"disruptors"

This is insane! So, all of us could potentially be arrested for simply
protesting Bush and his policies? We could be arrested for protesting at
the Cheney/DeLay fundraising event? What about protesting the President in
Crawford?

King George and his administration are trying to outlet any kind of protest
or dissent. This is as bad as China or North Korea. Maybe worse because
the American people are asleep and not aware of what is happening to them.

Peace,
Amy

Sounds as if anyone having an opinion not approved by Faux News but
being anywhere near King W is defined as a disruptor. Read on for my
proposal.

I should qualify as a disruptor even more than the definitions below,
because I even encourage people to do something even more disruptive
to this administration than wearing a T-shirt -- I encourage them to
vote.

I suggest that we start a movement, asking everyone to turn
themselves in, if they've worn a political t-shirt, if they had a
bumper sticker on their car, or if they made any public statement or
sent an e-mail critical of the Bush/Cheney regime's policies. Of
course, such a movement would probably be defined as "disruptive",
too. Bring it on.

I'd be proud to turn myself in, and am eager to do it now. Where and
how do I do it?

Of course, I'm probably already on their list anyway.

I made a decision during the Vietnam war that I was going to speak up
against it whenever I could, and I assumed I got entered into some
FBI file somewhere (although I never checked). I was a draft
counselor and involved with student groups opposing that war, among
other things. None of this stopped me from getting a security
clearance at a place I was working while I was a student, nor another
clearance when working for a NASA contractor later. (No, I never
dealt with any classified info and never worked on any
weapons-related systems.) But even if it had kept me from getting a
clearance or working where I did, I would have been proud to be on
Nixon's enemies list. The same goes for this administration,
probably even more so.

This would be a terrific subject for a 1st amendment lawsuit. Does
anyone know if the people who have been thrown out of, or prevented
from entering, tax-payer funded public appearances of Bush because of
bumper stickers or T-shirts ever filed a lawsuit?

Those of you who want to join me in being a disruptor -- please let
me know if you can help us pass out impeachment info flyers and/or
sell impeach bumper stickers before the MLK parade starts Monday
morning. Put "MLK parade" somewhere in your e-mail to me if you can
help.

Bill

At 10:26 AM -0600 1/14/06, Margaret wrote:
>Bush to criminalize protesters under Patriot Act as "disruptors"
>
>http://www.bushflash.com
>
>Bush wants to create the new criminal of "disruptor" who can be jailed
>for the crime of "disruptive behavior." A "little-noticed provision" in
>the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to
>charge protesters with a new crime of "disrupting major events
>including political conventions and the Olympics."
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/12/AR2005121201448.html
>
>Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with
>"breaching security" and to charge for "entering a restricted area"
>which is "where the President or other person protected by the Secret
>Service is or will be temporarily visiting." In short, be sure to stay
>in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.
>
>Read More, here... Because the linked version contains more hyperlinks.
>http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/11/212726/954
>
>Bush to criminalize protesters under Patriot Act as "disruptors"
>by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
>
>Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 07:27:26 PM PDT
>
>Bush wants to create the new criminal of "disruptor" who can be jailed
>for the crime of "disruptive behavior." A "little-noticed provision" in
>the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to
>charge protesters with a new crime of "disrupting major events
>including political conventions and the Olympics." Secret Service would
>also be empowered to charge persons with "breaching security" and to
>charge for "entering a restricted area" which is "where the President
>or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be
>temporarily visiting." In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced
>containments or free speech zones.
>
>Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse's diary :: ::
>Who is the "disruptor"? Bush Team history tells us the disruptor is an
>American citizen with the audacity to attend Bush events wearing a
>T-shirt that criticizes Bush; or a member of civil rights,
>environmental, anti-war or counter-recruiting groups who protest Bush
>policies; or a person who invades Bush's bubble by criticizing his
>policies. A disruptor is also a person who interferes in someone
>else's activity, such as interrupting Bush when he is speaking at a
>press conference or during an interview.
>
>What are the parameters of the crime of "disruptive behavior"? The
>dictionary defines "disruptive" as "characterized by unrest or disorder
>or insubordination." The American Medical Association defines
>disruptive behavior as a "style of interaction" with people that
>interferes with patient care, and can include behavior such as "foul
>language; rude, loud or offensive comments; and intimidation of
>patients and family members."
>
>What are the rules of engagement for "disruptors"? Some Bush Team
>history of their treatment of disruptors provide some clues on how this
>administration will treat disruptors in the future.
>
>(1) People perceived as disruptors may be preemptively ejected from
>events before engaging in any disruptive conduct.
>
>In the beginning of this war against disruptors, Americans were ejected
>from taxpayer funded events where Bush was speaking. At first the
>events were campaign rallies during the election, and then the
>disruptor ejectment policy was expanded to include Bush's post election
>campaign-style events on public policy issues on his agenda, such as
>informing the public on medicare reform and the like. If people drove
>to the event in a car with a bumper sticker that criticized Bush's
>policies or wore T-shirts with similar criticism, they were disruptors
>who could be ejected from the taxpayer event even before they engaged
>in any disruptive behavior. White House press secretary McClellan
>defended such ejectments as a proper preemptive strike against persons
>who may disrupt an event: "If we think people are coming to the event
>to disrupt it, obviously, they're going to be asked to leave."
>
>(2) Bush Team may check its vast array of databanks to cull out those
>persons who it deems having "disruptor" potential and then blacklist
>those persons from events.
>
>The White House even has a list of persons it deems could be
>"disruptive" to an eventand then blacklists those persons from
>attending taxpayer funded events where Bush speaks. Sounds like Bush
>not only has the power to unilaterally designate people as "enemy
>combatants" in the global "war on terror," but to unilaterally
>designate Americans as "disruptive" in the domestic war against free
>speech.
>
>(3) The use of surveillance, monitoring and legal actions against
>disruptors.
>
>Bush's war against disruptors was then elevated to surveillance,
>monitoring, and legal actions against disruptor organizations. The FBI
>conducts political surveillance and obtains intelligence filed in its
>database on Bush administration critics , such as civil rights groups
>(e.g., ACLU), antiwar protest groups (e.g., United for Peace and
>Justice) and environmental groups (e.g., Greenpeace).
>
>This surveillance of American citizens exercising their constitutional
>rights has been done under the pretext of counterterrorism activities
>surrounding protests of the Iraq war and the Republican National
>Convention. The FBI maintains it does not have the intent to monitor
>political activities and that its surveillance and intelligence
>gathering is "intended to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at
>demonstrations, not to quell free speech."
>
>Surveillance of potential disruptors then graduated to legal actions as
>a preemptive strike against potential disruptive behavior at public
>events. In addition to monitoring and surveillance of legal groups and
>legal activities, the FBI issued subpoenas for members to appear before
>grand juries based on the FBI's "intent" to prevent "disruptive
>convention protests." The Justice Dept. opened a criminal
>investigation and subpoenaed records of Internet messages posted by
>Bush`s critics. And, the Justice Dept. even indicted Greenpeace for a
>protest that was so lame the federal judge threw out the case.
>
>So now the Patriot Act, which was argued before enactment as a measure
>to fight foreign terrorists, is being amended to make clear that it
>also applies to American citizens who have the audacity to disrupt
>President Bush wherever his bubble may travel. If this provision is
>enacted into law, then Bush will have a law upon which to expand the
>type of people who constitute disruptors and the type of activities
>that constitute disruptive activities. And, then throw them all in
>jail.
>Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
>
>Tags: Patriot Act, domestic spying, civil liberties, George W. Bush,
>Recommended (all tags)