Presidential Isolationism

MSNBC reports that two teachers from Iowa are seeking remedy in the courts for having been arrested when attempting to attend a campaign event by President Bush in '04 while carrying an anti-war sign.

This has been a trend by this administration to, under the guise of security, keep dissenters away from the President. It has happened throughout his time in office, but especially in the time leading up to the '04 election and since.

"Authorities say they were arrested because they refused to obey reasonable security restrictions," but the women argue that free speech is being surpressed. Others are making the same argument in court houses around the country.

I agree with the two women who were arrested, handcuffed, and strip searched at the county jail.

The President's security is not threatened by an anti-war sign. This is demonstrated by the fact that in virtually 100% of such cases, no charges are filed after the arrest. The individuals are simply held until the President can 'get out of Dodge.' If they were a real threat, they'd be detained and charged. And properly so.

While there is no security threat, the stifling free speech is, however, a threat to the nation. Democracy cannot function without free speech. The market place of ideas is essential to the competition between candidates that is democracy. If an elected official's skin is not thick enough to handle dissenters, he/she should not hold office.

Additionally, politicians- of both parties- should be exposed to dissent when they go out among the public. For them to become isolated in the in the halls of government does no service to the nation. Reality, for all of us, means that there will be opposition to what we say, do, and believe. We are all strengthend by facing that from time to time. Politicians would be strenghtend by that as well.

I don't believe that hecklers should be able to disrupt events. Then they infringe upon the free speech rights of the speaker. Furthermore, while I support their right to engage in expressions of dissent at these types of events, I don't always think it's wise or helpful to their cause. That said, they should be entitled to hold signs or wear T-shirts or buttons expressing a viewpoint that differs with that of the speaker.

Free speech is too important to allow the President, to play the 9/11 card and claim 'security needs' while really simply avoiding dissent. It is also too important to allow the arrest of political opponents to become a precedent for political behavior. Perhaps those who support this the current administration's arrest of opponents would feel differently when a Democrat comes to office and they become the opponents. We cannot allow that to happen. To prevent that, we must stop the current practice.

I hope the lawsuits are successful in doing this.

GP