BCT Editorial – 6/29/05

This page was last updated on June 29, 2005.

A matter of trust; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 29, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“If you want to know why the Bush White House cannot and must not be trusted when it comes to renewing the Patriot Act, Denver Three are as good a place to start as any.”

[RWC] I don’t see how “Denver Three are as good a place to start as any.” The Patriot Act governs how federal law enforcement agencies can pursue criminals, including terrorists. As you will read in the editorial, the incident described by the editorial has nothing to do federal law enforcement agencies abusing anyone’s rights.

“The Washington Post reports the Denver Three - Karen Bauer, an office temp, Alex Young, an Internet technology worker, and Leslie Weise, a lawyer - have been trying to find out for months the identity of the ‘mystery man’ who, impersonating a Secret Service agent, forcibly removed them from a taxpayer-funded event with President Bush because of a ‘No More Blood for Oil’ bumper sticker on one of their cars.”

[RWC] It appears the Washington Post “article” serving as the source for this editorial was written by Dana Milbank, an opinion writer for The Post who also serves as the Post White House correspondent.¹

“‘It started when the three got tickets to Bush’s March 21 Social Security town hall meeting in Colorado,’ the paper reported. ‘They flirted with protesting at the event and wore ‘Stop the Lies’ T-shirts underneath their business attire. But Weise worried about getting arrested.’

[RWC] Regarding the reason for hiding their t-shirts, we have only the word of the Denver Three.

“‘Even so, they were identified after they arrived as potential troublemakers and were then forcefully removed by a man who, they had been told, was a Secret Service agent. Only later did they learn that the man wasn’t an agent at all. The Secret Service launched an investigation (it’s a crime to impersonate a law-enforcement official) and the agency and the White House have both learned the imposter’s identity - but they’re not talking.’

“Let’s parse the situation.

“To start with, American citizens were denied presence at a taxpayer-funded event not because they were making trouble but because they were identified by political operatives as potential troublemakers because of a bumper sticker on one of their cars. Big Brother really was watching.”

[RWC] If the situation as described is true, it was wrong to deny these persons access to the event.

“But even more disturbing is the chilling effect the Secret Service’s heavy hand, no doubt at the behest of the Bush White House, is having on free speech and freedom of assembly. Remember that the three decided not to reveal their T-shirts at a taxpayer-funded, public forum because one of them feared the slogan would get them arrested.”

[RWC] The “Secret Service’s heavy hand?” Didn’t the editorial note above it was someone impersonating a Secret Service agent?

In any case, when didn’t the Secret Service employ a “heavy hand” regardless of the president? Although I expect the Secret Service to operate within the law, they have a tough job to do and have no margin of error.

“However, that didn’t stop them from being ejected because of what they thought. Think about that, America.

“Even worse, the White House is protecting a lawbreaker. It is against the law to impersonate a law enforcement official. The White House and the Secret Service know who did this, yet they are doing nothing. (Shades of the Valerie Plume [sic] affair, non?)

[RWC] The “White House is protecting a lawbreaker?” It may be early to claim anyone “is protecting a lawbreaker” since the Secret Service investigation isn’t complete. I’m not a fan of “leaks” during investigations. If at the investigation’s conclusion the identity isn’t made public and the person is not prosecuted, that would be wrong.

Regarding Valerie Plame, the editorial wants us to forget members of the press have been blocking the investigation by refusing to testify. Federal courts have ordered these people to testify and the Supreme Court recently refused to hear their appeal.

“The case of the Denver Three illustrates perfectly why this White House must not be handed free rein by renewing its version of the Patriot Act. It’s a matter of trust. When it comes to President Bush and his henchmen, don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do. All too often, there’s a world of difference between the two.”

[RWC] If you weren’t counting, it took the author nine paragraphs to get back to the Patriot Act.

“The Patriot Act should be revised and renewed, and a major element of that must be additional congressional and judicial oversight to avoid the abuse of the constitutional rights that Americans are supposed to enjoy.

“If you want to know how fragile those rights are, just ask the Denver Three.”

[RWC] Some non-law enforcement clown at a “town hall meeting” allegedly breaks the law and this translates into abuse of the Patriot Act by federal law enforcement agencies? Come on, Times, isn’t this a pretty big stretch even for you?

1. The Tenacious Trio; Dana Milbank; The Washington Post; June 22, 2005.