong a SS/Secret Police just like any Middle-East or Euro country. Rights? what F....rights. Since Bush came to power, the Constutition has become S......paper.
What other President in history was appointed by the Supreme Court....He claims credit for the winning in Iraq...The men who died and were wounded they are the Hero's, not this want-a-be ass
The US has as strong a SS/Secret Police just like any Middle-East or Euro country. Rights? what F....rights. Since Bush came to power, the Constutition has become S......paper.
What other President in history was appointed by the Supreme Court....He claims credit for the winning in Iraq...The men who died and were wounded they are the Hero's, not this want-a-be ass
some one's
been smokin da-funny stuff again, are you seein things yet???
been smokin da-funny stuff again, are you seein things yet???
Threatening the President's life is not a 'jest,' and it is not a 'joke.' It's against the law. Free speech (besides not actually being in the constitituion) is not without rational limits. Next time you're on a flight why don't you discuss bombs in a loud voice and see how that works.
The two kids must be idiots, but at least at the rate they're going we won't have to worry about them voiting - felons can't vote.
The two kids must be idiots, but at least at the rate they're going we won't have to worry about them voiting - felons can't vote.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$205.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network