The White House Crowd Control Manual 162
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.'"
The Slashdot Crowd Control Manual: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Slashdot Crowd Control Manual: (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Second Amendment - Heads up! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Out of sight == Out of mind (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
What's really entertaining (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [blogspot.com] 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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
if(exists(democracts.spurious_similarity(accusatio n_of_fascism))){
play_up(democracts.spurious_similarity(accusation_ of_fascism));
}
else{
play_down(accusation_of_fascism);
}
if(exists(democrats.main_candidate.opportunity_to_ discredit(accusation_of_fascism))){
democrats.main_candidate.discredit(accusation_of_f ascism)
}
fox_news.discredit_democrats();
}
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
01010101 00110100 10011100 10001101 10100110 00100100 01010010 00101100 10100010
01010101 00101010 10011010 01001110 01000110 11010011 00010010 00101001 00010110
00010001 00101010 10010101 01001101 00100111 00100011 01101001 10001001 00010100
00101000 10001000 10010101 01001010 10100110 10010011 10010001 10110100 11000100
01000101 10010100 01000100 01001010 10100101 01010011 01001001 11001000 11011010
01000101 00100010 11001010 00100
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or just beat the ever living crap out of them. [ijot.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
Re:What's really entertaining (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What's really entertaining (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 whic
Re: (Score:2)
Everything has a time and a place. Everything has a level of appropriateness. Even if the president is addressing the country, he is doing it in a venue that was presented by someone, generally an organization. The DMC or RNC pays for their functions. The VFW which presidents like to speech in front of do the same. The government doesn't rent ou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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, bu
Re: (Score:2)
And I am not aware of anyone being excommunicated from, say, the catholic church for publishing factual historical research in to its origins, or for proposing equal rights for women. In fact, the christian churches with which I am acquainted never really discourage you from asking questions. The LDS does exactly that. Today.
There are probably Muslim churches that do such t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After reading through the manual my opinion is: (Score:5, Funny)
[redacted]
I think I should finish this long post by summarizing my opinion about the [redacted] manual which is: [redacted].
Re:After reading through the manual my opinion is: (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What the Court said could be redacted, most likely to ensure operations of the Secret Service that safeguard the President are keep off
You should remember that in cases like this, the Secret Service exerts a great deal of influence. Their job is to protect the President and First Family (and political candidates in the right context).
Re: (Score:2)
Great job, spooks! Keep those fragile politico egos intact!
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right about that. However, we don't know what's in the redacted prose. I gather from what is available that the Service does not engage in that activity, with it being left up to "volunteers," which are obviously political operators.
My lament is that the time has passed where a President can walk down the sidewalk alone. I've seen a photo of Theodore Roosevelt churning down the sidewalk, a
Re:After reading through the manual my opinion is: (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely correct that it is a First Amendment issue - but you have the agressor and the aggrieved reversed.
The law is absolutely clear that when one party is exercising his right to speak, any second party that attempts to interfere is in the wrong. It's also absolutely clear that it doesn't matter who the party of the f
Re:After reading through the manual my opinion is: (Score:4, Insightful)
Since it IS the cast that about 90% of the document is redacted, it is merely very, very sad.
Tagged Republican? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tagged Republican? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Elections will now boil down to : which lobbying group behind the candidates do I like/hate the least. lol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you do, FOAD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tagged Republican? (Score:5, Informative)
The But But! corollary: In any discussion of traditional political malfeasance, someone will find a similar but much less egregious offense by someone slightly less conservative and claim equivalence, and therefore, that no offense has taken place at all.
Feel free to add "Democrats" to a gun-grab or MPAA pandering, but the Republicans own this kind of shit, and that ain't ever going to change.
nothing new here (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
LOL JUST KIDDING
I'd have written the manual, too... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just another inflammatory, irrelevant article from kdawson. This article belongs in politics, not YRO.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Really, though, even within the politics section, I ought skip summaries altogether that have "Posted by kdawson " under the title. When we have a Democrat president, though, I may have to check them out anyway to see if we get the same kind of inflammatory articles about the Executive branch.
Re: (Score:2)
(TOTALLY offtopic and I fully expect to be modded as such)
It's the kind of hyporacy that makes it hot for two girls to kiss and gross for two men. :)
Really? As a 100% straight man, I can say that seeing people kiss is hot (or cute, or nice, or whatever depending on the circumstances of the kiss), regardless of the genders involved. I have ZERO desire to kiss another guy (hence my statement that I'm 100% straight), but if two guys are enjoying a good kiss and I'm there to witness it, I'm more likely to turn my thoughts to kissing a cute girl, and thus it's a good thing. I'm well aware this v
White House CC (Score:5, Funny)
OK. Sap "Circle". "Star" gets sheeped, "Square" gets banished, "Diamond" gets freeze trapped, and we all DPS down "Skull".
Got it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First amendment = pwned!
How low can you go? (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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. Yo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't know about you, but I'm not real scared of the 31st Amphibious Camel Brigade.
And if they start boarding planes to the U.S., kindly explain what about our presence in Iraq is preventing them from doing it now, short of the convenient presence of 160,000 targets (and, sorry, I don't support the use of the Zap Branigan handbook on comb
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's. Two people are engaged in a debate on Slashdot. One of them points out reasons why we should withdraw from Iraq, but the other one disagrees and finds those facts unfavorable to his/her argument. So instead of legitimately countering the argument, he/she makes up a different story in which the facts solidly support continuing to fight. "See, since it would be bad to stop fighting in this case I made up, therefore it's bad to stop fighting in the completely di
Re:How low can you go? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [nuclearspace.com] (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 [wikipedia.org] 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: (Score:2)
The only reason why I question this correlation is because I have heard that we only get 5% of our oil from the middle east. I think our current leadership honestly believes there is a serious terror threat from the middle east. I don't agree with them on pretty much any point, but my instinct is the situation is more complicated than just
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen numbers ranging from 12% [sustainabi...titute.org] to 20% [pbs.org], but since oil is a fungible commodity the political situation in the Middle East affects the price of oil worldwide.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course you posted that anonymously, because you're flat wrong. To quote from what you obviously didn't read: "Its exhaust is completely clean: It is very difficult to make hydrogen radioactive in a fission reactor. It basically can't happen." [nuclearspace.com] Feel free to propose a reaction based on the proposed engine that would actually do so. The craft is only dangerous if you're allergic to hydrogen.
Re: (Score:2)
The devil's in the details, and we
Som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes.
Easy decision.
In Bushunist America (Score:3, Funny)
I've seen this before... (Score:1)
tag: redacted (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel un-enlightened.
Only ~1% of manual released! (Score:2)
Was this a
well duh... (Score:2, Insightful)
When I visited ground zero earlier this year a group of conspiracy theorists showed up and started marching through the crowds of peo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
But rights mean nothing unless you're willing to apply them equally to those with whom you disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
I refer you to the First Amendment.
This isn't necessarily about disruptive behavior. A sign, a T-shirt, will not be allowed within view of the cameras, no matter how peaceful or quiet the protesters are. Any talk about safety or order is a transparent justification for trying to suppress opposing views, which is the clear goal of this manual.
Re: (Score:2)
Although...he's right, you know. There IS a time and place.
For instance: you can't just claim "First Ammendment!! First Ammendment!!" and protest on, say, private property. Or have a peace parade (on a public street) at 2AM.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
best bit: USA! USA! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Steve Jackson would be proud (Score:2, Funny)
|
V
Evil Geniuses For a Better Tomorrow
|
V
Republicans
| | |
| | V
| | Boy Sprouts
| V
| Professional Sports
V
Local Police Departments
Manuals are fine. (Score:2)
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?
What the First Amendment means to me (Score:2)
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 w
Before we get into a hissy fit about this.. (Score:4, Informative)
manual? thot it was one-word crowd control (Score:2)
In Perspective (Score:2, Insightful)
I know one of these guys (Score:2)
Once, he asked a Secret Service agent to leave
Re: (Score:1)
In BF2 chat? Politics Diablo 2? Politics Gold Fish help Forums? POLITICS
Hell, I was watching some porn the other night, and the actor and actress started going at it. And by going at it, I mean arguing about whether or not the USA is a democratic republic or despotism. (I agree with the chick, because she said it was despotism. Also, she was friggin hot)
You see? You cannot get away from it, everyone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read just about anything by this [wikipedia.org] dude.
He would write pages and pages of awesome pr0n, and about the time that everyone had done about everything (and I mean everything) to everybody, they would take a break and talk heavy-duty politics and political philosophy. Then, after a few pages of that, back to it.
I think he just wrote the pr0n to get people to read his philosophy, but man he was one sick
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it just proves how much this comic strip [xkcd.com] rings totally true....
Bush Appologist Alert! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)