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.'"

Comments

Out of sight == Out of mind

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

But that does not mean the White House is against dissent -- just so long as the president does not see it. In fact, the manual outlines a specific system for those who disagree with the president to voice their views. It directs the White House advance staff to ask local police "to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route."

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.

Tagged Republican?

[faloi]

Because Democrats would never do that, amirite?

Re:Tagged Republican?

[PJ1216]

Pointing out one event doesn't carry the same weight as an administration that apparently does it at every speech and who wrote a manual on the subject...

Re:Tagged Republican?

[svendsen]

So because one side did it, it justifies the other side doing it? Please.

Free speech zones, cant wear shirts, hire people to protect against the protesters, make people remove shirts to see if they have anything underneath someone might not like, etc. goes against what this country was founded on.

You can't be president and say you are protecting free speech at a rally, when at the rally you have people arrested for wearing a shirt with a red cross through your name.

And now I have to type this paragraph because of all the bush trolls. When kerry did the plus unbutton your shirt to make sure you don't have another bad shirt underneath disgusted me just as much.

Re:Tagged Republican?

[Some_Llama]

"Just that it happens on both sides, neither is free from blame."

Then instead of pointing the finger at the other side when it DOES happen.. you should be lining up with your fellow Americans and decry the practice in whole. Otherwise it just makes you look like you are defending the practice of one side because "the other side does it too".

Then when democrats do the same thing you can decry that as well and not look a hypocrite.

This goes for all partisan bickering.. we need to point out EVERY infraction no matter which "side" is perpetrating the offense and show both parties that we won't stand for it.. just because they can't work together on issues doesn't mean WE can't.

I'd have written the manual, too...

[halivar]

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.

Re:I'd have written the manual, too...

[phoenixwade]

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. You are right, he (or she) would. It would shock me to find out that every President since LBJ DIDN'T have a manual or an equivalent set of written orders. After the numerous sets of really negative (from the seated administrations point of view) protesters showing up in a crowd since the Vietnam era.

And you're right, it does belong in a different category that Your Rights ONLINE. It don't think it's inflammatory or irrelevant, though (except that it's not relevant to online rights).

As to what the big deal is; In the overall scheme of things, or looking back in history probably not much. But, the current administration has taken extraordinary measures to keep information out of the public eye. In that light, the release of the manual itself, rather than the details of it, was a fairly big deal.

Re:After reading through the manual my opinion is:

[TripMaster Monkey]

I thought you were making a clever, but nonspecific, joke. Then I actually looked through the PDF of the manual.

You gotta wonder...if an open admission that this administration is actively working to squelch the First Amendment rights of American citizens wasn't redacted, what was?

How low can you go?

[crackerjack911]

The manual advises, however, that staff should 'decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone.

With the President's approval ratings in the 30% area, why would they even care about negative publicity? Might as well throw some of those pesky dissenters into Gitmo while you're at it. Hell, start sending kids to war. I'm pretty sure the last 30% of the nation is so brain dead they would probably be behind anything the president said.

Re:How low can you go?

[DavidTC]

Not really. The GOP have unwavering people supporting them, and it's unlikely, at this point, that anything would make them change their minds.

Whereas the low ratings of Congress are due entirely to the fact that Democratic voters do not view the Democrats in Congress anything but scorn, because said Democrats are apparently fucking morons who don't have the slightest idea how to end a war. (Hint: You all could literally stay at home 24 hours a day and the war would end because it would become unfunded. You don't even need to do any active work at all.)

The GOP supporters, however, have no such discernment WRT to the actions of their leadership, (The ones that do, duh, have left already.) and would continue to support their politicians no matter what they do, be it invade Iran, withdrawal all troops from Iraq, or nuke Canada. If some stuff shows up and personally affects enough people, like the upcoming collapse of the economy and all their houses being foreclosed on, maybe those people will change their minds, but it seems a long shot at this point. (Changing their minds does. A recession is almost inevitable.) The GOP approval ratings may slowly slide down a percentage point or two every year, but they are not going to go down much more than that.

Re:How low can you go?

[Dr. Manhattan]

The problem isn't primarily a military issue. It's a technological and political one, and military actions will not solve the problem. The key problem is that our country is helplessly dependent on oil. If we were not critically dependent on the oil, we would not care what happened in the Middle East. (Consider - Darfour is at least as screwed up as the Persian Gulf area, but that's a humanitarian problem and not a political/military one - for us - because we are not critically dependent on any resources there.) But, because we have allowed ourselves to become dependent on the resources there... we meddle, supporting thugocracies so long as they keep the oil flowing, etc. This gives motivation to the Islamist fanatics there. (Note: motive is not the same thing as justification. Homicide investigators look for motive when solving a murder, they don't look for justification. The Islamist lunatics are not justified in attacking innocents by our actions, but they are in part motivated by them.)

Since the problem isn't a military one, a military solution alone will not work. Military action is certainly justified as part of the overall strategy (e.g. in Afghanistan, now sadly neglected) but can't be the only means we use. The ultimate solution is to greatly reduce our dependency on oil.

This doesn't have to involve austerity programs and such. We could go nuclear - not just nuclear power plants, but nuclear rockets - e.g. this one (the good tech stuff starts in section 7). With that, we can lift a thousand tons into orbit in a completely reusable and non-polluting craft that even eliminates not only its own nuclear waste but also waste generated on Earth. Using those, we can put up solar-power satellites that send their energy down to Earth in the form of microwaves. (If you've ever played Sim City... forget it. It doesn't work that way, it can be done very safely with large margins of safety. See here especially the section on "Safety".) With the lower launch costs of nuclear rockets, we can make the U.S. a net energy exporter, in time. This has plenty of military applications, as well. Space is the ultimate "high ground" and a dominant U.S. presence in space should have obvious strategic benefits.

Of course, at the same time we can work on more efficient techniques for utilizing the oil we do need. Cars with better mileage (improving our overall fuel efficiency by less than 3mpg would eliminate our need to import oil from the Persian Gulf), more efficient means of generating and using fertilizers, a bit of thought about how we use plastics, etc. Even better, we can sell the technology we develop to other parts of the world - further reducing world demand for oil, driving the price down. The lower the price of oil, the less funds the Islamist fanatics have to work with, and the less of a threat they pose. (Reducing oil prices also impacts people like Hugo Chavez, as a bonus.)

(Not that, realistically, Islamist fanatics pose an existential threat to the United States. They can harm us, certainly, and even cause a relatively large amount of damage, sometimes. That's not the same thing as posing a threat to the existence of the United States. For perspective, more than 30 times as many American citizens have died in traffic accidents since 9/11 than have died in 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq combined.)

Re:After reading through the manual my opinion is:

[Kymri]

That would be really funny if (literally!) nearly 90% of the document wasn't redacted.

Since it IS the cast that about 90% of the document is redacted, it is merely very, very sad.

Re:What's really entertaining

[baldass_newbie]

Democrats regularly strip off shirts and try to confiscate signs that are critical of them at their rallies.

Or just beat the ever living crap out of them.

Re:Slashdot = News for Political Activists

[DogDude]

Slashdot is "news for nerds". There are a lot of other kinds of nerds and nerd interests than just tech stuff (which I happen find incredibly boring). There are biology nerds, mechanic nerds, plumbing nerds, etc.

Re:What's really entertaining

[morari]

I took a sign asking Obama what he thinks of the racial supremacist [blogspot.com] views of his "church">

From the link that you provided:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian . . . Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.

Now that is interesting. Unapologetically Christian blacks that remain true to their native land...

well duh...

[band-aid-brand]

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.

Re:What's really entertaining

[posterlogo]

lol. instead of acknowledging the merits of this particular topic, you try and make comparisons. the good old "democrats did it too!" whine. when it's a democrat president, we SHOULD hold them to the same standards. RIGHT NOW, however, the buck stops with Bush. This crowd control is a pathetic attempt to stifle alternative, constitutionally protected view points. clearly you're on the republican side. i'm on the american side.

In Perspective

[kcarlin]

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.