Bush bans protests at military funerals By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 19 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - President Bush, marking Memorial Day with a speech paying tribute to fighting men and women lost in war, signed into law Monday a bill that keeps demonstrators from disrupting military funerals.

In advance of his speech and a wreath-laying at America's most hallowed burial ground for military heroes, Bush signed the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act." This was largely in response to the activities of a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming the deaths symbolized God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

...."Bush signed a second bill Monday that allows combat troops to deposit tax-free pay into individual retirement accounts. Supporters of the legislation argued that rules governing these accounts were punishing soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq who earn only tax-free combat pay."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060529/...o_pr_wh/bush_1

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

the only time I have ever agreed with you JP5. Its obscene that a group of anti-homosexual fanatics have added to the pain of families who lost loved ones by their absurd protests. In Tennessee where I lived this had already been banned, it should have been done long ago.

__________________
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

Of course....this ban also includes those "anti-Iraq war" protesters.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

and the issue that led to the bans, as in TN, was not that which have been rare but the group from Oklahoma which has gone around to funerals with quaint signs like "Your son died to protect (*)(*)(*)(*)"

I actually have not heard of any anti-war protests at funerals but in any case if there were any they should respect the families and protest elsewhere.

__________________
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

It must be an odd day out, 'cause JP5 and I agree on this one.

Unfortunately, this particular law may ultimately prove to be unconstitutional.

At least the ACLU seems to think so, they've jumped in on the side of these right-wing nutball protesters.

To me though, it seems that this "form" of protest borders on incitement, which the Court has long recognized as a boundary of the First Amendment.

Regardless of that though, it's certainly shameful and disgraceful behavior for a group of people that claim to have a connection with God. And it's particularly egregious, to have this going on in the faces of grieiving families whose sons and daughters have served their country honorably and in good faith.

The ACLU is likely wrong in this case given the existing Supreme Court. Its pretty authoritarian when personal liberties are concerned and in any case unlikely to stand up to the president on an issue that involves national security. It has yet to do so yet despite some very serious constitutional issues such as indefinite incarceration without right to jury trial.

__________________
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

There are actually people who can find the time and money to drive around the country and do this? Even the worst tyrants deserve a quiet funeral.

I have to agree with the rest of you although this banning protests is starting to get out of hand. This one was a good call but banning protests at political conventions it way out of line.

They don't ban them at political conventions. They simply have some rules about where you can protest and how close to entrances, etc. you can be. To let protesters plant themselves at entrances to political events is a violation of other people's rights. Unfortunately, some people are so obnoxious that they must be rules made for them.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Well, not quite what's going on here. The Republican Party considers all of its conventions, functions, and related speeches to be "private affairs", and therefore feel they can control who gets in and what they're allowed to say.

This is particularly noteworthy in those speeches (like a recent speech of Rummy's at AEI) where protesters are unmercifully ejected for saying "nothing", just wearing a T-shirt and standing up at some point so everyone (including the media) can see it.

If you read the history, most of the legal opinions on the First Amendment agree that it is specifically "political speech" that is being protected first and foremost, and it strikes me as rather silly that a political event could be considered a "private function" in this way.

Still, to tie it back to the topic here, it seems to me that if political conventions are "private functions", then funerals are also "private functions", and therefore it would be fully appropriate for the grieving family to hire a private security force to keep the nutballs out.

This is what the Patriot Guard Riders are trying to do, and my guess is that if it ever comes to the Court, their role as a "private security force" in this regard will be recognized and accepted.

Otherwise, they'll have to open up the conventions to protesters, right?

Pro-free speech as I may be, it's totally out of line for these wackos to protest at military funerals.

Anyone know how the Patriot Guard Riders actually kept the protesters away? Did they beat them with chains and bats

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"