US:A manual for presidential staff reveals a Bush administration tolerant of dissent, as long as it can't be seen or heard, writes Peter Bakein Washington
Not that they're worried or anything, but the White House evidently leaves little to chance when it comes to protests within eyesight of the president; as in, it doesn't want any.
A White House manual that came to light recently gives presidential advance staffers extensive instructions on "deterring potential protesters" from President Bush's public appearances around the country.
Among other things, any event must be open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organisers. Those entering must be screened in case they are hiding secret signs. Any anti-Bush demonstrators who manage to get in anyway should be shouted down by "rally squads" stationed in strategic locations. And if that doesn't work, they should be thrown out.
But that does not mean the White House is against dissent - just as long as the president does not see it. In fact, the manual outlines a system for those who disagree with the president to voice their views. It directs the White House advance staff to ask local police "to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route".
The Presidential Advance Manual, dated October 2002 with the stamp "Sensitive - Do Not Copy", has been released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a suit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a July 4th speech at the west Virginia state capitol in 2004.
The techniques described have become familiar over the 6½ years of Bush's presidency, but the manual makes it clear how organised the anti-protest policy really is.
The suit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said "Regime Change Starts at Home," while hers said, "Love America, Hate Bush".
Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the suit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologised. The federal government settled the first amendment case last week for $80,000 (€59,100), but with no admission of wrongdoing.
The manual states that those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be "extremely supportive of the administration". While the secret service screens audiences only for possible threats, the manual says, volunteers should examine people before they reach security checkpoints and look out for signs. Make sure to look for "folded cloth signs", it advises.
To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create "rally squads" of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with "favourable messages". Squads should be placed in strategic locations and "at least one squad should be 'roaming' throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems", the manual notes.
"These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators," it states. "The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown , 'USA!, USA!, USA!' "
As a last resort, it adds, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site.
Advance teams are advised not to worry if protesters are not visible to the president or cameras: "If it is determined that the media will not see or hear them and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the president, or has the potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimise the demonstrator's effect."
The manual adds in bold type: "Remember - avoid physical contact with demonstrators! Most often, the demonstrators want a physical confrontation. Do not fall into their trap!"
Moreover, it also suggests that advance staff should "decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone".
The staff at the west Virginia event may have missed that line.