PhotoDude.com

Sun. Jun 22, 2003

Ashcroft's Forked Tongue

Ashcroft’s Forked Tongue – Last week, John Ashcroft made what I thought at the time was a notably naive request for some good PR from major media: “Attorney General John Ashcroft called on the press and television today to dispel fears about the sweeping antiterrorism law known as the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which was enacted after the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”

“Addressing two dozen editors, publishers, television executives and others, Mr. Ashcroft said, ‘We need the help of the news industry, the fourth estate, to inform citizens about the constitutional tools and methods being used in the war against terror. We need the media’s help, for instance, in portraying accurately the U.S.A. Patriot Act.’ ”

Before the media jumps to Ashcroft’s aid as you know they’re itching to do, I hope they’ll look into whether this story is true as portrayed, or just another case of the poor misunderstood Justice Department.

“Brett Bursey will be back in court again, fighting the forces of reaction, on June 24th. The veteran protester was arrested last October for trespassing at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport as he held a sign (‘No War for Oil’) while waiting for George Bush to arrive.”

“This was not a new experience for him. Thirty-three years earlier, at almost the same spot, Mr Bursey was tossed in the paddy wagon for holding a sign that criticised another war (Vietnam) while waiting for another Republican president (Richard Nixon) to show up.”

“The 1969 case against Mr Bursey was dropped when the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that anti-war demonstrators could not be charged with trespassing if they were on public property. Shortly after his most recent arrest, the trespassing charge against Mr Bursey was also dropped. But in March the local US attorney, Strom Thurmond junior, suddenly brought federal charges against Mr Bursey under a little-known law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas the president is visiting.”

Mr. Bursey has been denied a jury trial, because “the right to a jury trial doesn’t include petty offenses such as the one Bursey is charged with.” However, the fact he “faces a maximum fine of $5,000 and up to six months in jail” seems a bit more than petty, to me.

The Economist article adds, “None of the other protesters with him was arrested. Neither were any of the several hundred supporters of the president who were holding equally dangerous (but pro-Bush) signs as they stood near the hangar where the president was to speak.”

“The prosecutors say that Mr Bursey was not in a special “free-speech zone” that was set up for protesters half a mile from the hangar. The pro-Bush people did not need to be there because they were not protesting. Mr Bursey told the cops, defiantly, that he was under the impression that the whole of America was a free-speech zone.”

The article suggests that Mr. Bursey was cherry picked for prosecution, both because he “heads a ‘progressive network’ of liberal organisations, used to edit an alternative newspaper, and has organised protests against, among other things, American war policy, nuclear power, racism and the Confederate flag,” and because the case is in a conservative district where they think they can set a precedent.

Whether those things are true, I don’t know. The site of Representative Barney Frank (one of 11 Congresspeople who have written the Justice Department calling for the charges to be dropped) says in a news release, “According to reports from protestor Brett Bursey and the press, police officers arrested Mr. Bursey for standing with thousands of Republicans welcoming the President at a Columbia, South Carolina airport because Mr. Bursey refused to change or put down his sign. Mr. Bursey reports he was told that if he wanted to protest the President, he would have to go to the designated protest site half a mile away near a highway and outside the sight and hearing of the President. ‘It’s the content of your sign,’ officials said.”

I’ve spent some time shooting in one of those “designated protest sites,” but in that case, there wasn’t a corresponding group of protesters/supporters who got preferential positioning. No matter what your cause, or position, that was your designated place.

Sure, it’s much smoother and more pleasant to limit gatherings to like minded supportive souls, especially when you “create” a special place for those who disagree. Out of sight, where you don’t have to look at it. But when you are the President, it is a foolish policy to follow (one that will bite your ass before Election Day), and a dangerous one to prosecute.

All Mr. Bursey did was stand there with a sign. One among many. If the Bush administration, via its Ashcroft proxy, can’t accept that without filing charges, it is left appearing [a] petty, [b] thin skinned, [c] heavy handed, [d] deaf to opposing views, but mostly, [e], all of the above.

The circumstances of Mr. Bursey’s arrest (when no one else was), and the refiling of the charges on a federal level when they’d been dropped by the state is very odd, troubling, and totally contradictory to Ashcroft’s angelic plea for help with his misunderstood policies.

So Mr. Ashcroft can sing his song of woe on every media channel 24-7, but mix it with reports like this, and it will be received much like the recent Saudi PR campaign.

Actions speak louder than any PR campaign.