Inauguration day "prohibited items."

sethypoo

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 8, 2003
1,583
0
Sacramento, CA, USA
Taken from [url said:
http://inaugural.senate.gov][/url]
Prohibited Items

Prohibited items include, but are not limited to:
* Firearms and ammunition (either real or simulated)
* Explosives of any kind (including fireworks)
* Knives, blades, or sharp objects (of any length)
* Mace and/or pepper spray
* Sticks or poles
* Pocket or hand tools such as “Leatherman"
* Packages
* Backpacks
* Large bags
* Duffel bags
* Suitcases
* Thermoses
* Coolers
* Strollers
* Umbrellas
* Laser pointers
* Signs
* Posters
* Animals (other than service animals)
* Alcoholic beverages
* Other items at the discretion of the security screeners that may pose a threat to the security of the event.
This amazed me: you are not allowed to bring any signs or posters into the area of the inauguration that is going to take place on January 20th, 2005.

Was this rule in place at the last inauguration? If it wasn't, it was likely put in place due to the anti-Bush turnout at said inauguration.

To me this is a violation of free speech. If I want to protest Bush's inauguration, I want to have a sign. If I want to support it, I would also want to have a sign.
 

latergator116

macrumors 68000
Sep 30, 2003
1,675
0
Providence, RI
sethypoo said:
This amazed me: you are not allowed to bring any signs or posters into the area of the inauguration that is going to take place on January 20th, 2005.

Was this rule in place at the last inauguration? If it wasn't, it was likely put in place due to the anti-Bush turnout at said inauguration.

To me this is a violation of free speech. If I want to protest Bush's inauguration, I want to have a sign. If I want to support it, I would also want to have a sign.
[sarcasm] What are you talking about?! What if a terrorist brought a sign to the innauguration?! You wouldn't be complaining about free speech then, would you? [sarcasm] :rolleyes:
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
I would expect the obvious. They know Bush is hated, and don't want the worst to happen to him. But posters and signs? You can't really use them as weapons or anything, unless you're going to be close enough to smack him or poke him or something. I hear also that some protest groups were denied permits to be there, despite putting in requests much earlier than some other groups. They were planning on turning around when they saw him coming, and showing him their backs as a sign of disapproval. They had a lot of people signed up to do that, but we'll see. Would be funny if a bunch of people were turned the other direction or started booing. I'd pay to see that.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
someone from the inauguration committee must have watched the Orange Bowl.

i think it's clear what's going on -- dissent has always been hidden from bush. protesters are restricted to areas nowhere near him, top officials who question him have been retired or, worse, attacked in the press, i read somewhere (sorry, no link) that he doesn't want to hear bad news about iraq.

he wants to live in a fantasy world, and his handlers and half the US voting population seem happy to let him. an intelligent man would want all the data before making life and death decisions. and there it is.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Easy summary, all Constitutionary rights are hereby suspended for the Emperors Inauguration Day. You are with him or you are UnAmerican and not worthy of being heard.
 

Zaid

macrumors 6502
Feb 17, 2003
360
0
London
zimv20 said:
i think it's clear what's going on -- dissent has always been hidden from bush. protesters are restricted to areas nowhere near him, top officials who question him have been retired or, worse, attacked in the press, i read somewhere (sorry, no link) that he doesn't want to hear bad news about iraq.

he wants to live in a fantasy world, and his handlers and half the US voting population seem happy to let him. an intelligent man would want all the data before making life and death decisions. and there it is.
found that link for you:

link
(link goes to air america radio, but ultimate source is the Nelson Report)

There is rising concern amongst senior officials that President Bush does not grasp the increasingly grim reality of the security situation in Iraq because he refuses to listen to that type of information. Our sources say that attempts to brief Bush on various grim realities have been personally rebuffed by the President, who actually says that he does not want to hear “bad news.”

Rather, Bush makes clear that all he wants are progress reports, where they exist, and those facts which seem to support his declared mission in Iraq...building democracy. “That’s all he wants to hear about,” we have been told. So “in” are the latest totals on school openings, and “out” are reports from senior US military commanders (and those intelligence experts still on the job) that they see an insurgency becoming increasingly effective, and their projection that “it will just get worse.”

Our sources are firm in that they conclude this “good news only” directive comes from Bush himself; that is, it is not a trap or cocoon thrown around the President by National Security Advisor Rice, Vice President Cheney, and DOD Secretary Rumsfeld. In any event, whether self-imposed, or due to manipulation by irresponsible subordinates, the information/intelligence vacuum at the highest levels of the White House increasingly frightens those officials interested in objective assessment, and not just selling a political message.
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
Xtremehkr said:
Easy summary, all Constitutionary rights are hereby suspended for the Emperors Inauguration Day. You are with him or you are UnAmerican and not worthy of being heard.
heh, sad thing is you're right, it certainly seems that way. It's quite unbelievable, "land of the free", yeah, right.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,028
PDX
I hope it doesn't rain on inauguration day, as umbrellas are evidently a security risk.

Seriously, I don't care. So you can't bring posters or signs. What exactly does it prove to show your displeasure with Bush in sign-form?

He is the President, let him have the dignified day the office allows for. It's not really fooling anyone anyway to present a picture of homogenous serenity. Even if if was, since he is not up for re-election, we are stuck with him no matter how unpopular he may become, short of an impeachment, which seems unlikely considering the make-up of the Senate.

I don't think Bush is Emperor or Caesar, just a guy who makes poor decisions and insulates himself from the resultant effects. I don't think that has changed in 20+ years.

In case you were wondering, I do recognize the 1st amendment rights angle here, but I just believe the wisdom is knowing when to exercise them to practical ends.
 

Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
zimv20 said:
someone from the inauguration committee must have watched the Orange Bowl.

i think it's clear what's going on -- dissent has always been hidden from bush. protesters are restricted to areas nowhere near him, top officials who question him have been retired or, worse, attacked in the press, i read somewhere (sorry, no link) that he doesn't want to hear bad news about iraq.

he wants to live in a fantasy world, and his handlers and half the US voting population seem happy to let him. an intelligent man would want all the data before making life and death decisions. and there it is.
So you saying in 2008 that we will all wake up and find out that the 8 years of Bush the Younger was all a dream?
 

mpw

Guest
Jun 18, 2004
6,364
1
I'm guessing they would claim that the sign, or the stick it's held on, could be use as a weapon. So T-shirt slogans claiming Bush an idiot would be allowed in?
 

Zaid

macrumors 6502
Feb 17, 2003
360
0
London
Now it seems that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the DC for the costs associated with the inauguration. Apparently they want them to use homeland security funds, even though these have already been allocated to other things.

linky [MSNBC -- Originally Washington Post]

From the article

D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.

But that grant money is earmarked for other security needs, Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said in a Dec. 27 letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua B. Bolten and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Williams's office released the letter yesterday.

Williams estimated that the city's costs for the inauguration will total $17.3 million, most of it related to security. City officials said they can use an unspent $5.4 million from an annual federal fund that reimburses the District for costs incurred because of its status as the capital. But that leaves $11.9 million not covered, they said.

"We want to make this the best possible event, but not at the expense of D.C. taxpayers and other homeland security priorities," said Gregory M. McCarthy, the mayor's deputy chief of staff. "This is the first time there hasn't been a direct appropriation for the inauguration."

A spokesman for Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, which oversees the District, agreed with the mayor's stance. He called the Bush administration's position "simply not acceptable."
What is the normal deal, does the white house pay for the inauguration or does some other branch of the government pick up the tab?

At any rate it seems awfully unfair to make the tax payers of one city pay for something that is in effect a national event. I think that the city should just refuse to pay more than the $5.4m it gets from the federal budget for such events and just scale down the whole thing. You know, a nice quiet affair for friends and family :)
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Oddly enough, it appears crosses are banned.
A conservative group is threatening to sue the Secret Service for religious discrimination over security guidelines that would ban Christian crosses from President Bush's inaugural parade route.

The Secret Service said Monday the guidelines were meant to prohibit large structures that could be used as weapons. Crosses were the only religious symbols on the list of banned items.

In a December 17 directive to the National Park Service, the Secret Service mandated that signs and placards along the inaugural parade route down Pennsylvania Avenue be made out of cardboard, poster board or cloth. They may be no more than three feet wide or 20 feet long.

The directive also prohibited folding chairs, bicycles and other structures, and displays "such as puppets, papier mache objects, coffins, crates, crosses, theaters, cages and statues."

"The way it's written, it's an unequivocal ban on crosses," said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition. The group is seeking to have the prohibition overturned in federal court if the Secret Service fails to retract it.

"They are not banning large displays of the Star of David or Islamic symbols," Mahoney said. "The only resolution is that they would have to pull 'crosses' out. And they could easily protect religious freedom by saying, 'We ban all structures made of wood."'

The Secret Service was working on a clarification Monday to resolve the flap. Spokesman Tom Mazur said the ban on crosses "is strictly in regards to structures -- certainly not the symbol."

"There is no prohibition on crosses, symbols or messages based on content -- only structures made of materials or of a size that could be used in a potentially threatening or harmful manner," Mazur said.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
Durandal7 said:
Did you really expect that they would allow the inauguration to become a protest rally?
If Americans want to turn it into one, they must allow it.

Freedom of Assembly and all that...

ah, to hell with it! Lock them commies up! Hang 'em high, Texas justice style! Democracy was getting old anyways.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Durandal7 said:
Did you really expect that they would allow the inauguration to become a protest rally?
Did the British want to allow Boston Harbor to become a protest rally? :D

Peaceful protest is not only an American tradition, it is our UNALIENABLE right.

Oh and do you really expect that they will allow any effective dissent on the war to take place?
 

Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
sethypoo said:
Just to stir the pot a little more, what about those who want to protest the fact he doesn't deserve to be protested? :confused: :p
Both sides should be allowed to protest.

Given the news yesterday that the search for WMD has ended with none found, people should protest the lies that have led to countless lives lost, and destroyed generations by squandered money lost.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
sethypoo said:
Just to stir the pot a little more, what about those who want to protest the fact he doesn't deserve to be protested? :confused: :p
They can do that all they want... while we are protesting him.