Slashdot Mirror
The White House Crowd Control Manual
quizzicus writes "The Washington Post writes today about a sensitive White House document detailing how to screen for, silence, and remove protesters who show up at the President's public appearances. Obtained by an ACLU subpoena in the Rank v. Jenkins case, the Presidential Advance Manual (PDF) is dated October 2002. It lays out strategies such as searching audience members at the door for hidden protest material, strategically placing 'rally squads' throughout the crowd to intercept and shout down hecklers, and forcefully removing dissenters who cannot be squelched. The manual advises, however, that staff should 'decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone.'"
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Not only does Chimpy not see it, but no one else sees it, either, thanks to the complicit corporate media.
If this was a Peter Sellers movie, it would be hilarious. Unfortunately, it's not a movie. We're actually living this.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The manual is [redacted], otherwise [redacted].
[redacted]
I think I should finish this long post by summarizing my opinion about the [redacted] manual which is: [redacted].
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Because Democrats would never do that, amirite?
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
People have spoken of this issue since Bush was even campaigning. Are you surprised that they actually had a manual for it?
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
And I think a Democrat president, if he we smart, would have a manual on it, too. What is the big deal?
Just another inflammatory, irrelevant article from kdawson. This article belongs in politics, not YRO.
OK. Sap "Circle". "Star" gets sheeped, "Square" gets banished, "Diamond" gets freeze trapped, and we all DPS down "Skull".
Got it?
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson: never try.
Yes.
Easy decision.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Where is the tech in this article? Are they zapping the protestors to the Alien mothership?
Crowd Controls you!
Regards, Ian
Same as the Warlock CC method: Kill the crowd!
What's the point of releasing this document if half of it's been censored?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Will you next tell me that Democrats and Republicans are both corrupt and bad for our nation...which you recetnly determined in 2006?
Blar.
is that while those who insist on hating Bush think this is news, this has been "crowd control" tactics for pretty much every political rally or protest that has ever existed.
Democrats regularly strip off shirts and try to confiscate signs that are critical of them at their rallies. Try bringing a counter-sign to one of the Muslim KKK / "Pro-Palestine" events sometime, and see what happens. If you're lucky, they'll just try to cover your sign with theirs or grab it from your hands and rip it up and stomp on it; if you're not, you'll be physically attacked for being a "Jew."
I took a sign asking Obama what he thinks of the racial supremacist views of his "church": when I held it up at his rally, it lasted about 30 seconds, then one of his "staffers" pointed at me and sent cronies into the crowd to take it from my hands and rip it up. Seems they don't want the truth about him pointed out.
Why are the trolls here blaming the current White House for this document? It was published in 2002. That means they started working on it long before. Remember who was president then?
The Secret Service are nonpartisan equal-opportunity thugs. They'll protect presidents of any ideology and round up and haul away protestors of any ideology.
Don't worry, they protected the last Clinton and will protect the next Clinton with equal zeal. Please remember to protest with equal zeal next time around, too.
Of 103 pages, there's only a little over a page of actual content that was not redacted.
/. test to see who would actually read the referenced document?
Was this a
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
The last thing the secret service works is chaos while the president is vulnerable up on a stage. Our country allows you to protests pretty much any way you want to an time you want to as long as it doesn't endanger other people. I'd call a bunch of left wing crazies shouting about how the government caused 9/11 in a crowd of right wing war hawks is going to cause some issues.
When I visited ground zero earlier this year a group of conspiracy theorists showed up and started marching through the crowds of people with signs screaming about how 9/11 was an "Inside Job". Fortunately the police showed up and had them move to a designated area to protest. This isn't Big Brother censoring peoples dissenting views, is the police trying to prevent a massive street fight from breaking out between the people who feel that ground zero is a place to remember those lost and the people who are concerned with shouting their views at everyone within earshot.
When I was in college, I went to a Bush (41) speech while he was campaigning for reelection.
A decent portion of the crowd - not a majority, mind you, but dozens of folks - were chanting "4 more months! 4 more months!"
A bunch of loyalists tried to shout down the protesters, but failed.
Whether you like the president or not, I like the idea that when he addresses a public crowd, it is an honest-to-goodness cross section of the population (minus any crazies with guns, obviously). These days anyone heckling the President would be forcibly removed from the venue.
If only Bush (43) could have learned from his father about Iraq.... But I digress.
I'm not sure which part I find less wholesome, the almost self-parodying use of yelling "USA! USA! USA!" or the idea of importing the local football team and/or frat to act as rhetorical muscle.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
I see nothing wrong with laying out official rules and guidelines to your staff on how to handle crowds especially hostile ones. You don't want people "improvising" and screwing up big time.
If the actual methods or rules are bad then sure, it's cause for concern.
So how about cut down the "oh noes they have a manual to tell them what to do!", and try to concentrate on what they are being told to do AND what they actually do?
you are Pinyan's ghost
I say means to me because this is not a legal interpretation or viewpoint; simply my personal viewpoint.
To me, the right to freedom of speech also includes the freedom not to listen to speech. I don't believe others' rights should be impuned, and I'm happy if mine aren't as well. However I don't believe that it means I'm required to supply others with the platform by which they may express themselves. They have the right to talk, I feel that I have the right to listen or not listen.
We live in a country where we can pretty much say whatever we like about whomever we like (with reasonable boundaries and limitations of course), but nothing that I can imagine requires anyone to have to endure or listen to it (even Bush).
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
"BBC NEWS Wednesday, 1 December, 1999, 21:53 GMT Hundreds arrested in Seattle Seattle police have arrested about 200 activists protesting at the world trade talks as they tighten security ahead of a speech by President Bill Clinton." http://www.sbindependent.org/node/898 "According to Little, it was not the Secret Service that expressed concern to the police, but rather a member of Sen. Clinton's political staff." And protesters were removed..
Al you have to do is [redacted] and the problem will be solved!
Y'all gonna need this one, soon 'nuf my brotha's.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"Free speech zones."
)
So you have the right to shut down public streets at will and endanger yourself and others because you have a right to an opinion?
(I'm referring to things like this: http://lmtonline.com/news/archive/0713/pagea5.pdf
"hire people to protect against the protesters"
Well, security is important given the number of violent and stupid people at any large assembly.
"when at the rally you have people arrested for wearing a shirt"
Yes, the t-shirt things are silly and stupid.
But do you really want to allow any type of disruptive protest anywhere, anyplace?
Inside a courtroom?
Inside congress? (Yes, I know, cue jokes about congress not getting anything done being a good thing.)
There has to be some sane limits, but lately it seems the mentality of people is "F*ck you. I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, however I want, because I "gots my rights". Damn yours." (I'm not really referring to you here.)
The Servants of Cthulhu
|
V
Evil Geniuses For a Better Tomorrow
|
V
Republicans
| | |
| | V
| | Boy Sprouts
| V
| Professional Sports
V
Local Police Departments
"shoot."
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I remember an inaugural event, announced as a come one, come all, meet and greet with the people thing, that was reported a while back where the journalist focused on the controversy of the new President's people managing the gate, the quick construction of fenced off sections, the triage used to herd certain types into a holding pen with no line of sight to the media area, others into "away" areas, and pass-holders only (selected invitees) into the media-resident area. All documented in excruciating detail by the obviously appalled reporter, but buried deep in the A section by his editor.
At that time, the Arkansan President was the fresh face with high approval numbers.
That same fellow, by his second term, spoke for long stretches only from the Atcheson Auditorium in State Department HQ in front of his appointees. The State Department has far more political appointees than any other Federal department, and HQ probably has more political appointees resident any other building in Washington with the possible exception of the White House.
And, of course, when the going got tough for the Georgian he spoke only from the White House grounds.
Bush may turn out to have the first administration to fumble their strategy to the press, or may be the first to have it receive real media coverage, but he is hardly the first to baldly have such a strategy.
As for those other gentlemen, I am amazed to hear that they were Republicans, my recollection being otherwise.
Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
Once, he asked a Secret Service agent to leave. I don't think he's been invited back since.
[ comment censored ]