Two Registered Republicans Sue Bush Administration After Anti-Bush T-Shirt Arrest

[kasia]

By JENNIFER BUNDY
Associated Press Writer

Jeff and Nicole Rank, the couple arrested after wearing anti-Bush shirts at the president's July 4 speech at the West Virginia Capitol Building, address the media in Charleston, W.Va., Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004, about their arrest and pending lawsuit claiming that the Secret Service violated their First Amendment rights.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A couple arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to a July 4 presidential appearance filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday alleging their First Amendment rights were violated.

Nicole and Jeff Rank were removed from the event at the West Virginia Capitol in handcuffs after revealing T-shirts with President Bush's name crossed out on the front. Nicole Rank's shirt had the words "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back and Jeff Rank's said "Regime change starts at home."

Their lawsuit was filed in federal court by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys.

"What is at stake here transcends politics," Jeff Rank said at a news conference at the Capitol. "What is at stake is the right of all Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents, all Americans — to peacefully voice their dissent to their government."

Trespassing charges filed against the couple were later dismissed. The City Council and Mayor Danny Jones have publicly apologized.

The lawsuit names Gregory Jenkins, deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House Office of Presidential Advance, and W. Ralph Basham, director of the U.S. Secret Service, as defendants.

The couple wants a judge to declare unconstitutional any policy that led to their arrest. They also are seeking unspecified monetary damages.

Spokesmen for the Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Justice, to whom a White House spokesman directed questions, declined to comment. Both said their agencies do not comment on ongoing litigation.

The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit last September against the Secret Service, seeking an injunction against the Bush administration for segregating protesters at his public appearances. The Secret Service agreed to stop the practice.

Jeff Rank, 29, said he and his wife wore the T-shirts because, "When you see the president speak on TV he is usually shown surrounded by fervent supporters only. While we wanted to hear him out and while we wanted to see him in person, we did not want to be added to the tally of Bush supporters that day."

Nicole Rank, 30, initially was dismissed from her job with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but was rehired after the charges were dropped.

___

September 14, 2004 - 8:09 p.m. PDT


Copyright 2004, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

should be noted that:

1) although the mayor apologized, the officers stated that they only made the arrests after being ordered to by Bush' Secret Servicemen.

2) there has been a pattern of using arrests to suppress anti-Bush speech at such events.

[Leviticus]

Maybe someone should bring freedom back to the U.S.

[hooligan]

Maybe someone should bring freedom back to the U.S.

"Love America, Hate Bush." Enough said. I can't believe that soldiers aren't allowed to criticize their commander-in-chief. (and chief?)

[VV o n g B a]

"Love America, Hate Bush." Enough said. I can't believe that soldiers aren't allowed to criticize their commander-in-chief. (and chief?)
if no sergeant would take shit from a private who questioned his orders, why should bush take shit from them?

as soon as a soldier is out of uniform and a civilian i think he gets that prerogative, but not before.

[SunWuKong]

i don't know. what is the official policies of the Secret Service regarding arresting people? they could perceive "hate Bush" as a threat. i doubt they'd perceive something like... "don't vote Bush" as a threat.

[kitty]

that's in complete violation of their first amendment rights though. there was no explicit threat, other than expressing their own opinion on bush. hating someone doesn't mean you want them dead -- if their t-shirts said like 'kill bush', or something, then there'd be reason to arrest them. but they didn't.

[kasia]

if no sergeant would take shit from a private who questioned his orders, why should bush take shit from them?

as soon as a soldier is out of uniform and a civilian i think he gets that prerogative, but not before.

but that analogy doesn't quite work. bush is not our boss. we're actually his. hence, "public servant."

[SunWuKong]

that's in complete violation of their first amendment rights though. there was no explicit threat, other than expressing their own opinion on bush. hating someone doesn't mean you want them dead -- if their t-shirts said like 'kill bush', or something, then there'd be reason to arrest them. but they didn't.

but if they're arresting someone with a t-shirt that says "kill Bush", isn't that also a violation of the person's first amendment rights?

first amendment rights have always had limitations in this country though. i'm not sure it's such a big leap for the Secret Service to go from "hate Bush" to "kill Bush" if the people expressing these views are actually in the physical vicinity of Bush.

[deez nuts]

the insurgents must be quelled.

[A.R.A.M.]

but that analogy doesn't quite work. bush is not our boss. we're actually his. hence, "public servant."

WongBa seems to be responding to the assertion that it is wrong that soldiers can't criticize Bush, not the queston of civilian protest. The military is governed by a whole different set of laws than the civilian world. An officer can be courtmartialed for criticizing the President. I don't believe that's right, because it conflates the President's role as Commander-in-Chief with his role as civilian politician. While the military must carry out the Commander-in-Chief's orders, I don't believe following orders is the same thing as not voicing disagreement with the President over policy issues. One can disagree with the President over his economic policy and still carry out his orders. But to qparaphrase Gene Hackman, the military is "here to defend democracy, not practice it."

[kitty]

but if they're arresting someone with a t-shirt that says "kill Bush", isn't that also a violation of the person's first amendment rights?

first amendment rights have always had limitations in this country though. i'm not sure it's such a big leap for the Secret Service to go from "hate Bush" to "kill Bush" if the people expressing these views are actually in the physical vicinity of Bush.

not really, because you are inciting violence -- someone might interpret your comment as a directive and hurt Bush. It sounds silly, but I belive it's a distinction that is made under the law. If I posted an anti-Bush website that detailed how much I hated Bush, that would be protected under the First Amendment because I am expressing my personal opinion. But groups that posted anti-abortion information, COUPLED with the addresses of doctors who performed abortion procedures (and an 'X' next to all those who have been subsequently killed or assaulted' are arguably inciting violence against those doctors.

I think that's the same distinction here -- I can hate Bush without having any intention of killing him or seeing him dead ... the Secret Service are supposed to protect Bush's life, not ensure that everyone in the crowd wants to be his bestest friend. They were way over the line to assume that someone wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt constituted a physical threat to the president.

[achtungbaby]

Moving to the Elections forum