I doubt I'd find much to agree on with Brett Bursey, should we ever meet:

BRETT BURSEY will be back in court again, fighting the forces of reaction, on June 24th. The veteran protester was arrested last October for trespassing at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport as he held a sign (“No War for Oil”) while waiting for George Bush to arrive.

This was not a new experience for him. Thirty-three years earlier, at almost the same spot, Mr Bursey was tossed in the paddy wagon for holding a sign that criticised another war (Vietnam) while waiting for another Republican president (Richard Nixon) to show up.

But I'm downright baffled as to why he deserves to be prosecuted for holding up a sign --- or rather, holding up the wrong sign:

...in March the local US attorney, Strom Thurmond junior, suddenly brought federal charges against Mr Bursey under a little-known law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas the president is visiting...

Indeed, it is extremely hard to see why Mr Thurmond has picked on Mr Bursey out of all the people in the Secret Service zone. None of the other protesters with him was arrested. Neither were any of the several hundred supporters of the president who were holding equally dangerous (but pro-Bush) signs as they stood near the hangar where the president was to speak.

This, as they say, stinks. Is there anybody who has a sensible explanation as to why this prosecution has any valid basis whatsoever?