Secret Service investigating removal of three from Bush visit

[SunDevil]

Just think that this is pretty pathetic considering that these events are paid for with Tax payers money.

http://www.kctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3136534

DENVER -- The U.S. Secret Service on Monday said it was investigating the claims of three people who said they were removed from President Bush's town hall meeting on Social Security last week after being singled out because of a bumper sticker on their car.

The three said they had obtained tickets through the office of Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo., had passed through security and were preparing to take their seats when they were approached by what they thought was a Secret Service agent who asked them to leave.

One woman, Karen Bauer, 38, a marketing coordinator from Denver, said the agent put his hand on her elbow and steered her away from her seat and toward an exit.

"The Secret Service had nothing to do with that," said Lon Garner, special agent in charge of the Secret Service district office in Denver. "We are very sensitive to the First Amendment and general assembly rights as protected by the Constitution."

The Secret Service is in charge of protecting the president.

The three who were removed, along with their attorney, Dan Recht, met with Garner Monday. Recht said he may file a lawsuit based on the group's alleged violation of their First Amendment rights.

Garner said the group appeared confused as to who asked them to leave and declined to release further details, citing an ongoing investigation.

Alex Young, 25, an Internet technology worker from Denver who was among the three removed from the event March 17 at Wings over the Rockies, said officials told them the next day they were identified as belonging to the "No Blood for Oil" group.

Young said they belong to no such group, but the car they drove to the event had a bumper sticker that read: "No More Blood for Oil."

"I don't think a bumper sticker on a friend's car should disqualify me from seeing the president," Young said.

Beauprez distributed tickets to the event, which was part of President Bush's effort to gain support for his plan to overhaul Social Security. Messages left after-hours at Beauprez's office were not immediately returned Monday. A call to Bush's advance team in Denver went unanswered Monday afternoon.

Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesman for Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said the congressman had asked the Secret Service about the group's allegations.

Young, who along with Bauer and lawyer Leslie Weise, 39, is a member of the Denver Progressives, a political activist group. He said the three had T-shirts underneath their business attire that read, "Stop the Lies" and they had talked about exposing them during Bush's visit. He said they had scrapped the plan by the time they arrived at the museum.

Recht said the T-shirts did not play a role in the group's removal.

"They hadn't done anything wrong. They weren't dressed inappropriately, they didn't' say anything inappropriate," Recht said. "They were kicked out of this venue and not allowed to hear what the president had to say based solely on this political bumper sticker.

"The very essence of the First Amendment is that you can't be punished for the speech you make, the statements you make," Recht said.

Several high profile groups, including the older citizens' lobby AARP, oppose changes to Social Security that would privatize the country's retirement safety net.

President Bush has visited at least 17 states since the State of the Union to gain support for his plan, meeting with people who are generally supportive.

Some people who have stood up to disrupt Bush while he was talking have been removed. But a group called Americans United to Protect Social Security said there have been at least two additional instances where people who have done nothing wrong have been removed or barred from a Bush event beforehand.

One instance happened in February in Fargo North Dakota, where a "black list" of people banned from getting tickets was obtained and published by the Forum of Fargo-Moorhead. The White House and the Republican Party denied such a list existed and Gov. John Hoeven's staff said nobody was denied tickets.

Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for Americans United, called the Denver example the most egregious violation.

"They're screening the people who are allowed to come and then they're profiling them in the parking lot," he said. "It's quite extraordinary, and disappointing."

[Arles]

I would check the owner of the "No Blood for Oil" car. If he indeed was a member of the "No Blood for Oil" group, then I don't think it would be all that unrealistic for the Secret Service to assume the person getting out of that car was indeed the owner.

It's obvious this group had an agenda from the time they got there and perhaps they were overzealous with their claims (ie, involving their T-Shirts) and it flagged the Secret Service. Again, the Secret Service is only worried about protecting the president, not about political issues. Seems much ado about nothing to me.

Next time, perhaps you shouldn't drive the car of an extremist to a presidential event with a T-Shirt reading "Stop the Lies" hidden under your coat and boast about it. Then again, maybe I'm being unfair

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Arles

Then again, maybe I'm being unfair

Yep, you are. This is a ridiculous violation of free speech rights - in case you missed it, the 3 in question had already gone through a security screening. What threat kind of threat were they to the President's life? Because they had bumper stickers that seemed to indicate they disagreed with actions of the President, they are likely to MacGyver some kind of weapon after passing through security?

This is clearly a case where someone in charge didn't want any potential for a vocal disruption of the meeting, and that it had nothing to do with protecting the physical safety of the President.

[st.cronin]

I certainly think the president has a right to give a speech without being heckled.

[flere-imsaho]

Give me a break Arles. Do you believe in the First Amendment at all?

1. The event was a "social security town hall" paid for by taxpayers.

2. The 3 people in question hadn't done anything out of the ordinary.

Do we no longer believe in dissent in this country?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I certainly think the president has a right to give a speech without being heckled.

What part of the First Amendment don't you understand?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Arles

Next time, perhaps you shouldn't drive the car of an extremist to a presidential event with a T-Shirt reading "Stop the Lies" hidden under your coat and boast about it. Then again, maybe I'm being unfair

extremist? Is this what we've come to in this country? Someone with a "No Blood for Oil" sticker is labelled an extremist?

I would think that someone who wants to spread our morality to the rest of world would be looked upon as much more of an extremist than someone who is opposed to violence for the sake of corporate war profiteering.

[Flasch186]

i think its funny that Arles automatically called them extremists.

what, this administration doesn't have a history of spinning, and controlling the questions, and paying pundits, and hiding pictures, and the list goes on and on. Im not shocked at all by this OR Arles immediate defense of it. There is nothing the president could do that some people on the right wouldn't be ok with..


QUICK, what do you think of DeLay?!

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I certainly think the president has a right to give a speech without being heckled.

That's constitutionally questionable, but the point is these people weren't even allowed the possibility of showing any kind of dissent. This wouldn't be a big deal if they'd been allowed to attend the event, and then were ejected after heckling.

It's quite possible they would've done something to make their views known during the meeting, but they might not have. To remove these people after they followed all correct procedures and had gone through a security screening, simply because they had bumper stickers that said "No More Blood For Oil" is ridiculous. Do we think we live in a Minority Report world now where we punish people for what we think they're going to do in the future?

[st.cronin]

The first amendment is quite possibly the most poorly understood part of our constitution. In my opinion, there is no first amendment issue here at all. They were not prevented from protesting outside the building; they were removed, it appears, because they were identified as being members of a group that had a history of heckling the President. How is that a first amendment issue?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The first amendment is quite possibly the most poorly understood part of our constitution. In my opinion, there is no first amendment issue here at all. They were not prevented from protesting outside the building; they were removed, it appears, because they were identified as being members of a group that had a history of heckling the President. How is that a first amendment issue?

Because they hadn't yet done anything wrong.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The first amendment is quite possibly the most poorly understood part of our constitution. In my opinion, there is no first amendment issue here at all. They were not prevented from protesting outside the building; they were removed, it appears, because they were identified as being members of a group that had a history of heckling the President. How is that a first amendment issue?

If they caused a disturbance they could've been removed. However, wouldn't you call this "profiling" since nothing had happened and there was no proof that anything was going to happen?

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What part of the First Amendment don't you understand?

The First Amendment doesn't apply to a private forum.

[Desnudo]

Fuckin' hippies.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by VPI97

The First Amendment doesn't apply to a private forum.

Though this was billed as a "town hall" forum...

[st.cronin]

Read the story. The three people were wearing tshirts that said 'Stop The Lies' and admitted using the event as an opportunity to expose Bush for his lies. They were begging to be ejected.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Because they hadn't yet done anything wrong.

Well, other than plan to disrupt the event (or did you forget about the t-shirts?)

Sorry, if you're expecting sympathy for the sacks of shit, you're going to have to find it somewhere other than me.

[st.cronin]

Not only that, but they showed up with a lawyer! They were gunning for trouble.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Though this was billed as a "town hall" forum...

Umm ... I can host a private affair and call it a "town hall forum", doesn't mean the event isn't private.

(No idea whether this one was or wasn't, just saying that it's easily possible to do it.)

[QuikSand]

While I think the practice of pre-screening attendees to these functions is deplorable, I don't think these people's first amendment rights were being violated.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by VPI97

The First Amendment doesn't apply to a private forum.

Good thing this wasn't a private forum then.

(Hint: If it's a "town hall forum" paid for by taxpayers, it ain't private)

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, other than plan to disrupt the event (or did you forget about the t-shirts?)

Sorry, if you're expecting sympathy for the sacks of shit, you're going to have to find it somewhere other than me.

Protesters = "sacks of shit"?

Why? Because they disagree with the President?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

While I think the practice of pre-screening attendees to these functions is deplorable ...

Having been through a Presidential event a number of years ago, I'm not sure that there's much of a realistic choice other than pre-screening. The security process takes days to weeks as it is (they started screening the local media for this event I'm talking about nearly a month before it took place) -- there's no way you could get people inside & have the event without some pre-event work being done.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The first amendment is quite possibly the most poorly understood part of our constitution. In my opinion, there is no first amendment issue here at all. They were not prevented from protesting outside the building; they were removed, it appears, because they were identified as being members of a group that had a history of heckling the President. How is that a first amendment issue?

Its not a first ammendment issue...its the fact that it was a "town Hall meeting." You cannot have a town hall meeting and then exclude certain people from it...had it been a fund raiser or a sponsored event than that would be totally different.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Protesters = "sacks of shit"?

Why? Because they disagree with the President?

Not because they disagree with the President, but instead intentionally setting up a heckling situation. They could easily shown their displeasure to the President by dressing normally and asking question during the town hall. This group was one of the groups that stormed into the Republican National Convention and disrupted the speakers.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by VPI97

The First Amendment doesn't apply to a private forum.

First of all, I doubt that. Freedom of Speech applies throughout the entire country.

Secondly, it's true the President used taxpayer's money to set up a "private event". That's, uh, great....

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

First of all, I doubt that. Freedom of Speech applies throughout the entire country.

No, he's right. "Freedom of Speech" does not apply to private forums. Such as FOFC. You do not have a frredom of speech on this message board and may be banned from it for saying certain things.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

First of all, I doubt that. Freedom of Speech applies throughout the entire country.

No it doesn't! You have no freedom of speech at work, for one thing. If you say something your boss doesn't like, he can fire you!

There was that case of the CU professor recently, who wrote something comparing the victims of 9/11 to Nazis ... his university tried to take away his tenure, and of course he cried 1st amendment, when the first amendment obviously did not apply.

[Klinglerware]

Pre-screening attendees to ascertain whether they are security threats seems to be a fact of life and something I can live with. Pre-screening attendees to ascertain whether they hold political views that are contrary to or that could embarass the president is another matter...

[flere-imsaho]

Some of you here really need to examine yourselves and see if you really believe in the principles of freedom and liberty upon which this country was founded.

[Blackadar]

The Wings over the Rockies Museum is a private place???

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by duckman

Not because they disagree with the President, but instead intentionally setting up a heckling situation. They could easily shown their displeasure to the President by dressing normally and asking question during the town hall. This group was one of the groups that stormed into the Republican National Convention and disrupted the speakers.

And once that happens they can be removed.

But wouldn't removing someone based on what they wear/what they look like/what you think they're going to do be considered "profiling"?

[Tigercat]

They got tickets through normal means, a republican politician even, they passed security screenings. In my mind, in any ways this was private, they forfilled their end of a contract. If they broke the contract by disturbing the peace, then you give them the boot. But you don't say, oh we THINK you will break the contract between us, the ones in charge of this event, and you the participants, so we are throwing you out. I am not sure if I would call it illegal or unconstitutional, but one thing is for sure, it is bullshit.

[Arles]

Where to begin?

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Give me a break Arles. Do you believe in the First Amendment at all?

1. The event was a "social security town hall" paid for by taxpayers.

So is a public school, doesn't mean that a kid can't be sent home for wearing inappropriate attire or planning a disruption. Just because it may be paid by the government doesn't mean that rules aren't allowed on who can and cannot be allowed to enter. As long as these rules don't violate race, age, sex or religious discrimination aspects, they can be implemented and not violate someone's right to free speech.

Do we no longer believe in dissent in this country?

If Dissent equals some crackjob planning to disrupt the event with hidden T-Shirts, then - No, I don't believe they have "a right" to be in there. To be fair, if some pro-Life kooks wanted to enter a Stem cell discussion with T-Shirts saying "Using Stem Cells = Baby killers" then I would have no problem with the organizers not allowing those people in either.

Yep, you are. This is a ridiculous violation of free speech rights - in case you missed it, the 3 in question had already gone through a security screening.

Just because they don't catch the person when he enters does not mean they can't remove that person later if new information comes into their hands. What your saying if I frisk someone and don't see that they have a weapon, but let them in, they get free reign without fear of being removed. Again, perhaps someone saw their shirts underneath or cross-checked the plates on their "friend's" car.

BTW, did anyone ever follow up on who the real owner of the car was. All the story said was that the person pulled out was not the driver. But, if the driver had indeed been a member of an organization on the watch list by the Secret Service, it would be irresponsible for the Secret Service not to pull this guy. Again, most people will assume the person leaving the driver side of a car is the owner in this type of situation.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

They got tickets through normal means, a republican politician even, they passed security screenings. In my mind, in any ways this was private, they forfilled their end of a contract. If they broke the contract by disturbing the peace, then you give them the boot. But you don't say, oh we THINK you will break the contract between us, the ones in charge of this event, and you the participants, so we are throwing you out. I am not sure if I would call it illegal or unconstitutional, but one thing is for sure, it is bullshit.

I can agree with most of that. But reading between the lines of the story, it sure sounds like they were out to raise some heck, not participate in the event the way it was designed.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by VPI97

If it requires a ticket...it's private.

LOL, no.

If I pay for tickets to an event held in a private building, it's private. For instance, I'm considering go to see Big bad Voodoo Daddy at the Borgata at the end of April. The Borgata is a privately owned building and I have to pay money for the tickets. In the case of story, it was held in a public building and the event was funded by taxpayers, not ticket buyers. You don't get more clear-cut "public forum" than that.

Edit: YES! Timestamp bug!

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Good thing this wasn't a private forum then.

(Hint: If it's a "town hall forum" paid for by taxpayers, it ain't private)

If it requires a ticket...it's private.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

First of all, I doubt that. Freedom of Speech applies throughout the entire country.

Secondly, it's true the President used taxpayer's money to set up a "private event". That's, uh, great....

I don't think you understand the First Amendment.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I don't think you understand the First Amendment.

Ditto.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

They got tickets through normal means, a republican politician even, they passed security screenings. In my mind, in any ways this was private, they forfilled their end of a contract. If they broke the contract by disturbing the peace, then you give them the boot. But you don't say, oh we THINK you will break the contract between us, the ones in charge of this event, and you the participants, so we are throwing you out. I am not sure if I would call it illegal or unconstitutional, but one thing is for sure, it is bullshit.

OK, just because you pass the screening doesn't mean people can't remove you if more information comes into their possession later in the process.

What you are saying is that if someone snuck into the Democratic convention with a T-Shirt underneath saying "John Kerry likes to have sex with goats" and *could be* planning to storm the stage with that shirt on that no one could remove that person once they passed the security screening. That's just silly. The security would have every right to remove that person from the event once it saw the T-Shirt.

[flere-imsaho]

By the way, anyone still believe George Bush wants an "open debate" on Social Security?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

By the way, anyone still believe George Bush wants an "open debate" on Social Security?

Right back at you, does anyone belief these protesters wanted to have an "open debate" with George Bush?

The story fails to mention the fact that there were many people unsure or against the president's plan that showed up to the event and asked questions. They just didn't have hidden agendas and T-Shirts with a plan to disrupt the situation.

But, I guess in some ways people here may have preferred seeing three kooks run out on stage with "Stop the Lies" T-Shirts than actually have a real debate on social security policy. Heaven forbid we avoid a knee jerk reaction to the issue of social security and actually have a civil debate on the issue.

[flere-imsaho]

By the way, from Daily Kos, the (of course), liberal blog, a letter from the 3 in question:

Very rarely does the everyday public get a glimpse of what happens behind the scenes in a normally-secret Bush Administration.
But Monday, March 28, the Secret Service called three everyday people into their offices to discuss why we were kicked out of a presidential event in Denver last week where Bush promoted his plan to privatize Social Security. What they revealed to us and our lawyer was fascinating.

There we were - three people who had personally picked up tickets from Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez's office and went to a presidential event. But as we entered, we were told that we had been "ID'ed" and were warned that any disruption would get us arrested.

After being seated in the audience we were forcibly removed before the President arrived, even though we had not been disruptive. We were shocked when told that this presidential event was a "private event" and were commanded to leave.

More astonishingly, when the Secret Service was contacted the next day they agreed to meet with us this Monday, March 28 to discuss the circumstances surrounding our removal. We had two big questions going into this meeting:


How is the Bush Administration "ID'ing" citizens before presidential events?

Why was an official taxpayer-funded event called a "private event" - leading to citizens being kicked out?

Most shocking of all, we got answers to both questions.
The Secret Service revealed that we were "ID'ed" when local Republican staffers saw a bumper sticker on the car we drove which said "No More Blood For Oil." Evidently, the free speech expressed on one bumper sticker is cause enough to eject three citizens from a presidential event. (Similarly, someone was ejected from Bush's Social Security privatization event in Arizona the same day simply for wearing a Democratic t-shirt.)

The Secret Service also revealed that ticket distribution and staffing of the Social Security event was run by the local Republican Party. They wanted us to be clear that it was a Republican staffer - not the Secret Service - who kicked us out of the presidential event. But this revealed something else that should be startling to all Americans.

After allowing taxpayers to finance his privatization events (let's call them what they really are after all,) and after using the White House communications apparatus to set them up, Bush is privatizing the ticket distribution and security staffing at his events to the Republican Party. The losers are not just taxpayers, but anyone who values the First Amendment. Under the banner of a "private event" the Republican Party is excluding citizens from seeing their president because of the lone sin of expressing the wrong idea on a bumper sticker or t-shirt. The question for Americans is - will we allow our freedom to be privatized?

Karen Bauer, Leslie Weise. Alexander Young
Denver residents

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Arles

But, I guess in some ways people here may have preferred seeing three kooks run out on stage with "Stop the Lies" T-Shirts than actually have a real debate on social security policy.

It would have at least been entertaining....

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Right back at you, does anyone belief these protesters wanted to have an "open debate" with George Bush?

Hey, so two wrongs make a right? Groovy.

But, I guess in some ways people here may have preferred seeing three kooks run out on stage with "Stop the Lies" T-Shirts than actually have a real debate on social security policy. Heaven forbid we avoid a knee jerk reaction to the issue of social security and actually have a civil debate on the issue.

Well, on the evidence of Bush's Social Security Tour so far, there's no indication he's willing to listen to alternatives, so I'd say the potential for a full debate that explored all the options wasn't going to happen anyway.

[SunDevil]

From one of the individuals who were kicked out.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/113651/512

Very rarely does the everyday public get a glimpse of what happens behind the scenes in a normally-secret Bush Administration.

But Monday, March 28, the Secret Service called three everyday people into their offices to discuss why we were kicked out of a presidential event in Denver last week where Bush promoted his plan to privatize Social Security. What they revealed to us and our lawyer was fascinating.

There we were - three people who had personally picked up tickets from Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez's office and went to a presidential event. But as we entered, we were told that we had been "ID'ed" and were warned that any disruption would get us arrested.

After being seated in the audience we were forcibly removed before the President arrived, even though we had not been disruptive. We were shocked when told that this presidential event was a "private event" and were commanded to leave.

More astonishingly, when the Secret Service was contacted the next day they agreed to meet with us this Monday, March 28 to discuss the circumstances surrounding our removal. We had two big questions going into this meeting:

1. How is the Bush Administration "ID'ing" citizens before presidential events?

2. Why was an official taxpayer-funded event called a "private event" - leading to citizens being kicked out?

Most shocking of all, we got answers to both questions.

The Secret Service revealed that we were "ID'ed" when local Republican staffers saw a bumper sticker on the car we drove which said "No More Blood For Oil." Evidently, the free speech expressed on one bumper sticker is cause enough to eject three citizens from a presidential event. (Similarly, someone was ejected from Bush's Social Security privatization event in Arizona the same day simply for wearing a Democratic t-shirt.)

The Secret Service also revealed that ticket distribution and staffing of the Social Security event was run by the local Republican Party. They wanted us to be clear that it was a Republican staffer - not the Secret Service - who kicked us out of the presidential event. But this revealed something else that should be startling to all Americans.

After allowing taxpayers to finance his privatization events (let's call them what they really are after all,) and after using the White House communications apparatus to set them up, Bush is privatizing the ticket distribution and security staffing at his events to the Republican Party. The losers are not just taxpayers, but anyone who values the First Amendment. Under the banner of a "private event" the Republican Party is excluding citizens from seeing their president because of the lone sin of expressing the wrong idea on a bumper sticker or t-shirt. The question for Americans is - will we allow our freedom to be privatized?

Karen Bauer, Leslie Weise. Alexander Young
Denver residents

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Arles

If Dissent equals some crackjob planning to disrupt the event with hidden T-Shirts, then - No, I don't believe they have "a right" to be in there. To be fair, if some pro-Life kooks wanted to enter a Stem cell discussion with T-Shirts saying "Using Stem Cells = Baby killers" then I would have no problem with the organizers not allowing those people in either.

So wearing a politically motivated T-shirt under ones outer clothing equals crackjob and extremist in your view?

Had they enacted some kind of protest in the middle of the event to disrupt it, I'd have no problem with them being ejected. It's the idea that someone presumes guilt ahead of time that galls me. Maybe they would've done something, maybe they would've just sat there stewing but not done anything - we don't know. People have a right to express their views in public so long as they're not dangerous (i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). A T-shirt that says "Stop the Lies" hardly qualifies as dangerous speech that needs to be muffled.

Originally Posted by Arles

Just because they don't catch the person when he enters does not mean they can't remove that person later if new information comes into their hands. What your saying if I frisk someone and don't see that they have a weapon, but let them in, they get free reign without fear of being removed. Again, perhaps someone saw their shirts underneath or cross-checked the plates on their "friend's" car.

You miss my point. They were obviously not removed for "security" reasons if they'd already made it through the security checkpoint. Unless I'm missing something from the article, they presented no physical threat to the President. If security were the reasons for the ejection, the guards (whoever they worked for) could've done an additional check, yet they didn't. This was obviously a reaction to prevent any kind of disruption of the event.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

If Dissent equals some crackjob planning to disrupt the event with hidden T-Shirts, then - No, I don't believe they have "a right" to be in there. To be fair, if some pro-Life kooks wanted to enter a Stem cell discussion with T-Shirts saying "Using Stem Cells = Baby killers" then I would have no problem with the organizers not allowing those people in either.

What if they just planned to sit in the audience and, if presented the opportunity, ask pointed questions in a civilized manner?

Point is - neither you nor the Republican staffers, who got the Secret Service to remove them, knew what they had planned. They just made an assumption, and had them removed. That's wrong.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I can agree with most of that. But reading between the lines of the story, it sure sounds like they were out to raise some heck, not participate in the event the way it was designed.

Yeah, there's a good chance that could have happened--but how would anyone know for certain? The people who got kicked out did say that they more or less chickened out of doing anything really disruptive.

As far as the "participate in the event the way it was designed part", I think I can agree that first amendment issues don't come into play here since it was a sham "public event", that was a de-facto tightly-controlled PR event (though at tax-payers' expense). I guess this incident is forcing the administration to be more honest as to what this "national debate on social security" is really all about...

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

By the way, from Daily Kos, the (of course), liberal blog, a letter from the 3 in question:

I'm just curious if people here would have had a problem with the removal of someone at the presidential debate town hall meeting that had a shirt hidden under their outfit saying "Democrats are baby killers" once it had been determined they were wearing that shirt.

I certainly wouldn't have. But, hey, maybe I'm in the minority.