Balkinization: <b>They're Called the Secret Service Because They Keep Dissent Secret</b>

They're Called the Secret Service Because They Keep Dissent Secret

Officially, the Secret Service does not concern itself with unarmed, peaceful demonstrators who pose no danger to the commander in chief. But that policy was inoperative here Thursday when seven AIDS activists who heckled President Bush during a campaign appearance were shoved and pulled from the room -- some by their hair, one by her bra straps -- and then arrested for disorderly conduct and detained for an hour.
After Bush campaign bouncers handled the evictions, Secret Service agents, accompanied by Bush's personal aide, supervised the arrests and detention of the activists and blocked the news media from access to the hecklers.
The Bush campaign has made unprecedented efforts to control access to its events. Sometimes, people are required to sign oaths of support before attending events with Bush or Vice President Cheney. At times, buses of demonstrators are diverted by police to idle in parking lots while supporters are waved in. And the Secret Service has played an unusual role; one agent cooperated with a plan by the Bush campaign last month to prevent former senator Max Cleland (Ga.), a Kerry ally, from handing a letter to the agent outside Bush's Texas ranch.
. . .
One uniformed Secret Service agent complained to a colleague that "the press is having a field day" with the disruption -- and the agents quickly clamped down. Journalists were told that if they sought to approach the demonstrators, they would not be allowed to return to the event site -- even though their colleagues were free to come and go. An agent, who did not give his name, told one journalist who was blocked from returning to the speech that this was punishment for approaching the demonstrators and that there was a "different set of rules" for reporters who did not seek out the activists.
In the confusion, even Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) had to cool his heels for 10 minutes before the Secret Service would let him leave the building.

The purpose of the Secret Service is to guard the President's safety, not to keep him from hearing protestors. More generally, under our first amendment, police officers and other government officials do not have the power to stifle protest simply because it is unpleasant to the candidate. There was no evidence that a riot or other forms of physical violence were about the break out. Indeed, the only physical violence was performed by members of the Bush team, grabbing protesters by their hair and roughly shoving them out of the room. And it was completely illegal for the Secret Service to keep press reporters from talking to protesters. There is no reason to think that such communications would have added to any danger of violence or disturbance. Showing favoritism among reporters depending on whether they seek to interview critics of the President is a blatant violation of constitutional rights.

The Secret Service not only acted unconstitutionally here, it also betrayed its underyling purpose as a professional institution. It confused the candidate with a King who needs to be protected from any unpleasant experiences by his Palace Guard.

As the Post article details, this is only one in a recent trend of incidents in which the area around candiates-- and particularly President Bush-- has started to become a de facto First Amendment free zone. One could attribute it simply to the decidedly authoritarian streak in this particular Administration, but I think it also reflects a deeper malady. In a future post, I'll outline the reasons why I think this is happening.

Posted 9:57 AM by JB [link]