October 4, 2006 6:47 AM
What can you say to a Vice President?
A censorious comment about the Iraq war during a chance encounter with Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek last summer landed a Denver man in jail. Now it's landed the Secret Service man who arrested him in court.
And might put the Vice President on the witness stand.
Charlie Brennan reports:
Steven Howards saw a news story one morning this summer reporting the latest casualty totals from Iraq, and a few hours later had the rare opportunity to voice his feelings to a man he considers directly responsible.
Doing so, Howards said, sent him to jail for allegedly harassing the vice president of the United States. And now he is responding with a federal lawsuit against the Secret Service agent who put him in handcuffs.
The suit filed Tuesday alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest also violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful arrest.
Charges of misdemeanor harassment against Howards were dismissed by the Eagle County district attorney, who said his office was initially told Howards had pushed Cheney:
"Later on, it appeared it was just essentially his disagreeing with the vice president's policies. That's not harassment," said Eagle County DA Mark Hurlbert.
TalkLeft.com has Howards' full complaint.
Do you think the Secret Service over-reacted? Is Howards' suit justified?
October 4, 2006
8:28 AM
Harry Whittington writes:
Hey asshole, where did you learn to shoot!!
That's what I would say to him.
October 4, 2006
8:35 AM
Anonymous writes:
Quack ! Quack !
October 4, 2006
8:37 AM
Tree F. Hugger writes:
This story has really sent me back into a reality I don't want to recognize. I should never be scared of a dictator in this country. Yet I am. I am very anxious for Cheney and his evilness to go away forever.
October 4, 2006
8:45 AM
Tree F. Hugger writes:
That's what we all want to say to him Harry. You first. Have a fun ride on that black jet going to hell with no tail numbers.
October 4, 2006
8:48 AM
Anonymous writes:
He is an elected official of government "by the people and for the people", from the party of Lincoln himself. As such - with all elected officials - you should be able to say whatever you like.
October 4, 2006
8:51 AM
JW writes:
Does it get more unAmerican than this? Freedom of speech and all that?
October 4, 2006
8:52 AM
839 days to go writes:
TH,
Don't worry that old fascist scum is only holding on by a thread. If more pressure about the 287 Abramoff meetings in the Whitehouse comes to light he may be a goner. There is a great equalizer in death and Cheney will have to answer for his deeds no matter what he escapes in this life. Neodorks may call liberals lost but my faith tells me a different story and keeps me strong.
October 4, 2006
8:52 AM
839 days to go writes:
TH,
Don't worry that old fascist scum is only holding on by a thread. If more pressure about the 287 Abramoff meetings in the Whitehouse comes to light he may be a goner. There is a great equalizer in death and Cheney will have to answer for his deeds no matter what he escapes in this life. Neodorks may call liberals lost but my faith tells me a different story and keeps me strong.
October 4, 2006
8:53 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Yeah, Tree, I'm getting more and more worried all the time about dictatorship. First the issue, then the rant:
Our public officials are not freakin' royalty. We should all have the freedom to verbally assault them as much as we like, short of threatening bodily harm. I hope this guy wins his case--if not, we're all in deep shit.
Speaking of which: Mark has not once put up a forum post, as far as I know, about the new detainee rules, in which US citizens--not just foreign "enemy combatants"--can in theory be put into prison indefinitely (and tortured) merely for providing "material support" to terrorists. AT BEST one could go to trial and answer to charges, but never be able to properly counter them because the evidence against him/her is "secret". All of this is defined and prosecuting solely according to the whims of the executive. Welcome to Stalinism in America!
This is just the lastest in a series of increasiningly centralized authority, surveillance and control placed in the hands of the executive, with very little Congressional oversight.
The argument for these harsh provisions is that "we're at war" and that in the past we have undertaken drastic measures of this kind, only to have everything restored thereafter. The favorite example is Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus. But there is a huge difference here: the war on terror is never going to end. Period. MAYBE in a hundred years it will more or less be over. Given this, suspending rights and freedoms in order to "better" wage the war on terror is tantamount to shackling ourselves.
Am I the only one alarmed and outraged by all of this?
October 4, 2006
8:59 AM
Free thinking Republican writes:
I totally agree with this guy, if for no other reason than to remind this country that there is such a thing as free speech and it should not be confined to "free speech zones" away from those who don't want to hear it. His search and seizure allegation also rings true. I am very scared that this country is moving towards "pre-emtive arrest" Who cares if you are let out in a couple of hours. That is WRONG!!!
October 4, 2006
9:02 AM
Saddam and Bush are one and the same writes:
See how Bush and Saddam are alike? They both cause war and death. They both invade countries.
They both squelch dessenters and imprison people.
One thing is true. Saddam ran Iraq better than Bush. The world is less safer with Bush in charge.
October 4, 2006
9:05 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
839, among the "comforts" of faith (which can be dangerously delusional IMHO) is that people get their "just reward". For those of us who don't believe there is an afterlife, it's cold comfort. Life is MORE precious if there's no afterlife, which is why people ruining it for other people is the most horrendous crime one can commit.
Anyway, I think you're right that the tide is turning against these folks. But before they go, they will have codified their bullshit into the law of the land. I'm not hugely concerned about this administration carrying out dictatorship and purges. But they've set down many precedents that could allow this by whatever idiot we elect in the future.
With apologies to TS Eliot:
This is the way democracy ends
This is the way democracy ends
This is the way democracy ends
Not with a bang but a whimper
October 4, 2006
9:07 AM
Disgusted in Austin writes:
Dick is most likely the most evil person alive today and a terrorist threat to humanity. What would I say to him? Go Cheney yourself.
October 4, 2006
9:11 AM
osisbs writes:
Anyone who assaults our VP should be sent to Cuba and have his rights withheld. How dare he speak to God's representative on Earth. Also, if we're going to put Iraq back together again, we'll need more horses and more men.
October 4, 2006
9:16 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
LOL, osisbs. Clever references to literature and fables are most welcome.
Still waiting for folks to weigh in on the new detainee rules--nobody else cares?
October 4, 2006
9:22 AM
Michael writes:
Its funny and so typical of the HYPERpartisan left wing NUT JOBS that populate this page that without any of them being there, VP Cheney is evil and he caused this. How naive and transparent. VP Cheney probably had NO input on this and NONE of us were there and know just how vociferous and vocal this guy was with his rude interruption of the VP meeting with supporters and well wishers. The Secret Service has rules and protocols to follow when jerks like this feel "entitled" to express whatever they want whenever/wherever they want. How would this guy react if I barged in on him and his friends and started voicing my opinions about him on whatever subject? Prrobably NOT so forgiving and willing to say I had 1st Amendment rights to do so. The fact that so many here think Bush/Cheney are worse than Saddam shows their true colors.
October 4, 2006
9:25 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
I know a few choice things I'd like to say to this clown...
October 4, 2006
9:27 AM
Jack writes:
Well there you have it.... Let's go for 4 more years of this BS (and I even voted for these fools - in the first election). Don't ever forget:
"people should not be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of it's people" That's just a quote from a movie but its origin is Jeffersonian: "[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs." --Thomas Jefferson - NOT the Government.
Make no mistake, these people (government officials - elected or otherwise) believe they are above the law. It is our duty to make sure they do not abuse our rights under the Constitution. Men like Cheney do not respect the Constitution - they know, first hand, it gets in the way of their freedom to be a tyrant.
DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THIS ONE!
October 4, 2006
9:29 AM
lan writes:
Who reported that the guy pushed Cheney? Doesn't that smack of intentional lying? If Cheney was physically touched, aren't there secret service guys to pounce on the toucher immediately? IF not, what good are they? Getting the guy ten minutes later, AFTER he has returned to the same spot? Dang, if it was something serious, they would probably never find the guy!The report tells me that Cheney's SS guys weren't doing their job or spent ten minutes considering what to do with someone who just made Cheney uncomfortable. Nice reaction guys.
And I agree with Mr. Howard, Mr. Cheney's policies, energy, foreign, domestic, etc. are all reprehensible, meant only to consolidate and preserve his hold on power. I would tell him that if I had the chance.
October 4, 2006
9:34 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
You're kind of missing the point, Michael. You're right that Cheney probably didn't have input (though we don't know this for sure), but the fact that this guy was actually IMPRISONED is clearly way overboard, and whatever protocols the Secret Service follow in this regard need to be revised.
Further, as I said, we can most certainly hold Cheney, Bush, et al responsible for the measures they propose that daily erode not merely our freedoms, but our right to any recourse should we somehow run afoul of their (or their succesors') agenda. Current law allows the president to deem WHOMEVER HE SEES FIT as an "enemy combatant" and subject to the new provisions of detention and so-called "due process". It's an outrage. Where are all the Ruby Ridge paranoid conservatives on this one?
October 4, 2006
9:34 AM
Anonymous writes:
Dirk -
Don't worry...I am sure when Cheney and/or Jeb get elected in 2008, it will all get straightened out....
By the way, for a great read, check out Sinclair Lewis' "It can't happen here"...good food for thought.
October 4, 2006
9:35 AM
JW writes:
"The Secret Service has rules and protocols to follow when jerks like this feel "entitled" to express whatever they want whenever/wherever they want."
Yes, the constitution "entitled" this guy to say exactly what ever the hell he wanted. If there are rules and protocols for the Secret Service to follow in this situation, they DO NOT include arresting the guy for using his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to freedom of speech.
Clown.
October 4, 2006
9:36 AM
Kevin Jones writes:
Good old lèse majesté.
I'd bet the entourages of celebrities and high-profile journalists can be just as obnoxious and detainment-happy, but it's even more unseemly in a vp.
October 4, 2006
9:36 AM
Tree F. Hugger writes:
My first experience with the Cheney authoriti' (Cartmen) was pre 9/11 by a month. I was up in Jackson Hole, WY on business 8/2001. This is where Cheney makes home away from office and this town has to be the biggest hilly billy good ole' boy network I've ever experienced. I'm window shopping and came across a tobacco pipe store outfitted with all your tobacco glass water pipe accessories. Ah, my cup of tea, I went in and was talking with the owner. He said it was chaos yesterday as Cheney was in town and secret service guys were everyhwhere and easy to spot since they didn't wear cowboy hats and boots and sported blazers.
I'm window shopping the next day and went by the store again, out of business over night. Everything was gone. The owner told me the ATF came last night, walked right in at closting time with automatic rifles pointed at him and took everything. The entire inventory. They put the problem of hiring an attorney to fight for his own rights right back on the small guy. He couldn't afford to do this and pay rent on an empty store front. "Mission accomplished". What baby Cheney wants, baby Cheney gets.
October 4, 2006
9:37 AM
You people writes:
I swear. You people are hysterical. The Secret Service pulls a guy they consider to be a threat (not suprising based off the rhetoric in places like this) and you all start shrieking like Bush nerve gassed Berkley.
If they impeded his rights, fine, the courts will decide and he'll get a nice chunk of change in recompense - The American Way.
But due to comments by even high ranking members of the liberal elite (Cindy Sheehans comment about going back in time comes to mind) and safety threats on elected officials even in a time of peace, it's not terribly surprising that protective services pulled an in your face protestor.
Is it right? Probably not. But UNLIKE THE HYSTERICAL NUTJOBS on this board, this man wasn't detained. His feet werent' cut off. He wasn't "dissappeared" into the prison system. He was released and now he is suing.
Get a GRIP. The rhetoric on these blogs is asinine. Bush like Saddam. Saddam killed tens of thousands with nerve gas. Of his OWN PEOPLE. Saddam ran and oversaw rape rooms. Facists? I believe the facist SOCIALISTS killed hundreds of millions - and yet you people still cling to the socialist ideal as if it was virgin white and pure.
Put up or shut up libs: You have nothing to offer this country but hysterical criticism and kneejerk reactions. Calm the heck down and get back in line.
October 4, 2006
9:44 AM
9:37 is an idiot writes:
9:37
I've got a pick em truck and a tow rope. Come on over, let me test your will against some mail boxes tough guy. Thought so. You just excercised your freedom of speech typing on this blog moron.
Explain to me how you don't enjoy your freedom of speech?
October 4, 2006
9:48 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
You People:
So I take it you're okay with the whomever is in the White House to indefinitely detain American citizens, as well as other so-called "enemy combatants", for non-specific charges, for which evidence is kept secret, where one faces the prospect of "coercion" (i.e. torture). I personally am not saying that Bush is going to start the purges tomorrow. I'm saying he and Congress have set very dangerous precedents.
Also, you seem to conveniently ignore that the kind of thing that happened to Howard should never have happened in the first place, even if he's now allowed his day in court. Obviously given the current climate the SS are more vigilant than in the past (which is fine), but this seems very obviously beyond this sort of vigilance.
Finally, your comments about socialism are ignorant in the extreme. Some so-called liberals are socialist, others are most definitely not. Also, you would no sooner call Stalinism "socialism" than you'd call the Chinese parliament "democracy". Perhaps you need to find out what socialism, in its widely various incarnations, actually is.
By the way, your command to "get back in line" is very revealing. Right away, commandant!
October 4, 2006
9:48 AM
just sayin' writes:
Cheny is a total pantload
October 4, 2006
9:52 AM
Anonymous writes:
Michael
It is possible Cheney had nothing to do with issuing the complaint but the fact remains it happened and it is frightening to think you can't voice a negative opinion to an elected offical.
Steven Howards may not have liked to been interrupted but any person interrupting him would not have been hancuffed and detained for 3 hours because of it. Huge difference.
October 4, 2006
9:56 AM
jACK writes:
Michael,
I can say I feel your pain. I understand what it's like to be a registered Rush Republican. But more importantly, I also can think for myself. For 20 years + I stood behind the Republicans. Then came Bush & Cheney. When you're wrong, you're wrong Michael. If this happened at the hand of Bill Clinton you and your Rush reactionaries would be up in arms. Join us in making a Difference - vote your conscience - vote on principal. Now more than ever we need Republicans of character to stand up and re-direct this party. I hope one day there will be a time when I can (in good conscience) vote for the republicans again - But this is not that time!
October 4, 2006
10:04 AM
am 760 writes:
Damn you right wingers are pathetic. Defend your party at all costs. What ever they do can't be wrong and what ever is wrong is the dems, liberals and Clintons fault. You people would have fit right into Hitler's Nazi germany. Blindly follow you beloved leader. What a bunch of anti-america, anti-democracy pin heads. It was Clintons and the dems fault that Mr. foley is a pedophile right, that what Rush and Hannity said right. Wake up and try to think for yourself.
October 4, 2006
10:04 AM
am 760 writes:
Damn you right wingers are pathetic. Defend your party at all costs. What ever they do can't be wrong and what ever is wrong is the dems, liberals and Clintons fault. You people would have fit right into Hitler's Nazi germany. Blindly follow you beloved leader. What a bunch of anti-america, anti-democracy pin heads. It was Clintons and the dems fault that Mr. foley is a pedophile right, thats what Rush and Hannity said right. Wake up and try to think for yourself.
October 4, 2006
10:07 AM
Anonymous writes:
Just don't yell "Bird Up".
October 4, 2006
10:09 AM
Anotherrightwingnutjob writes:
Where were all you left wingers in the 80's and the 90's when the Demoncrats were trying to take away our gun rights? Funny thing about this article, like most in the Leftstream Media, we only get ONE side of a carefully crafted story, (one for David Lane, zero for the Secret Service...).
October 4, 2006
10:12 AM
Michael writes:
To all of my dear friends on the right and left who so eloquently deconstructed my argument:
Yes, in an age where movies are made depicting the assassination of Pres GWBush for entertainment purposes and the radical left applauds it and views it as art, I am sure the Secret Service should relax their standards and allow anyone to yell whetever they want at the VPOTUS. Yes, that is a wonderful idea. Let's loosen the security around our elected officials. Great idea.
The 1st Amendment, as with ALL of our "rights" are NOT absolute. If you think they are then you are definitiely delusional and probably of a left leaning pursuasion. Grow up.
October 4, 2006
10:12 AM
Anonymous writes:
By "take away your gun rights" you mean limit magazine capacity to ten rounds. You must be a lousy shot if it takes ten rounds to bring down game.
October 4, 2006
10:14 AM
Anonymous writes:
Any person could be arrested for harrasment by talking shit or yelling at one another in public, the VP is granted those same rights. You loons freak out about movies about Clinton, or Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh but you argue you should retain the right to say anything you want to the VP or President. Liberals have got to be the saddest of all people in the world, their ignorance and self centeredness is simply amazing.
October 4, 2006
10:17 AM
Anonymous writes:
And that was the constitution interpreted by the one and only loser, harry palm.
October 4, 2006
10:18 AM
839 days to go writes:
10:14,
Since when can you be thrown in jail for calling someone a name? He didn't threaten his life he called Cheney a moron.
October 4, 2006
10:25 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Michael, you astound me.
Verbal assaults of any kind other than threats of bodily harm do not constitute an assassination plot. If the Secret Service merely removed the man from the scene, that would be one thing. But to imprison him is ridiculous and un-Constitutional. I can't believe you're defending their actions.
As far as gun rights: closing gun show loopholes, limiting round capacity, and restricting access to fully automatic weapons are reasonable measures. The two places where I think it went too far: creating a "shelf life" for ammunition so as to prevent stockpiles (call me paranoid, but a well armed citizenry is capable of mounting a proper insurgency should the time ever come--the Iraqis are good examples of this), and the ban on "assault rifles", which was too vague and broad while at the same time lacking teeth. It was water-treading legislation. As a quasi-socialist myself, I oppose those gun laws, so don't bitch to me.
By the way, my opposition to Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. stems from the incredibly audacious bullshit they peddle, and it would be really nice if they shut up, but I have no desire to silence them.
October 4, 2006
10:26 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Anyone beside me notice the rsemblance Cheney has to Dr. Evil?
Would love to hear him say "One Million Dollars"...
October 4, 2006
10:36 AM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
I find it humorous to read the posts of those who have told me that the high school senior did not have the right to express her religious convictions in her earned valedectorian address, but feel that anyone should be able to disturb the peace with speech.
The bottom line as I see it is that everyone has the right to say what they want, just not in any forum that they choose. I would be willing to believe that this person became belligerant when he was told to back away.
I don't think that anyone should have to endure the sort of onslaughts that the lunatic fringe on both sides of the political spectrum want to inflict on others in the name of free speech.
October 4, 2006
10:43 AM
Anonymous writes:
There is a world of difference between preaching religion to a captive audience and legally expressing your discontent to an elected official. Nice try Hogar. That dog won't hunt.
October 4, 2006
10:52 AM
Anonymous writes:
No Hogar. You WANT to believe that.
October 4, 2006
10:57 AM
PW writes:
Hogar, Cheeses Fuggin Fries
You would be willing to believe anything so long as it supports the many pre-concieved notions that makes the sun rise and set in your little world of "In God We Trust".
Dick Cheney is a walking "public forum" that is off limits to anyone exercising their free speech? As Dirk pointed out, our elected officials are not royalty and can/should be freely ostracized by "verbal assault" if they want to walk around in public.
Now, just because you Republican bolsheviks like to create cults of personality around your political heroes (remember when Henry Hyde was pushing the Reublican Congress to declare Ronald Reagan "King of The United States?) does not mean that the rest of us "Godless liberals" are going to abide by your sense of moral relativism? No!
I am truly tired of hearing how your 1st generation immigrant interpretations of what constitutes American values are biblically justified, but you are allowed to pollute my space because I would rather die than take that 1st Amendment right away from you, or Kevin Jones, or any other Bible humping pervert. The fact that you, nor any family member of yours, have EVER spilled a drop a blood defending our country says an immensity about how much weight your opinions should actually carry on the RMN blogs. About as much weight as a Taco Bell fart, but you have the right to stink a place up as much as this guy did when addressing Dick Cheney.
October 4, 2006
11:06 AM
Anonymous writes:
You've heard one side of a two-sided story.
If we really had a true dictator in the White House, don't you think someone would have put the smack down on all the "Bush is Hilter," "Bush did 9/11," and "Let's Kill Bush" stuff out there?
This filth violates the 1st (slander, threatening, etc..) yet the White House turns the other cheek.
October 4, 2006
11:18 AM
Anonymous writes:
Hogar, you just showed your true colors. You're as anti American as the small print in the Patriot Act. Authorities could call you a dissenter, unpatriotic. Come and cuff you in front of your juiced up Jesus saves kids and haul you away. Unless you are prepared to follow the rules you preach, don't preach. Just sell all your assets and give your cash to Rush/O'Reilly/Dobson. You are the perfect gideon. Fall in line, that's you gideon.
October 4, 2006
11:31 AM
Kevin Jones writes:
"I am truly tired of hearing how your 1st generation immigrant interpretations of what constitutes American values are biblically justified, but you are allowed to pollute my space because I would rather die than take that 1st Amendment right away from you, or Kevin Jones, or any other Bible humping pervert."
Get thee to the stocks!
(What did I do? I'm a kook, not a prevert.)
If you want to preserve respect for the First Amendment, stop hurling blasphemous obscenities and libels. Petty abuses of power like Cheney's shouldn't be overshadowed by adolescent gutter-mouths like yours.
October 4, 2006
11:48 AM
PW writes:
Kevin
Someone else abuse this schmuck for me. I had my fill doing it yesterday.
Yes, Kevin, my "gutter mouth" (though you will see that I artfully avoided any actual cuss words) is libelous and offensive. You have it here in print. I suggest you go straight to US District Court and file a claim against me. You just might make the headlines too.
October 4, 2006
11:54 AM
R. E. Publican writes:
As a strong supporter of Bush and Chaney. I think this is much to do about nothing. As long as Cheney isn't hunting I really don't care. If howards story is true then the Sercret Service does indeed have a lot to answer for. As for those who refer to Cheney as a Facist, $5 says you don't even know what that means.
October 4, 2006
11:59 AM
Anonymous writes:
It isn't slander if it is true....
October 4, 2006
11:59 AM
PW writes:
As for those who refer to Cheney as a Facist, $5 says you don't even know what that means.
Posted by R. E. Publican on October 4, 2006 11:54 AM
50 dollars says you don't either, especially sine you cannot even spell it.
October 4, 2006
12:02 PM
Anonymous writes:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
fas‧cist /ˈfæʃɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
2. (often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.
3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.
–adjective 4. Also, fa‧scis‧tic /fəˈʃɪstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuh-shis-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. of or like fascism or fascists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1915–20;
—Related forms
fa‧scis‧ti‧cal‧ly, adverb
October 4, 2006
12:05 PM
PW writes:
Wait! Wait! Ooh pick me! Pick me!
I know what a "Facist" is. A "Facist" is someone who lays face up on a couch, and lets some Republican leader remove their underwear and then stand over their prone display after a hearty meal at Taco Bell.
Please send me my Abe Lincoln pronto.
October 4, 2006
12:06 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
When I look at Cheney, the first thing I think of sure is Mussolini.
Same with Bin Laden and his Islamofascists.
October 4, 2006
12:06 PM
am 760 writes:
Jack, thanks for your truely honest and insightful post. It takes a real man/woman to admit when they are wrong. Notice how "W" can never admit any mistakes.
Those on the right don't understand that if a dem was in office and all this was happening we would still be outraged and calling for change. Its not a repub/dem issue its a right vs. wrong issue.
October 4, 2006
12:06 PM
Diana Powe writes:
The comments made that there is only one side to the story in the newspaper item are valid. However, I can state with confidence that the Secret Service (that IS their name, after all) is not going to discuss their actions with the press, even when those actions are completely appropriate. It's just not what they do.
What is HIGHLY relevant in this story is the timing of the Secret Service's actions. Steven Howards made a statement to the Vice President. The Vice President had multiple Secret Service agents around him because he ALWAYS has them around him. He's the Vice President. Whatever Mr. Howards said and however he said it did NOT cause the agents to react while he was there. There is no indication that Mr. Howards ran away carrying his child. In fact, they allowed him to continue on his way unhindered.
It was only MINUTES LATER, when he came back by, that they decided to make a full custodial arrest for his EARLIER actions. Regardless of the politics involved, this is something that appears to be highly questionable. However, this can also be viewed through the lens of the continued efforts by this Administration to avoid even having to HEAR criticism. Virtually all official appearances by either the President or the Vice President are strictly limited to those who have been granted admission because of their political reliability. When events may cause actual organized protests, those protesters are shunted out of the view and hearing of the people they seek to influence and into "free speech zones."
What frightens Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney SO MUCH that they must avoid hearing anything other than words of praise?
October 4, 2006
12:11 PM
more right wing hypocrisy. writes:
Weren't the Soviets under Stalin et al. sent to Siberia or murdered when they voiced disagreement with their dictators.
Whew, that god Cheney didn't want this citizen murdered only imprisoned.
I have been a volunteer for many dem campaigns. and I recall a few disagreements citizens voiced to Clinton during campaign stops and low and behold none were arrested.
The past 8 years have been the worst ever in terms of freedom of speech, trampling on the constitution, and deciding we don't need to comply with the geneva convention.
We have so many illustrious republicans,
Bill Frist- who after watching a 5 min. tape declared Terri S not brain dead and therefore declared the supreme court step int( what a fool)
Ginginch who served divorce papers to his wife who was in the hospital suffering from cancer.
and,,,Rush who took drugs and obtained them illegally.
Folks it is the hypocrisy of the Republicans- ya gotta practice what you preach, if you did then perhaps we would have respect for your party
But alas you are hypocrites.
For all of you who voted for Bush remember when you are living month to month working two jobs that your buddies Bush and Cheney are laughing all the way to their the banks that hold their millions in oil.
October 4, 2006
12:18 PM
Tree F. Hugger writes:
Arnie, I was waiting for that. Good call out.
October 4, 2006
12:20 PM
Diana Powe writes:
To add to my rhetorical question about the fear of criticism felt by Vice President Cheney I would remind every reader here of the rider used by his advance team that includes the requirement "All televisions tuned to FOX News." If it weren't such a telling comment about the thick layer of intellectual insulation he feels compelled to build up around his personal belief system, it would be sort of sad.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0322061cheney1.html
October 4, 2006
12:27 PM
Tancredo Watch writes:
I'd have said exactly what this guy dared to say with his little boy in tow: a polite "I find your actions in Iraq reprehensible." This guy is a responsible fellow - a former head of the Denver Metro Air Quality Council. He didn't "push" or eve touch Cheney: if he had, he'd have been kneed to the groin and had a gun to his head lickety-split. This is such obvious harassment, and David Lane is such a great lawyer, that I think this is going to be an expensive lesson to the Secret Service (and ultimately to the taxpayers who once again will pay for the incompetence that follows George W. Bush like a cloud). The lesson will be that the Secret Service's initials do not stand for SS and that we still have the right of free speech in this country, despite what Bush and Cheney may desire.
October 4, 2006
12:30 PM
PW writes:
Diana Powe
Wow! That snippet of info is mind boggling. I knew there was a real reason I came here to the RMN blogs. Sometimes people actually educate each other.
October 4, 2006
12:34 PM
Anonymous writes:
PW - Please leave your weekend with harry out of this...
October 4, 2006
12:43 PM
PW writes:
Ooh, Kevin Jones/Liberal Hypocrisy/Howard Dean/Dr. Fraud/Rong Wing no name(and Hogar?) at 12:34
A stunning retort! Comebacks like those are devastating; guess I will now run with my tail tucked in. I had no idea that Harry Palm was a Republican leader. I knew he ate Taco Bell 3 times a day but if you say so...
October 4, 2006
1:17 PM
Anonymous writes:
Criminal profiling is a difficult and touchy subject. Sometimes a persons demeanor is enough to intervene on irrespective of the words said.
As far as Bush/Cheney not wanting to hear anything but praise - ridiculous statement since they face the press and their critics all the time. It's different when those critics are unknown to the Secret Service in an uncontrolled environment.
And anyone who would defend David Lane as anything but a publicity hound is pretty Lame.
October 4, 2006
1:53 PM
more right wing hypocrisy. writes:
This joke seems to fit the ocassion.
Gosh, I hope I don't get arrested.
I found this posted on jibjab.com
"" Very Happy People "
President Bush, First Lady Laura and Dick Cheney were flying on Air Force One.
George looked at Laura, chuckled and said, "You know, I could throw a $1,000 bill out of the window right now and make somebody very happy."
Laura shrugged her shoulders and replied, "I could throw ten $100 bills out of the window and make ten people very happy."
Cheney added, "That being the case, I could throw one hundred $10 bills out of the window and make a hundred people very happy."
Hearing their exchange, the pilot rolled his eyes and said to his co-pilot, "Such big-shots back there. Hell, I could throw all of them out of the window and make 56 million people very happy"
October 4, 2006
1:56 PM
Diana Powe writes:
"Criminal profiling is a difficult and touchy subject. Sometimes a persons demeanor is enough to intervene on irrespective of the words said."
Sorry, anonymous poster, but there is nothing within the bounds of AMERICAN criminal law that allows someone to be the subject of a full custodial arrest as a consequence of their demeanor. An investigative detention? Perhaps. However, the offense the Secret Service alleged, which was later dropped, occurred just prior to them allowing Mr. Howards to walk away, not when he came walking past the second time.
As to Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney "facing the press", appearances on FOX News hardly count. In addition, one of the noteworthy things about the current President is how few press conferences he's held. However, the main point is that critics outside the press, the unwashed rabble who pay their salaries, are routinely kept at arm's length by this Administration.
October 4, 2006
2:00 PM
PW writes:
1:17
You make excellent points in your first and third paragraphs. The Secret Service's job is to not only protect our leaders from immediate harm but to deter any possibilities of future harm as well. The fact that he left after his first "verbal assault" indicates that maybe they let him go because initially he was no threat, and he was no longer a problem. However, if they felt that his "reappearance" was indication that he was "stalking" the entourage, then they had the duty to detain him and see what his deal really was. I am sure that this will be the legal defense, and the case will be summarily dismissed by the Court. Yes, David Lane is what is known in the lawyer's circle as a "media whore".
Your second paragraph on the other hand is not so supportable. I mean, have you ever seen W or Cheney at a press conference? They act like Bill Clinton did on Fox News every time they get something other than a high pitch softball thrown to them. It is this fact, that lends credence to the notion that Dicky boy got pissed by the outrage committed against him, and then ordered his people to teach the piece of crap a lesson for his offense.
Nevertheless, this lawsuit will ultimately fail in my opinion since the highly professional Secret Service agents did not physically harm him in any way. It is for publicity purposes, but I think it is a telling example of the Vice President's tendency to squelch any and all dissent. That makes it newsworthy.
October 4, 2006
2:16 PM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
PW
regarding your 12:30 comment to Cheney's fox news demands- you are late to the party, that was a topic last month. Keep on keepin' on blogging dirt.
October 4, 2006
3:05 PM
John Galt writes:
The Secret Service guy might have overreacted a little bit based on what he perceived to be a real threat.
We have no idea what tone of voice was used or what physical posturing was done by Steven Howards.
In any case, it is a well-known fact that Secret Service officers take their
job seriously.
Steven Howards should walk away. He's making himself look like a moron.
Personally, I think he's just a far left-wing nut. None of those types have brains anyway.
October 4, 2006
3:08 PM
David (R) writes:
Arnie - excellent! And I'm a conservative. I just can't respect these guys. We've got 1000 people bullying over 300,000,000 of us, as someone pointed out on another thread yesterday. Amazing.
And, 837, er 836, um 835 or whatever days to go - would you change your handle man? It's depressing to know we have to wait that long to try someone else who will probably screw things up nearly as effectively as AE Newman and his sidekicks.
October 4, 2006
3:18 PM
PW writes:
Tree Hugger
LOL@ late to the party. Better late than never though, eh? Feel free to throw out some more related info that I have missed out on. The later the party goes the more fun it is to get ripped I say.
October 4, 2006
3:31 PM
838 days to go writes:
America is being imprisoned by a political philosophy of might makes right and my handle is a countdown till we get a new chance. My hope is at about 720 the impeachment proceedings will put an end to it quicker. If Republicans lose the House and Senate the Democrats will gain subpoena power and the game is over. I don't despise Republicans I despise criminals getting away with murder and Republicans turning their back to it because of some stupid sick loyalty. Since when do real Republicans blindly trust government?
http://bushclock.lose.com/
October 4, 2006
3:40 PM
am 760 writes:
David Lane is just doing his job. He didn't arrest the guy or have anything to do with it. Stay on focus repubs, I know its hard when Rush and Hannity haven't been able to establish any good talking points about this yet.
Typical repubs though, change the subject to the lawyer or the media, not the crime committed, sheesh, you guys are lame.
Just like the right wing talking heads now are trying to blame the kids, or the media or the dems in the foley case. What matters is the crime and holding those accountable. Something you on the right are afraid of I guess.
October 4, 2006
4:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
Can you hear that? Listen carefully. It is the accountability train chugging down the tracks. Comes to the station on November 7. If you've done a good job you can stay. Otherwise....there's always a career in lobbying.
October 4, 2006
4:13 PM
PW writes:
am 760
Normally, you and I are on the same page but this issue is not worth keeping our focus on. Granted, David Lane is simply doing his job and he does it pretty darn well. But, he is, like a few other high profile attorneys, a media whore and even he would probably agree in private. It does not make him a bad a person or attorney though. Just playing the game is all.
But, back to my point. This issue just does not warrant much more attention. Firstly, it will not be adjudicated for quite some time. If it was just filed, the preliminaries of the case will not even be heard by a magistrate for another 6 weeks probably. The chances of it actually making it to a jury trial are practically nil. No Federal Court judge is going to tell the Secret Service that they cannot protect the Executive Branch the way they see fit, as long as innocent people are not beaten or killed unnecessarily.
This is a good one day or two day topic because it effectively illustrates what a demi-god Cheney considers himself to be, but it just does not have legs and we should not run with it, in my opinion.
October 4, 2006
4:38 PM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
PW
I was not advocating for any special rights for Cheney. My comment was general and applied to all Americans, including the whackos who want to protest at soldiers funerals. I don't believe that free speech should allow me to intrude into the lives of people just because they are out in public.
This blog is a forum where everyone comes with the expectation that there are going to be opposing points of view. I would not want to endure the sort of assaults that are directed my way on this blog, when walking down the street or walking around Beaver Creek with my family.
I believe that falls under the statute of disturbing the peace.
By the way, believing that does not make me a pervert.
October 4, 2006
4:47 PM
Shivas Irons writes:
I agree with the poster that said Cheney is a pantload. I despise the chickenhawk SOB. Kudos to this guy for the lawsuit. It appears that a Barney Fife type in the Secret Service got out of hand. I couldn't imagine being handcuffed and taken away while my 8 year old son was left for social services to deal with. I hope the Barney Fife guy loses his job and that Mr. Howards gets a boatload of money. We live in the USA and we all have rights. The Secret Service doesn't have the power to bully citizens who have done nothing but express their opinion.
October 4, 2006
4:52 PM
am 760 writes:
PW, I agree with you, I don't really care if it goes to court. Its just one more example of this administrations contempt for anyone who thinks differently than they do and trying to squash any dissent.
October 4, 2006
4:55 PM
Anonymous writes:
Hagar sez....find it humorous to read the posts of those who have told me that the high school senior did not have the right to express her religious convictions in her earned valedectorian address, ..there is a a place for religious convictions and it is called Church
October 4, 2006
5:00 PM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
PW-
You get the drift. You've missed some classic Harry Palm rants, he hasn't rambled too much lately about gassing everyone on the left. Once his immune system catches up to the high doses of lithium he's on, sit back and "enjoy the ride" - Grateful Dead.
And never take me serious, I'm here for the humor and purple bud bongers.
October 4, 2006
5:10 PM
Anonymous writes:
David Lane is the political equivalent of an ambulance chaser. In that respect, he deserves none.
Sorry am666.
October 4, 2006
7:13 PM
David (R) writes:
838 - As a former Republican, I could not agree with you more. I think the current regime, as well as many who went before them regardless of political affiliation, are some of the most treasonous bastards I have ever seen. I do have one question though: Are there any truly decent, honest, honorable, trustworthy, and patriotic leaders who can be trusted in the White House and the Congress?
October 5, 2006
12:37 AM
David Hakala writes:
Hogar, taking shots from the public in public comes with making oneself a public figure. Lord knows Cheney is one.
It is entirely appropriate and legal to walk up to one's Vice President in one of his many idle moments and tell him what you think of the job he's doing. It's not as if Steven Howard bulled his way into a G8 summit.
October 5, 2006
12:40 AM
David Hakala writes:
Does anyone know what happened to Steven Howard's 7 year-old son when his father was hauled off to jail?
October 5, 2006
9:19 AM
Michael Fury writes:
"In any case, it is a well-known fact that Secret Service officers take their
job seriously."
"The Secret Service's job is to not only protect our leaders from immediate harm but to deter any possibilities of future harm as well."
Unless doing so might frighten a classroom full of children.
October 5, 2006
1:31 PM
Tommo writes:
David (R):
You're still a Republican. So am I. These bastards are the ones that aren't Republicans. They never were.
October 5, 2006
10:05 PM
Johnny Lawless writes:
Thinking a little more detailed. What could the secret service's defense be? To arrest for a misdemeanor an officer has to witness the action. Is that correct in Colorado? If that is so, then he cannot claim someone else (like Cheney) informed him he was assaulted/harrassed and claim qualified immunity.
Do we have the arrest report?
Was there a mall video?
The DA must have spoken to other witnesses that agreed with the plaintiff.
Will Cheney be deposed?
Oh, this is fun. Unfortunately, despite the facts, a Federal Judge is likely to wimp out and grant immunity to the officer on some concocted basis, but it should be fun.
October 5, 2006
11:45 PM
PW writes:
Johnny,
This case will either be withdrawn by the plaintiff, or a Federal Judge is going to throw it out on a Summary Judgment since actual damages will be next to impossible to prove.
Cheney will not be deposed and the Secret Service agent has full immunity because he did not egregiously overstep his authority and duty to protect the Vice President. The Secret Service agent, and his supervisors may face internal disciplinary measures for overreacting, but not much is going to be made of this on a Court basis. Don't get your hopes up Johnny Lawless, this is good for a day's worth of headlines but that is about it.
October 6, 2006
2:19 AM
EVENT AUDIO writes:
Today's dissentor is tomorrow's enemy combatant. This Dick Cheney guy is the most hateful evil fucker I have ever laid eyes on. He's a whiny little bitch whenever faced by a realistic question, usually over the top way worse than our antagonized former President.
The beauty in this system is how easy it is to fool the public. The right wing has rejoiced in these new laws which totally dismantle our Bill of Rights. You stupid assholes will get what you deserve - it is only two administrations away now, regardless of electoral outcome. This guy will get a Gary Webb to tha dome, a suicide from four feet away, but it will be a long time from now.
We are allowing our rights to be curtailed to the point of no return, when we become powerless to stop the beuraucratic machine from making pharoas out of these scumbags. Thomas Jefferson said every generation needs a revolution. If the hippies weren't so doped up on acid and peace, maybe they would have marched on washington and got us the bloody revolution we needed. Now we're stuck in this shit!
I truly pray, wishes for my children's safety aside, that before the New World Order kicks in and strips us of all humanity, we can lay aside our petty similarities and have this thing out in the streets. We are a nation divided, and it's time to cut away the imperialist chaff!
666
October 6, 2006
12:51 PM
PW writes:
Now that is a good post Arnie!
October 10, 2006
1:51 PM
Geof writes:
Why do you have to ask this question? What version of America does Cheney represent, that he endorses the arrest of a man that spoke his mind? Right there, that embodies the reason I detest the Bush administration. They have a neo-fascist/omni-patriarchal viewpoint of how things should be, that Daddy is always right simply because they believe all their actions are just if it "contributes" to our safety. The means justifies the ends, as long as they call the shots on both, and consensus is considered a child's concept. This is broiling hypocrisy, and along with their vicious rhetoric and lies, this results in a complete vacuum of credibility, integrity and truth. I came to believe America was about the pursuit of these things, but it appears that each of them are purposely forgotten by almost everybody. So, if credibility is passé, then let's not worry about who's running anything at all. If integrity means nothing, let's not concern ourselves who represents us in any theater of life. And if truth is just an obstacle, then ignore the lies with all our might.
I believe Bush and Co. are the bad guys; Osama, Saddam and their ilk pale in comparison. So is anyone going to be held accountable for starting a WAR based on lies and bad intel? Do you feel safer now that N. Korea has a bomb? Sanctions on N. Korea when Bush said they did not work on Iraq, and even so isn't it too late? Is Bush responsible for anything at all, for instance his own words? Is it not news that the Republicans purposely and aggressively use negatives to distract from their own failings? That the general press is compliant to this, allows it to happen time after time by not asking these things? There's some questions worth asking. As for Cheney, in the end the hate he sows is what he will reap, a man expressing himself is a good start, long live his lawyers.
October 10, 2006
5:39 PM
John writes:
> Does anyone know what happened to Steven Howard's 7 year-old son when his father was hauled off to jail?
In an interview, the father said that the Secret Service agent said that, "We'll call Social Services" as he was bundled into the police car. Fortunately, the child's mother arrived on the scene and took him.
Shouldn't that count as child endangerment, leaving a 7-year-old out on the street alone?