Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The White House Crowd Control Manual

Posted by kdawson on from the sliencing-free-speech-silently dept.

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.'"

6 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. What's really entertaining by Moryath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What's really entertaining by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seems like a legal case to me. What legal right gives one citizen the ability to take property from another citizen, because they disagree with the view?

    2. Re:What's really entertaining by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Interesting
      From your website:

      All of this should raise at least as many questions about Obama as Mitt Romney's Mormonism raises about him.
      I don't see how they compare. In relatively recent history, the Mormon church tried to establish a theocratic state, and even executed non-mormons who entered their state (in front of their children). Only a few decades ago, the head of the Mormon church said that black people were representatives or Satan.

      Obama's church has some "us vs them" and otherwise regressive philosophies, but they don't even begin to compare with what the Mormon church has done in the past 200 years.

      The recent Mormon push to adopt some (but not all) of what would be considered ethical main-stream philosophies is progress, but cultures can't turn around as quickly as the Mormon PR machine would have you believe. Even today, the LDS is admittedly anti-intellectual. That is a pretty terrible property for a government to have.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    3. Re:What's really entertaining by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason the "Democrats do it too" always get spouted is because they get a pass on it. This isn't a tit for tat attempt to say they are just as bad. It is a question to why is it an issue now when a republican does it but wasn't a problem at all when the democrats did it. There seems to be a huge double standard on a lot of things like this.

      And even though it might be bad now, the real question is why is it bad now. Was it bad then and we just accepted it because the democrats were the ones doing it which is why the republicans now would think it is ok. Or is it bad now only because you agree with the other side of the speech. Instead of being on the side that paid for the platform your now on the side that is disrupting the platform and attempting to hijack it for their own purposes.

      I don't find any of this wrong. If I rent a venue for a specific goal and someone attempt to corrupt that goal or hijack the arena, I see it as stealing what I have paid for. Have your own rally and make your own whatever and leave mine alone. If you want to stand outside, fine. But inside belongs to those who paid for it and you don't have any rights that impose on mine. I cannot follow you around and call you names or call you a liar every time I don't agree with you or because I want to slander your name in support of some other person or organization. And you don't have the right to do it to others. People have had these goon squads ever since other thought they could impose their rights above others and it has been perfectly fine for the longest of time as long as you weren't one of the rude people getting kicked out. And I believe this is the only reason people are finding this objectionable, because they are the one getting kicked out.

  2. Re:well duh... by Quila · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This isn't Big Brother censoring peoples dissenting views, is the police trying to prevent a massive street fight from breaking
    Valid general point, except that one of the explicit criteria for removing or minimizing the protesters is whether the media can see or hear them.

    As far as protesters mixing with the loyal, their instructions are to send loyalists out to the protesters in order to drown them out. So this policy isn't about safety in a mixed environment. Plus, no matter how disruptive the protesters are, the orders are to leave them alone if confrontation would result in net negative publicity (where's the safety angle in that?).

    Notice that within the document, security threats are handled differently -- the Secret Service handles those. These operatives deal with protesters who are, by their own definition, not a security threat, but "likely to cause only a political disruption."

    This isn't about safety. This is about controlling what America sees on the news.
  3. best bit: USA! USA! by kisrael · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From the PDF:

    The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protesters (USA! USA! USA!) As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site. The rally squads can include, but are not limited to, college/young republican organizations, local athletic teams, and fraternities/sororities.

    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