Cindy Sheehan arrested by Capitol Police before State of the Union [Archive]

SA210

01-31-2006, 08:49 PM

Both ejections illegal, of both wife of Republican Bill Young, and Cindy Sheehan.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/learning-from-dear-leader.html

Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Learning from Dear Leader

(updated below - updated again, several times)

I disagree with lots of things which Cindy Sheehan says but if the circumstances of her arrest last night at the State of the Union speech are anything like what she describes them as being (h/t Lis Riba), then her arrest is completely disgraceful.

I tend to believe her account because most of the facts she recites don't seem to be in dispute, and the accounts in the major news organizations, which apparently interviewed the law enforcement agencies involved in the arrest, are reporting much the same thing. In essence, Sheehan sat in her seat, took her jacket off, and was wearing a t-shirt which read: "2245 Dead. How many more?" As soon as she took her jacket off, she was pulled out of her seat, arrested, and taken out of the hall.

This is nothing more than a naked attempt to stifle dissent and to create a criticism-free bubble around George Bush. Presidents routinely use all sorts of propagandistic imagery at the State of the Union to decorate their speeches with an aura of regal patriotism. We always see weeping widows and military heroes and symbolic guests of all sorts who are used as props and visuals to bolster the President's message both emotionally and psychologically. The State of the Union speech is hardly free of visual messages and propaganda of that sort; quite the contrary.

But we apparently now have a country where the only ideas allowed to be expressed in our Nation's Capitol while the President is speaking are ones which glorify the Government and its Leader and where dissenting views are prohibited and will subject someone to arrest. Message cleansing of that sort belongs at a political rally in North Korea, not in Washington, DC.

There have been stories here and there of the Secret Service and other federal government agencies exercising the police power of the state for no purpose other than to stifle dissent. Virtually every appearance of George Bush is meticulously and vigilantly staged to ensure that he is surrounded only by agreement and adoration and almost never dissent of any kind.

This is plainly unhealthy and disgustingly contrary to every defining core American value. Our leaders aren't entitled to reverence and worship and aren't supposed to want it. Criticism, dissent and divergence of opinion are things which the founders did everything possible to foster, and the idea that someone is dragged out of a speech by the President for silently and peacefully wearing an anti-war t-shirt is disgraceful and embarrassing.

And these attacks on dissent are particularly ironic given that they occurred in the midst of a speech by a President who loves to lecture the world on the virtues of liberty and who holds himself out as the Chief Crusader for freedom and democracy.

In fact, as Cindy Sheehan was being dragged out of the Royal Speech, His Majesty was regaling us with the importance of respecting civil debate, the virtues of diversity and freedom, and the need to protect minority views. It's as if there was some universal force that wanted to provide the most compelling demonstration possible of how disingenuous his speech was, and came up with the idea of having Cindy Sheehan dragged out of the hall for doing nothing other than wearing a t-shirt politely expressing criticism of Bush's war.

UPDATE: The law is clear that Sheehan did nothing illegal and there was no legal basis whatsoever for removing and arresting her for wearing that t-shirt.

In Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (Dist. D.C. 1997) (.pdf), the District Court found the regulations applying 140 U.S.C. § 193 -- the section of the U.S. code restricting activities inside the Capitol -- to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Bynum involved a Reverend who was threatened with arrest by Capitol Police while leading a small group in prayer inside the Capitol. The Capitol Police issued that threat on the ground that the praying constituted a "demonstration."

That action was taken pursuant to the U.S. Code, in which Congress decreed as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons wilfully and knowingly . . . to parade, demonstrate or picket within any Capitol Building." 140 U.S.C. § 193(f)(b)(7).

As the Bynum court explained: "Believing that the Capitol Police needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a 'demonstration,' the United States Capitol Police Board issued a regulation that interprets 'demonstration activity,'" and that regulation specifically provides that it "does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message. Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds, § 158" (emphasis added).

Nothing Sheehan did could even be remotely construed to constitute a "demonstration." She was sitting quietly in her seat wearing a t-shirt, an activity which is expressly excluded from the activities prohibited by this statute and, in any event, could not possibly be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment. We don't have a system of government -- at least we didn't used to -- where someone can be arrested for wearing a t-shirt that expresses criticism of the President.

Isn't that just the most basic political value that we have? What kind of Americans sit idly and passively by while they watch a fellow citizen arrested and removed from the Capitol during a political speech for doing nothing other than wearing an anti-war t-shirt?

UPDATE II: If you are someone still in need of dispositive proof that Michelle Malkin is one of the most un-American, liberty-hating, disturbing creatures around, please see this rancid post of hers (h/t Mahablog) where she calls for Rep. Lynn Woolsey to be barred from inviting anyone to such speeches in the future because someone she invited wore a t-shirt which was critical of The Leader.

UPDATE III: Apparently, there were some actions taken at the State of the Union speech which -- despite clearly constituting "demonstrations" (which, unlike t-shirts, are actually prohibited by the U.S. Code) -- were allowed and apparently encouraged:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/goodbad27ru.jpg

(The top photo, showing grown men wiggling their purple-ink-stained fingers around in the air, was apparently depicting a demonstration from last year's State of the Union speech. None of the participants in the Purple Fingered Dance Demonstration were arrested or asked to leave).

UPDATE IV: Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report has compiled some of the numerous, disturbing incidents where individuals have been banned, and often removed, from Bush speeches because they wore t-shirts expressing anti-Bush views.

As I said in Comments, I would be less inclined to become agitated over this incident if it weren't for the fact that there is a long line of similar incidents where the Administration has clearly taken steps to prevent the President from being exposed to dissent of any type. The White House goes to great lengths to ensure that the Commander-in-Chief appears only with the most regal and glorifying imagery and sloppy, unplanned political messages conflict with that propagandistic stage-managing and are thus expressly prohibited.

Peter

01-31-2006, 08:50 PM

Relevance?

Trainwreck2100

01-31-2006, 08:56 PM

The hurricanes and her loopiness killed her thunder, I don't know why anybody cares about her anymore

SA210

01-31-2006, 08:58 PM

She was an invited guest to The State of the Union. Don't know if she did anything wrong. On CNN, one of the anchors were saying for no reason other than she might disrupt the speech, and had trouble seeing how that was good enough reason to arrest her.

If that's true, and she did nothing wrong other than just show up as a guest, then her rights were violated.

I guess we'll see what really happened soon.

Aggie Hoopsfan

01-31-2006, 09:04 PM

Who cares? Damn, it's time for her 15 minutes to be over. Michael Moore was more fun to laugh at.

Peter

01-31-2006, 09:05 PM

People act like she's MLK or something.

exstatic

01-31-2006, 09:27 PM

:lol:rollin
Anyone who is surprised that this adminstration would have someone arrested for what they might do, please go sit in the corner and put on your duncecap.

http://www.wildsects.com/absolut.jpg

Aggie Hoopsfan

01-31-2006, 10:43 PM

The only people who need a dunce cap are the ones running around here with their jumping to conclusions mat like ex up above.

She was arrested for demonstrating in the Capitol, which is illegal, and has been enforced with arrests before (by both sides).

SA210

01-31-2006, 10:43 PM

http://www.wildsects.com/absolut.jpg
Corrupt, no doubt. Their excuse was, she wore a shirt that read "2225, How many more?"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/index.html

Sheehan arrested in House gallery

Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Posted: 10:26 p.m. EST (03:26 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.

"She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman, adding that Sheehan was arrested for unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor.

The charge carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail, Schneider said.

Schneider said shortly after the State of the Union speech that Sheehan was still being held but should be "out sometime tonight."

An early report from a senior House official indicated that Sheehan was arrested for unfurling an anti-war banner, but that was later found not to be the case. Schneider said she didn't know what Sheehan's T-shirt said.

Sheehan, who became a vocal war opponent after her son was killed in Iraq, was an invited guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California, who has called for a withdrawal of troops in Iraq and supports legislation for the creation of a Department of Peace.

Sheehan has pestered the Bush administration since August, when she and hundreds of fellow protesters began demanding an audience with the president and camping outside his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

She also recently penned a book, "Not One More Mother's Child."

Sheehan and other relatives of troops killed in Iraq met with Bush during a visit to Fort Lewis, Washington, in April 2004, shortly after Sheehan's son was killed.

During that meeting with Bush, the president refused to look at pictures of Sheehan's son, didn't want to hear about him and "didn't even know Casey's name," she said.

The Vacaville, California, resident has said she'd like to meet with Bush again to discuss her opposition to the war.

Bush has refused to meet again with Sheehan and has taken issue with her calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

"She expressed her opinion; I disagree with it," Bush said in August. "I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake."

Aggie Hoopsfan

01-31-2006, 10:45 PM

Their excuse

:lol The law = excuse. Good to know where the libs stand. What sucks the most for you guys, is that this pyscho bitch is the face of your party. :lmao

scott

01-31-2006, 10:45 PM

:lol The law = excuse. Good to know where the libs stand. What sucks the most for you guys, is that this pyscho bitch is the face of your party. :lmao

T-shirts = the law?

SA210

01-31-2006, 10:49 PM

They were waiting for any reason to get her out of there. She has been a very outspoken opponent of Bush.

They didn't want her in there whether she wore a message on her shirt or not. If it weren't the shirt, it would have been a suspicious look she gave or whatever other baloney they usually come up with.

SA210

01-31-2006, 10:50 PM

T-shirts = the law?
:lol it would have been something else if it wasn't the shirt.

Aggie Hoopsfan

01-31-2006, 10:52 PM

T-shirts = the law?

Any signs of protest inside the Capitol are illegal. Hey, don't shoot the messenger, it's not my fault the face of the Democratic party is a stupid bitch.

Spurminator

01-31-2006, 10:53 PM

Yes I'm sure giving her more attention was all a part of the Republicans' master plan. Next I bet they'll try to shut her up by assassinating her. Fascists.

SA210

01-31-2006, 10:53 PM

A stupid b*** who lost her son to an illegal war?

SA210

01-31-2006, 10:56 PM

Stop this crap already. They wouldn't have arrested someone tonight if they wore a "Support the President" t-shirt.

scott

01-31-2006, 10:59 PM

Granted, she is a stupid bitch... but the whole thing seems rather stupid to me. Who invited her dumbass anyway?

scott

01-31-2006, 10:59 PM

Any signs of protest inside the Capitol are illegal. Hey, don't shoot the messenger, it's not my fault the face of the Democratic party is a stupid bitch.

And... are you sure... because you've been like... wrong about this kind of shit before.

Aggie Hoopsfan

01-31-2006, 11:20 PM

And... are you sure... because you've been like... wrong about this kind of shit before

In between shaking their Democratic party pom poms MS-NBC explained it on the air. Keep in mind this was in between them critiquing Bush's speece and throwing a bone to Howard Dean to help him put down W.

So given the circumstances, I'd take their word for it.

Trainwreck2100

01-31-2006, 11:22 PM

Who cares? Damn, it's time for her 15 minutes to be over. Michael Moore was more fun to laugh at.

I feel bad about laughing at her, cause I think she's lost it.

Guru of Nothing

01-31-2006, 11:27 PM

I want closure on this Cindy Sheehan issue.

... Paging Mr. Flynt.

hussker

01-31-2006, 11:28 PM

Cindy Sheehan IS the 12th Man!

Peter

01-31-2006, 11:36 PM

Gerryatrics

01-31-2006, 11:43 PM

"My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."

"i am watching cnn and it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain...it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today...and in the world!!!!"

"George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power."

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060128/i/r900171404.jpg
http://alanwoody.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/sheehan_sharpton_1.jpg

She's not a hero, give it up already.

Yonivore

01-31-2006, 11:53 PM

Granted, she is a stupid bitch... but the whole thing seems rather stupid to me. Who invited her dumbass anyway?
A Democratic Congressman is what was announced...an as yet unidentified Democratic Congressman.

Yonivore

01-31-2006, 11:55 PM

I think she's an attention starved individual who's allied herself with the psychopathic wing of the Democratic party, but since when are we banning people from Capitol Hill because of a t-shirt? She was also an invitee of a congresswoman. I guess the t-shirt makes her more likely to be wearing a belt full of plastique?

This is the state of American politics. Hence why I stopped looking for meaningful solutions long ago.
I think the "no protests in House Chambers" has been on the "books" for some time and enforced by both sides. I'd bet the Sergeant at Arms arrested her on impulse, as the violation presented itself, because, face it -- there were a lot of pricks in the chamber tonight the President would have like to see dragged from that building in handcuffs.

Sheehan was the most inane of the bunch.

Gerryatrics

01-31-2006, 11:57 PM

A Democratic Congressman is what was announced...an as yet unidentified Democratic Congressman.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California, last I heard.

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-01-2006, 12:51 AM

A stupid b*** who lost her son to an illegal war?

Yes and no.

Yes, she lost her son. A son that signed up voluntarily and went back for a second tour (sounds like he was hating it).

Illegal? Fun talking point for the Democratic party, but a misnomer.

And yeah, above all she's a stupid bitch. She's let some fucked up people like George Soros and Michael Moore put the screws to her head so much she's nothing but an extremely left leaning trainwreck.

Trainwreck2100

02-01-2006, 01:00 AM

This ain't a war, it's an operation

SA210

02-01-2006, 01:05 AM

Yes and no.

Yes, she lost her son. A son that signed up voluntarily and went back for a second tour (sounds like he was hating it).

Illegal? Fun talking point for the Democratic party, but a misnomer.

And yeah, above all she's a stupid bitch. She's let some fucked up people like George Soros and Michael Moore put the screws to her head so much she's nothing but an extremely left leaning trainwreck.

Isn't that basically how yall want to view anyone who opposes the illegal war and calls Bush on his lies?

turambar85

02-01-2006, 01:15 AM

SA, I have agreed with you before, but I have to stray from your thoughts on this one. Cindy Sheehan started with a very noble cause, protesting the war that took the life of her son, but she erred in her path. I have no problem with her protesting, as dissent is the highest form of patriotism, but she did, in effect, let her message become distorted by the random radicals.

Once more, I am not saying that war protestors are radical in general, just that this one misguided woman wad led astray by the few. The problem is not in her goal, but in the way she went towards that point. Many of the statements she has made are completely absurd, and do disservice to the anti-war effort and the democratic party in general. Sheehan needs to go home because she is making a complete fool out of herself, and has lost the respect she originally had from me.

angel_luv

02-01-2006, 01:32 AM

I've been skeptical of Cindy ever since I heard her (on C-Span) call Bush a coward for not meeting with her that time she camped out waiting for him.

I am by no means a Bush fan. But even I will give the man that he is too busy for Cindy's shenanigans.

Out of curiousity though, anyone read Cindy's book " Not another mother's child?" Was it any good?

SA210

02-01-2006, 09:31 AM

She is American is she not? We are supposed to have certain liberties, are we not? Then again we are under the Bush administration.

Freedom of speech or not? I'm tired of the whole," I have sympathy for her loosing her son, but she's stupid and radical" remarks.

Hiding that she wore a shirt that had the number "2245 killed, how many more", refering to the illegal war doesn't make the facts go away, which is, we are in a bs war and these people are dying everyday. Funny how Bush talked about how we should value life last night.

She has a right and was invited. Once someone has a passion to have the guts to stand up to a corrupt adminstration, she automatically is looked at as a radical crazy woman who just wants to be on camera, because it's easier to label her that way to avoid the truth.

Activism doesn't mean to make your point for a little while, then give up, you keep going with intentional action to bring about social or political change. She doesn't want anyone else dying. And you call her crazy for that? Even some of the Dems are wimps with no backbone to try and say she's wrong and turn their back on her because they are too worried of being associated with her, because how she's been labeled.

Law? She broke the law by wearing words on her shirt that spoke the truth, with no curse words, or not even using Bush' name. Seems hypicritical of many.

Law: The President must get a court order for wiretaps. He said it himself.

But he wasn't sitting in jail was he, he was allowed to make his speech. So don't give me this whole wimpy "she broke the law" crap. Because afterall, Bush is President.

turambar85

02-01-2006, 10:19 AM

I do not believe Sheehans civil liberties should be obstructed, I do not believe that Sheehan should have been forcefully removed. However, I will not take a step back from my comment that she is a disgrace to the democratic party and the anti-war groups. She is completely out in left field, and I, once more, have no problem with her goal, merely some of the ignorance that spews from her mouth.

Crookshanks

02-01-2006, 10:37 AM

In my opinion, this was another intentional stunt by Cindy. It should have been a great honor to have been invited to hear the State of the Union Speech. She probably knew the law, but chose to be an idiot so that she could get herself arrested.

Everyone knows who she is and what she stands for - could she not have been mildly civil for one night? And, it is my understanding that they asked her politely to cover her shirt and she refused. They gave her a chance and she didn't take advantage of it. She got what she deserved (and probably wanted!).

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:05 AM

Tuesday, January 31st, 2005
What Really Happened.

...a message from Cindy Sheehan

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/cindysotu1.jpg

Dear Friends,

As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight.

I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country.

There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened:

This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh. Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2,245 Dead. How many more?

After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.

I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the underground tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again.

My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat.

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled, "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like, "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.

The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said, "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting."

I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."

After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2,245, huh? I just got back from there."

I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.

What did Casey die for? What did the 2,244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shirt that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable...that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.

There have already been many wild stories out there.

I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.

I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support....we have so much potential for good...there is so much good in so many people.

Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.

Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too. Love and peace soon,
Cindy
================================================== ========

She says she was never told to take the T-Shirt off or to zip up her jacket to cover it up. She says she was just taken away and they left her with bruises and muscle spasms.

I wonder, What would the officer have done if he saw a guest wearing a shirt that supported Bush? That's a rhetorical question, of course.

SpursWoman

02-01-2006, 11:22 AM

I wonder, What would the officer have done if he saw a guest wearing a shirt that supported Bush? That's a rhetorical question, of course.

You know "protest" and "support" in no way, shape or form have similar meanings right? I mean, if there is a law that's been in place for years prohibiting protesting in the Capital building and it has been enforced by several administrations regardless of party...what makes it okay that Cindy Sheehan should be an exception?

And that really doesn't strike me as an event anyone should be wearing a t-shirt to anyway, regardless of what's written on it. If you don't respect the administration, at least respect the tradition.

I feel terrible for her. She has a legitimate concern and every right to express it, but the radical fruitcakes got a hold of her at her most vulnerable to the point where she's completely lost her marbles.

desflood

02-01-2006, 11:26 AM

Florida Rep.'s Wife Says She Was Ejected From State Of Union

POSTED: 7:07 am EST February 1, 2006

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, told a newspaper that she was ejected during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that says, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."

Beverly Young told the St. Petersburg Times that she was sitting in the front row of the House gallery Tuesday night when she was approached by someone who told her she needed to leave.

She said she reluctantly agreed, but argued with several officers in an outside hallway.

In a telephone interview with the newspaper, Young said she told them her shirt wasn't a protest but a message of support.

Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Young wasn't ejected from the gallery and she left on her own. She couldn't provide additional details.

Young's husband found out about the incident after Bush's speech and called it unacceptable.

Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

http://www.local6.com/news/6647094/detail.html

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:27 AM

SpursWoman

02-01-2006, 11:28 AM

touche! :lmao :lmao

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:30 AM

touche! :lmao :lmao
Was she left with bruises and muscle spasms? I think not. So laughing about such a thing shows your morals.

SpursWoman

02-01-2006, 11:36 AM

Lost her marbles because she doesn't agree with you. She supports no more death to our troops. That's support. But, an activist message in support of Bush, I'm sure this wouldn't have happened.

Assuming you even have a fucking clue what I think about the whole thing...I don't give a rat's ass whether she agrees with me or not. I appreciate what she's trying to do but her methods of doing it are fucking stupid. The lady is off her rocker.

SpursWoman

02-01-2006, 11:40 AM

Was she left with bruises and muscle spasms? I think not. So laughing about such a thing shows your morals.

Did she put up a fight, oh moral-ful one? " :rolleyes "

Sorry, I have no sympathy in that regard. That wouldn't have happened if she'd left peacefully or dressed appropriately to begin with.

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:40 AM

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:45 AM

Did she put up a fight, oh moral-ful one? " :rolleyes "

Sorry, I have no sympathy in that regard. That wouldn't have happened if she'd left peacefully or dressed appropriately to begin with.
Did you not learn anything from my previous post? Did you read her letter or you just responded with your prejudgment of her?

She said she was never given a chance to leave peacefully. She was immediately rush away and arrested being left with bruises and muscle spasms. She said they never asked her to leave, they never asked her to cover it up, they just rushed her out.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

SpursWoman

02-01-2006, 11:45 AM

That's the easy thing to say about her. To disregard her views easily by calling her crazy. Again, was the other woman left with bruises and muscle spasms and rushed out and arrested?

Yea, that's what I thought.

When did I disregard her views? The other woman didn't resist. DUH.

"GET THOSE FREEDOM FIGHTERS OUT OF OCCUPIED NEW ORLEANS!!!"

Or whatever the fuck it was. Yeah, she's got it together. :fro

And I don't buy the whole "poor little old lady got hurt for not doing a single, itty bitty thing wrong" routine. "They've" been having her pull far too many similar stunts for a while now for her not to know whatever she does is not without consequence.

Yonivore

02-01-2006, 11:52 AM

I think it's hilarious she decided to get herself arrested and taken out of chambers, before the speech started.

Can you imagine how many times the networks would have cut to her every time the President mentioned Iraq or "terra" or sacrifice, etc...

She could have extended her 15 minutes by a good 45 seconds had she sat down, shut up, and been respectful. But, that's not the way of the Looney Left.

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:52 AM

When did I disregard her views? The other woman didn't resist. DUH.

Again,

Did you not learn anything from my previous post? Did you read her letter or you just responded with your prejudgment of her?

She said she was never given a chance to leave peacefully. She was immediately rush away and arrested being left with bruises and muscle spasms. She said they never asked her to leave, they never asked her to cover it up, they just rushed her out.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

SpursWoman

02-01-2006, 11:55 AM

She could have extended her 15 minutes by a good 45 seconds had she sat down, shut up, and been respectful. But, that's not the way of the Looney Left.

No kidding. She would have gotten a ton of attention, possibly more than she could have imagined, if she'd have just played along.

SpursWoman

02-01-2006, 11:56 AM

Again,

Did you not learn anything from my previous post? Did you read her letter or you just responded with your prejudgment of her?

She said she was never given a chance to leave peacefully. She was immediately rush away and arrested being left with bruises and muscle spasms. She said they never asked her to leave, they never asked her to cover it up, they just rushed her out.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

And did you not learn anything from mine?

And I don't buy the whole "poor little old lady got hurt for not doing a single, itty bitty thing wrong" routine. "They've" been having her pull far too many similar stunts for a while now for her not to know whatever she does is not without consequence.

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:57 AM

Crookshanks

02-01-2006, 12:05 PM

Sorry, but I don't believe Cindy's account of what happened. She's a loony liar and will say anything to get sympathy.

SA210

02-01-2006, 12:06 PM

And Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11. :rolleyes

SpursWoman

02-01-2006, 12:09 PM

Nice try avoiding the point that both people were treated differently. Did Cindy all of a sudden lose certain liberties because she's a known anti-war activist? It seems as though that's how you feel.

By losing liberties, do you mean she all of the sudden lost the right to break the law in the Capital building?

And as for being treated differently, a known trouble maker will get treated more harshly 99% of the time than a first time offender. That's pretty much true in any situation.

SA210

02-01-2006, 12:11 PM

You mean the Capital building in which Bush, who said himself he needs a court order for wiretaps, but then broke that law, gave his speech? That building?

SA210

02-01-2006, 12:13 PM

And if supposedly both women broke the law by both wearing their shirts, why was one rushed out and arrested without asking her to leave and the other allowed to leave on her own?

SpursWoman

02-01-2006, 12:14 PM

And as for being treated differently, a known trouble maker will get treated more harshly 99% of the time than a first time offender. That's pretty much true in any situation.

SA210

02-01-2006, 12:15 PM

Easy to label her a trouble maker. Her activism is because of the trouble this administration has caused.

SA210

02-01-2006, 12:23 PM

And as for being treated differently, a known trouble maker will get treated more harshly 99% of the time than a first time offender. That's pretty much true in any situation.
So that justifies it. I see. Now is this a law?

"Hey, it's Cindy Sheehan, she's wearing an anti-war shirt and she's done this before, let's immediately arrest her for it."

"Hey, it's a Republican also wearing a shirt that breaks the law, let's let her know she has to leave on her own, because we had or have to arrest Sheehan and you know how that would look"

In the end, they supposedly both broke the same law. One arrested and bruised, one left unharmed.

Isn't there something wrong here?

SpursWoman

02-01-2006, 12:29 PM

Yonivore

02-01-2006, 12:31 PM

Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly didn't originate in that situation. I also don't fully believe the weepy story about her never getting a chance to leave peacefully, either. Maybe that's just why I'm not filled with such righteous indignation.

She's pulled too many stunts already and suffered the consequences to know that they'll be watching her especially hard. So she she pulled another one and suffered the consequences again. Rinse. Repeat.
Okay, you've got SA210 posting two to your one. Keep it up and it'll be 3 to 1.

I'm enjoying just seeing your side of the conversation though. In fact, I'm enjoying just seeing you post...I miss ya! :makeout

SA210

02-01-2006, 12:34 PM

Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly didn't originate in that situation. I also don't fully believe the weepy story about her never getting a chance to leave peacefully, either. Maybe that's just why I'm not filled with such righteous indignation.

She's pulled too many stunts already and suffered the consequences to know that they'll be watching her especially hard. So she she pulled another one and suffered the consequences again. Rinse. Repeat.
Well, that makes it easy again to say you don't believe her.
More than half the country also doesn't believe most of Bush' lies and stories. He's pulled too many stunts without consequence and thousands are dead. Rinse. Repeat.

Trainwreck2100

02-01-2006, 12:40 PM

By the way, his name is Mike Weight.

I'm gonna send that man a cookie bouquet.

SpursWoman

02-01-2006, 12:42 PM

Damn, you're either using someone else's sentences, someone else's talking points, or posting someone else's photoshops. I'm noticing a trend. :lol

SA210

02-01-2006, 12:43 PM

I notice a trend. That what you just posted didn't change the facts. It usually happens that way.

angel_luv

02-01-2006, 01:21 PM

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive.I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable...that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.

Does anyone else see that as a contradiction?

Cindy wore the shirt with the intention of drawing attention to herself. In a setting where people have gathered to here one person speak, that is disruptive.

angel_luv

02-01-2006, 01:31 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01...rest/index.html

Sheehan arrested in House gallery
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Posted: 10:26 p.m. EST (03:26 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.

"She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman, adding that Sheehan was arrested for unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor.

Tuesday, January 31st, 2005
What Really Happened.

...a message from Cindy Sheehan

I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."

Okay, someone is outright lying.

SA210

02-01-2006, 01:33 PM

One was bruised and arrested, one was allowed to leave peacefully on her own.

angel_luv

02-01-2006, 01:40 PM

And just out of curiousity because I really don't know, but is it customary/ acceptable to wear a t-shirt when attending the President's State of the Nation address? Surely the congresswoman Cindy attended with was dressed more formally.

SA210

02-01-2006, 01:45 PM

Well, the wife of the Republican wore a shirt as well, but it seems weird how she was given a choice to walk out on her own with no bruises or being arrested.

implacable44

02-01-2006, 01:48 PM

And Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11. :rolleyes

he did ? link ? link ? never heard of that ......must be out of the loop. I know he talked about WMD - but then so did clinton, chirac, putin, kerry. hillary and a looooooooooooong list of world leaders everywhere

angel_luv

02-01-2006, 01:48 PM

I don't see why we should just take Cindy Sheehan's word about what happened any more than you should just take the officer's word for it.

Nbadan

02-01-2006, 01:49 PM

Common, do any of you seriously think the Capital Police didn't know that Sheehan was gonna be there? They were looking for a reason to get her out of there and when they saw one they took it. I think the people who say that Sheehan would have better advanced her cause had she managed to stay in the chamber are right, to a point, and I say that because the major News media has thus far done everything they can to avoid Sheehan. Where is Barbara Walters? 60 minutes? Larry King?

Sheehan's statements are always taken out of context by the right-wing echo chamber. They, with their soundbite politics, could have made Shakespere himself sound like Fidel Castro. That's what I see going on, everyone has fallen for the, oh that's just 'wacky Cindy' going on again. However, Cindy just keeps trumping them at every turn. Everytime they stick a mic in her grill she manages to say the right things. Now if America was only listening.

Crookshanks

02-01-2006, 01:52 PM

Ever heard of "rank has its privileges"? The replican was the wife of a congressman; Cindy Sheehan is a known protester and troublemaker.

BTW - I haven't seen anything about the woman who invited Cindy. The representative from California is a member of an extreme left-wing group - you don't think she might have had an agenda?

SA210

02-01-2006, 01:53 PM

I don't see why we should just take Cindy Sheehan's word about what happened any more than you should just take the officer's word for it.
You might have a point there, but the majority in this thread take the side against Sheehan as well. Since Bush and company did know she was attending beforehand, it doesn't sit right with me.

Spurminator

02-01-2006, 01:53 PM

Can someone please tell me what strategic sense it would make for Republicans to have her thrown out or arrested without cause? Hell, even WITH cause?

I think the most important question is on the first page. Why was she invited? It's almost like this whole thing was planned from the beginning, and I'm not sure why it would be planned by someone who did not agree with her cause.

angel_luv

02-01-2006, 01:53 PM

Like others here have posted, I object to Cindy's methods and the obviously ridiculous statements I have heard from here.

As for her war views, I am still developing my opinion. Anyone have a copy of her book they could loan me?

angel_luv

02-01-2006, 01:55 PM

I can't say whether I think her ideas or wrong until I have heard more from her.

implacable44

02-01-2006, 01:56 PM

You might have a point there, but the majority in this thread take the side against Sheehan as well. Since Bush and company did know she was attending beforehand, it doesn't sit right with me.

what are we talking about ? acrazy woman who is hanging out with Hugo Chavez and leftist wackos like Belafonte and Danny GLover? A woman so crazy and whacked out of her mind that Hillary doesn't even associate with her anymore and the reverands have since distanced themselves from her because she is a LOOOOOON

SA210

02-01-2006, 01:56 PM

Ever heard of "rank has its privileges"? The replican was the wife of a congressman; Cindy Sheehan is a known protester and troublemaker.
And the labeling goes. Bush is the trouble maker. That's what she protests , and she's called crazy for it.

Good post Nbadan.

Crookshanks

02-01-2006, 01:58 PM

However, Cindy just keeps trumping them at every turn. Everytime they stick a mic in her grill she manages to say the right things. Now if America was only listening.

Oh Dan, you just crack me up! :lol When has Cindy EVER managed to say the right thing? When she said we needed to get the troops out of occupied New Orleans? When she appeared with Hugo Chavez? When she said the President was the biggest terrorist in the world?

America is not listening because she's a nutcase! However, Diane Feinstein should welcome the competition from Cindy because Cindy makes Feinstein look normal! :lol

SA210

02-01-2006, 02:00 PM

I like how the spin continues. It's simple. 2 people wore shirts that supposedly are against the law to be worn in the Capitol building.

One for Bush, one against. One bruised and arrested, the other given choice to leave on her own peacefully, not arrested.

Guess which one was arrested.

But continue with all the spin, please, proceed.

Crookshanks

02-01-2006, 02:01 PM

Bush is the trouble maker

No - Bush is the President. And will be for the next 3 years! A fact I love and the loony libs hate!

SA210

02-01-2006, 02:03 PM

No - Bush is the President. And will be for the next 3 years! A fact I love and the loony libs hate!
What did your post do to change the fact that Cindy was arrested and the Republican's wife wasn't, both for the same crime?

implacable44

02-01-2006, 02:03 PM

Spurminator

02-01-2006, 02:05 PM

One for Bush, one against. One bruised and arrested, the other given choice to leave on her own peacefully, not arrested.

Guess which one was arrested.

Probably the one who was a bigger nuisance. But I guess it depends on whose account you're more likely to believe.

Again, what strategic benefit would beating up a public anti-war activist have for the Bush administration?

SA210

02-01-2006, 02:08 PM

To teach her a lesson?

SA210

02-01-2006, 02:09 PM

the one who should be in a straight jacket and has aSo, you're saying she shouldn't have any liberties by labeling her crazy?

Mr. Peabody

02-01-2006, 02:13 PM

So, you're saying she shouldn't have any liberties by labeling her crazy?

I don't know that causing a disruption at the State of the Union address is a protected civil liberty.

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-01-2006, 02:14 PM

I do not believe Sheehans civil liberties should be obstructed, I do not believe that Sheehan should have been forcefully removed.

Hmm, both sides of the aisle at some point in the past decided any signs of protest/support, whatever in the Capitol rotunda were illegal.

And now you're pissed because she owned herself before the speech even started? Wake the fuck up.

SA210

02-01-2006, 02:15 PM

What is it called to be arrested and bruised, and a Republicans wife not being arrested or bruised for the same thing?

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-01-2006, 02:16 PM

Everytime they stick a mic in her grill she manages to say the right things. Now if America was only listening.

Yeah, Hugo Chavez is a smart man we should all follow. Hell, he should be our next president :rolleyes Talk about insight from that woman!

To teach her a lesson?

If they wanted to teach her a lesson they would have killed her. That's what the Clintons did with the Whitewater folks.

Mr. Peabody

02-01-2006, 02:16 PM

And now you're pissed because she owned herself before the speech even started? Wake the fuke up.

Did you mean wake the Funke up?

http://www.wvah.com/programs/arresteddevelopment/davidcross.jpg

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-01-2006, 02:17 PM

What is it called to be arrested and bruised, and a Republicans wife not being arrested or bruised for the same thing?

Maybe because the Republican's wife was asked and agreed, whereas Sheehan probably told them to fuck off and refused to move. I love how you take her version as gospel. This just in - she has an agenda.

implacable44

02-01-2006, 02:17 PM

So, you're saying she shouldn't have any liberties by labeling her crazy?

no i am saying she is a product of her own actions - and I am saying I didn't see any extreme force being used on the footage I saw. Yet you freely believe they took her in the back room off camera and rodney kinged her ?

Trainwreck2100

02-01-2006, 02:17 PM

For the love of God the woman has a few "lose" screws, can the Dems please find someone else.

SA210

02-01-2006, 02:21 PM

no i am saying she is a product of her own actions - and I am saying I didn't see any extreme force being used on the footage I saw. Yet you freely believe they took her in the back room off camera and rodney kinged her ?
I didn't say they Rodney Kinged her. She says that they rushed her out and arrested her without asking her to leave or cover it up, and has bruises to prove it.

However, the other woman was supposedly asked to leave on her own, and not arrested, but yet she committed the same crime.

Spurminator

02-01-2006, 02:23 PM

To teach her a lesson?

That's the weakest answer I could have imagined from you.

Seriously. Put your expert political strategist thinking cap on and list reasons why arresting Sheehan for no good reason and putting her back in the national news is in the best interest of Republicans. Every good conspiracy theory has a good motive.

Oh, Gee!!

02-01-2006, 02:24 PM

For the love of God the woman has a few "lose" screws, can the Dems please find someone else.

I don't think she's been adopted as the voice of the democratic party by anyone other than Repugs. She can pretty much say whatever she wants about Bushie and the war. If you don't like what she says, don't listen.

Trainwreck2100

02-01-2006, 02:25 PM

I don't think she's been adopted as the voice of the democratic party by anyone other than Repugs. She can pretty much say whatever she wants about Bushie and the war. If you don't like what she says, don't listen.

It's not that I don't like what she says, it's just that I don't care anymore, when she first started I defended her, but she just kept on doing stupid shit.

SA210

02-01-2006, 02:26 PM

That's the weakest answer I could have imagined from you.

Seriously. Put your expert political strategist thinking cap on and list reasons why arresting Sheehan for no good reason is in the best interest of Republicans. Every good conspiracy theory has a good motive.
That was a question I posed to you. But since you ask, they knew she was going to be there. You know they didn't want her in there. That's motive enough for this corrupt non law abiding administration.

Oh, Gee!!

02-01-2006, 02:28 PM

It's not that I don't like what she says, it's just that I don't care anymore, when she first started I defended her, but she just kept on doing stupid shit.

I'll agree with this sentiment. She coulda gotten more "bang for her buck" had she just shown up to the address in proper attire.

Mr. Peabody

02-01-2006, 02:34 PM

I'll agree with this sentiment. She coulda gotten more "bang for her buck" had she just shown up to the address in proper attire.

It was a dumb move and does nothing to further her cause.

Spurminator

02-01-2006, 02:40 PM

That was a question I posed to you. But since you ask, they knew she was going to be there. You know they didn't want her in there. That's motive enough for this corrupt non law abiding administration.

So, because they didn't "want" her there (much like I'm sure they didn't "want" Michael Moore at the RNC) they had her bruised and arrested so she could once again make national news and bring more attention to the movement for immediate pullout?

Do you really think her being there posed more of a problem for pro-war groups than her being a "victim" again?

SA210

02-01-2006, 02:54 PM

Both ejections illegal.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/learning-from-dear-leader.html

Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Learning from Dear Leader

(updated below - updated again, several times)

I disagree with lots of things which Cindy Sheehan says but if the circumstances of her arrest last night at the State of the Union speech are anything like what she describes them as being (h/t Lis Riba), then her arrest is completely disgraceful.

I tend to believe her account because most of the facts she recites don't seem to be in dispute, and the accounts in the major news organizations, which apparently interviewed the law enforcement agencies involved in the arrest, are reporting much the same thing. In essence, Sheehan sat in her seat, took her jacket off, and was wearing a t-shirt which read: "2245 Dead. How many more?" As soon as she took her jacket off, she was pulled out of her seat, arrested, and taken out of the hall.

This is nothing more than a naked attempt to stifle dissent and to create a criticism-free bubble around George Bush. Presidents routinely use all sorts of propagandistic imagery at the State of the Union to decorate their speeches with an aura of regal patriotism. We always see weeping widows and military heroes and symbolic guests of all sorts who are used as props and visuals to bolster the President's message both emotionally and psychologically. The State of the Union speech is hardly free of visual messages and propaganda of that sort; quite the contrary.

But we apparently now have a country where the only ideas allowed to be expressed in our Nation's Capitol while the President is speaking are ones which glorify the Government and its Leader and where dissenting views are prohibited and will subject someone to arrest. Message cleansing of that sort belongs at a political rally in North Korea, not in Washington, DC.

There have been stories here and there of the Secret Service and other federal government agencies exercising the police power of the state for no purpose other than to stifle dissent. Virtually every appearance of George Bush is meticulously and vigilantly staged to ensure that he is surrounded only by agreement and adoration and almost never dissent of any kind.

This is plainly unhealthy and disgustingly contrary to every defining core American value. Our leaders aren't entitled to reverence and worship and aren't supposed to want it. Criticism, dissent and divergence of opinion are things which the founders did everything possible to foster, and the idea that someone is dragged out of a speech by the President for silently and peacefully wearing an anti-war t-shirt is disgraceful and embarrassing.

And these attacks on dissent are particularly ironic given that they occurred in the midst of a speech by a President who loves to lecture the world on the virtues of liberty and who holds himself out as the Chief Crusader for freedom and democracy.

In fact, as Cindy Sheehan was being dragged out of the Royal Speech, His Majesty was regaling us with the importance of respecting civil debate, the virtues of diversity and freedom, and the need to protect minority views. It's as if there was some universal force that wanted to provide the most compelling demonstration possible of how disingenuous his speech was, and came up with the idea of having Cindy Sheehan dragged out of the hall for doing nothing other than wearing a t-shirt politely expressing criticism of Bush's war.

UPDATE: The law is clear that Sheehan did nothing illegal and there was no legal basis whatsoever for removing and arresting her for wearing that t-shirt.

In Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (Dist. D.C. 1997) (.pdf), the District Court found the regulations applying 140 U.S.C. § 193 -- the section of the U.S. code restricting activities inside the Capitol -- to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Bynum involved a Reverend who was threatened with arrest by Capitol Police while leading a small group in prayer inside the Capitol. The Capitol Police issued that threat on the ground that the praying constituted a "demonstration."

That action was taken pursuant to the U.S. Code, in which Congress decreed as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons wilfully and knowingly . . . to parade, demonstrate or picket within any Capitol Building." 140 U.S.C. § 193(f)(b)(7).

As the Bynum court explained: "Believing that the Capitol Police needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a 'demonstration,' the United States Capitol Police Board issued a regulation that interprets 'demonstration activity,'" and that regulation specifically provides that it "does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message. Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds, § 158" (emphasis added).

Nothing Sheehan did could even be remotely construed to constitute a "demonstration." She was sitting quietly in her seat wearing a t-shirt, an activity which is expressly excluded from the activities prohibited by this statute and, in any event, could not possibly be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment. We don't have a system of government -- at least we didn't used to -- where someone can be arrested for wearing a t-shirt that expresses criticism of the President.

Isn't that just the most basic political value that we have? What kind of Americans sit idly and passively by while they watch a fellow citizen arrested and removed from the Capitol during a political speech for doing nothing other than wearing an anti-war t-shirt?

UPDATE II: If you are someone still in need of dispositive proof that Michelle Malkin is one of the most un-American, liberty-hating, disturbing creatures around, please see this rancid post of hers (h/t Mahablog) where she calls for Rep. Lynn Woolsey to be barred from inviting anyone to such speeches in the future because someone she invited wore a t-shirt which was critical of The Leader.

UPDATE III: Apparently, there were some actions taken at the State of the Union speech which -- despite clearly constituting "demonstrations" (which, unlike t-shirts, are actually prohibited by the U.S. Code) -- were allowed and apparently encouraged:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/goodbad27ru.jpg

(The top photo, showing grown men wiggling their purple-ink-stained fingers around in the air, was apparently depicting a demonstration from last year's State of the Union speech. None of the participants in the Purple Fingered Dance Demonstration were arrested or asked to leave).

UPDATE IV: Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report has compiled some of the numerous, disturbing incidents where individuals have been banned, and often removed, from Bush speeches because they wore t-shirts expressing anti-Bush views.

As I said in Comments, I would be less inclined to become agitated over this incident if it weren't for the fact that there is a long line of similar incidents where the Administration has clearly taken steps to prevent the President from being exposed to dissent of any type. The White House goes to great lengths to ensure that the Commander-in-Chief appears only with the most regal and glorifying imagery and sloppy, unplanned political messages conflict with that propagandistic stage-managing and are thus expressly prohibited.

Nbadan

02-01-2006, 03:39 PM

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/goodbad27ru.jpg

Ouch! Propaganda good....Cindy Sheehan bad.

:hat

Darrin

02-01-2006, 05:06 PM

And these attacks on dissent are particularly ironic given that they occurred in the midst of a speech by a President who loves to lecture the world on the virtues of liberty and who holds himself out as the Chief Crusader for freedom and democracy.

Every free state that has moved toward autocracy has used certain buzz words in their propoganda to cloak their true intentions. For instance, the swastika was a greek cross that was generally accepted as a symbol for luck and well-being.

"Freedom," "Democracy," "September 11th," "Terrorism," "safety of the American people," "evil," "tyranny," and "military sacrfice" are a few I have recognized from this President.

I find it ironic that he received a standing ovation from the tagline: As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels -- but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C.

Ironic because he fired a military General for stating the troop levels in Iraq were too low.

Nbadan

02-01-2006, 06:13 PM

WASHINGTON - Charges against antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested after a scuffle over a T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address, will be dropped, officials told NBC News Wednesday.

MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/)

“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/COVER/060201/STG_HZ_WeScrewedUp_150p.jpg

SA210

02-01-2006, 06:37 PM

touche!:lmao:lmao

Oh, Gee!!

02-01-2006, 06:37 PM

touche!:lmao:lmao

I think somebody owes you an apology

scott

02-01-2006, 06:38 PM

SA210

02-01-2006, 06:40 PM

I think somebody owes you an apology
I'm more than happy to pass out the towels for all the egg on people's faces. And that's alot of egg.
:smokin

SA210

02-01-2006, 06:41 PM

:lol at scotts post

Peter

02-01-2006, 06:43 PM

SA210

02-01-2006, 06:46 PM

That wasn't lost. If you go back to many of my previous posts we talk about both of them.

Peter

02-01-2006, 06:47 PM

If so, this thread would've died long ago.

SA210

02-01-2006, 06:48 PM

Not true, the problem is, one was arrested, one was not.
Strange. I see a lawsuit on the horizon.

Vashner

02-01-2006, 06:49 PM

She is like a Bush stalker..

Hey any chick that camps out in front of some guys house then follows him around is fucking nuts.

Peter

02-01-2006, 06:50 PM

Not true, the problem is, one was arrested, one was not.
Strange. I see a lawsuit on the horizon.

Which one resisted ejection?

SA210

02-01-2006, 06:51 PM

Hey Vashner, your post for some reason doesn't change this.

MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/)

“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/COVER/060201/STG_HZ_WeScrewedUp_150p.jpg

Oh, Gee!!

02-01-2006, 06:52 PM

Which one resisted ejection?

the Rep's wife

SA210

02-01-2006, 06:58 PM

Which one resisted ejection?
Peter, by that question, I would assume you haven't read the entire thread. This has been covered. The Rep's wife did argue, Cindy didn't. But look who got arrested.

Cindy Sheehan was immediately seen wearing the shirt and taken away and arrested. Not only that, she says they were somewhat rough with her and had muscle spasms and bruises to prove it.

Republican Bill Youngs wife, which was asked to leave, AFTER the incident with Sheehan was allowed to leave on her own with no arrest. Very suspect.

Then many in here say they didn't believe Cindy when she said she never resisted anything, nor did they ever ask her to leave or cover anything up.

They just took her and arrested her. But they admit now that they screwed up. They admit she didn't break any law. The truth prevails.

Spurminator

02-01-2006, 07:06 PM

So which part of that article talked about the Bush conspiracy to have her removed? I must have skimmed past that part.

Peter

02-01-2006, 07:10 PM

So at worst we have two ejections and one mistaken arrest. Again, bad policy, but no evidence of an evil Bush conspiracy or whatever.

SA210

02-01-2006, 07:13 PM

They did know she was gonna be there.

Spurminator

02-01-2006, 07:14 PM

So?

So did I.

SA210

02-01-2006, 07:15 PM

So at worst we have two ejections and one mistaken arrest. Again, bad policy, but no evidence of an evil Bush conspiracy or whatever.
What we have are two illegal ejections, one of them probably to justify the other, and an illegal arrest. Civil Liberties at their best.

Peter

02-01-2006, 07:18 PM

What we have are two illegal ejections, one of them probably to justify the other, and an illegal arrest. Civil Liberties at their best.

That's rich. Apparently a few years back someone was ejected for wearing an "Impeach Bill" shirt to some Congressional proceedings. Again, bad policy, but no evidence of conspiracy.

Then again, I may be biased. My life doesn't revolve around Cindy Sheehan.

SA210

02-01-2006, 07:20 PM

Bush is the one who is underhanded.

Peter

02-01-2006, 07:21 PM

Bush = bad, so there must be a conspiracy. Got it.

SA210

02-01-2006, 07:26 PM

Bush = bad, so there must be a conspiracy. Got it.
Are you kidding? He lies constantly. That's not debatable. He's a pathological liar. He wiretaps without a court order, even though he said in 2004 that we must get a court order to even chase down terrorists.
They lied us into war, but no, they wouldn't have an anti-war activist arrested, no way. Now, that is rich.

Spurminator

02-01-2006, 07:26 PM

Still no motive...

SA210

02-01-2006, 07:27 PM

Probably the one who was a bigger nuisance.

You lost, move on.

Spurminator

02-01-2006, 07:30 PM

SA210

02-01-2006, 07:32 PM

See how you've gone and made an incident (in which most people would probably side against those who arrested Sheehan) into something different that makes you look like YOU have the irrational point of view?

It never changes...
How you try to label me doesn't change the fact that she was unlawfully ill treated and arrested for Not breaking the law. Where you spin it from there shows your irrational point of view.

I'm out, save some egg for later fellas.

Spurminator

02-01-2006, 07:42 PM

You lost, move on.

How is that even related? You asked why one was arrested and not the other, I offered a possible explanation. It's not like I said it was the right thing to do. I was simply countering your certainty that it had to be some Republican conspiracy to shut her up.

So the answer is "A mistake was made." Wow, congratulations on your victory...

How you try to label me doesn't change the fact that she was unlawfully ill treated and arrested for Not breaking the law.

And most people here agree with that. Where you look stupid is when you try to one-up it with your theories about foul play.

Just like when discussion of whether the War is justified turns in to a debate over who Bush is in bed with for oil money.

SA210

02-01-2006, 07:52 PM

It looks stupid, because that's your opinion. By the way, it was just about everyone in here but a few, who's opinion and theories, that said Cindy Sheehan was probably lying and probably the nuisance or resisted. It was yall's opinion and theory.

We saw how that turned out. Now I'm really out, Peace.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/STG_HZ_WeScrewedUp_150p.jpg

:smokin

Yonivore

02-01-2006, 07:57 PM

Spurm...you're just feeding the monkey, man.

Peter

02-01-2006, 09:57 PM

Are you kidding? He lies constantly. That's not debatable. He's a pathological liar. He wiretaps without a court order, even though he said in 2004 that we must get a court order to even chase down terrorists.
They lied us into war, but no, they wouldn't have an anti-war activist arrested, no way. Now, that is rich.

So that means there was a conspiracy to remove Sheehan from the gallery and "justify" it by booting a rep's wife? Sorry, doesn't follow.

Peter

02-01-2006, 09:58 PM

SA210

02-01-2006, 10:34 PM

So that means there was a conspiracy to remove Sheehan from the gallery and "justify" it by booting a rep's wife? Sorry, doesn't follow.
"conspiracy" is just a play on words. For many in here it was a conspiracy that Sheehan broke the law on purpose to get arrested, it was a conspiracy for her to be disruptive and she must have been a nuisance and a liar. It was a theory by many that Bill Youngs wife was the peaceful one.

Sorry, that doesn't really follow. We saw how all that turned out, didn't we?

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/STG_HZ_WeScrewedUp_150p.jpg

Spurminator

02-01-2006, 10:37 PM

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33986

SA210

02-01-2006, 10:50 PM

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/goodbad27ru.jpg

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-01-2006, 10:52 PM

Are you kidding? He lies constantly

All politicians lie constantly

Fuck, that is the weakest shit ever. He lies. Boo fucking hoo. Everyone who's in D.C. is a fucking liar, they would not have gotten there if they didn't.

hussker

02-01-2006, 11:05 PM

FromWayDowntown

02-01-2006, 11:06 PM

she didn't break the law.
Her son died so that, if anyone, she could have the right to exibit free speech by wearing a t-shirt that says 2245

She did break the law. The Constitution protects the right to free speech (expression) but that right is not absolute -- it is subject to certain reasonable exceptions, particularly time, place, and manner restrictions. Were that not true, police could, for example, never arrest someone for disturbing the peace with speech. That clearly is not the law.

The exception to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions is that government cannot engage in viewpoint censorship.

Nobody stopped Cindy Sheehan from expressing her view, but the law prohibited her from expressing her view in the gallery of the House of Representatives. Apparently, there was no viewpoint censorship, particularly because a woman with an opposite view was also ejected. Thus, there is no constitutional issue in this circumstance.

Personally, I have a hard time believing that this situation was as innocuous as Cindy Sheehan portrays it. She obviously knew she was wearing that shirt, she wore it to a purely political event, and she wore it knowing it was controversial. Frankly, she likely got more press for her effort by being ejected than she would have gotten had she simply sat and watched the proceedings, whether wearing her shirt or not.

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:09 PM

All politicians lie constantly
Fuck, that is the weakest shit ever. He lies. Boo fucking hoo. Everyone who's in D.C. is a fucking liar, they would not have gotten there if they didn't.
I'm just wondering, how does your post change the fact that Sheehan was unlawfully arrested and her rights were infringed on?

And what is this about, all politicians lie anyway? Wasn't Bush the one that promised to restore honor and integrity to the White House? That seems pretty weak.

Spinning and changing the subject to fill space to make it seem as if this is even debatable for lack of an arguement doesn't change the truth.

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:11 PM

The Capitol Police even say now that she didn't break the law.

hussker

02-01-2006, 11:12 PM

One man's arguement is another man's potatoe!

FromWayDowntown

02-01-2006, 11:23 PM

The Capitol Police even say now that she didn't break the law.

It doesn't have to be a law. Capitol Police could have decided last night that they weren't going to permit any protests and enforced that policy by ejecting those who tried to protest. Even that action, while perhaps bad form, wouldn't violate her Constitutional rights.

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:27 PM

Statement from U.S Capitol Police

http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/pressreleases/2006/pr_02-01-06.html

United States Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer
Public Information Office
119 D Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20510 Immediate
(202) 224-1677

Accountability
February 1, 2006

The United States Capitol Police will request that the U.S. Attorney’s Office not pursue the charge against Cindy Lee Sheehan who was arrested Tuesday Night before the President’s State of the Union address.

Mrs. Sheehan was charged Tuesday night with Unlawful Conduct after she displayed a T-shirt with an anti-war message while in the House Gallery. Subsequently she was arrested and transported to USCP Headquarters for processing.

As the Department reviewed the incident, it was determined that while officers acted in a manner consistent with the rules of decorum enforced by the Department in the House Gallery for years, neither Mrs. Sheehan’s manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention. The USCP also asked Mrs. Beverly Young, to leave the gallery because of a T-shirt she was wearing. Mrs. Young did not return to the Gallery so there was no need for further police action. Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts.
"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol.

The policy and procedures were too vague," said Chief Terrance W. Gainer. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

Chief Gainer met with Chairman Young and his wife to both apologize and share the Department’s plans for avoiding this in the future. A similar message has been left with Mrs. Sheehan.

The Department will work with the House Sergeant at Arms to clarify the rules of the House, and ensure that officers clearly understand the rules.

If you have any questions or concerns pertaining to this release please contact the United States Capitol Police Public Information Office at 202-224-1677.

* * * * * *

Prepared by:
Sergeant Kimberly Schneider
United States Capitol Police
Public Information Officer
================================================== ==============

No law was broken and Sheehan didn't commit any misconduct. Both Mrs. Young and Sheehans rights were violated.

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:34 PM

February 1st, 2006 8:55 pm
Charge against Sheehan dropped

By Josh Richman / Mercury-Register

U.S. Capitol Police dropped a charge against Berkeley peace activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday, apologizing for removing her and a congressman's wife from the President's State of the Union speech for wearing slogan-bearing shirts.

Police didn't explain why Sheehan was arrested and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. ``Bill'' Young, R-Fla., was not. But Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer asked the U.S. Attorney's office to drop the misdemeanor unlawful-conduct charge against Sheehan, Deputy House Sergeant of Arms Kerri Hanley said.

``They were operating under the misguided impression that the T-shirt was not allowed,'' Hanley said. ``The fact that she (Sheehan) was wearing a T-shirt is not enough reason to be asked to leave the gallery or be removed from the gallery or be arrested.''

Still, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, introduced a resolution Wednesday directing the sergeant at arms to investigate and report back to lawmakers on the women's removal.

``There are no rules of the House Gallery that prohibit the wearing of T-shirts with writing on them,'' Stark said in a news release announcing the resolution. ``President Bush regularly requires his audiences to be screened and sanitized before he will appear before them. But this is supposed to be the people's House. The president should not be able to override our governance and make us part of his Gestapo regime.''

In a posting to the popular, Emeryville-based political blog Daily Kos, Sheehan - who made international headlines last summer with her vigil outside the president's Texas ranch in honor of her slain soldier son - wrote she's ``speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country.''

She claimed she was dragged from the House gallery by a Capitol Police officer after she unzipped her jacket to reveal an antiwar T-shirt which said ``2,245 Dead. How many more?'' She was never asked to remove or cover the shirt, she wrote.

``If I had been asked to do any of those things, I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later,'' she wrote. ``I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for `unlawful conduct.' ''

Sheehan acknowledged she'd worn the shirt ``to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there, and I thought every once in a while they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech.''

She wrote that she is mulling a civil-rights lawsuit against the government. ``I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing or telephoning any negative statements about the government.''

Young told the St. Petersburg Times she was wearing a T-shirt that said, ``Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom.'' The newspaper said she was told to leave and reluctantly agreed but argued with officers in a hallway outside. Other Bay Area House members have decried Sheehan's arrest.

``Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the president?'' asked Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, who gave Sheehan a ticket to attend the speech. ``Cindy Sheehan, who gave her own flesh and blood for this disastrous war, did not violate any rules of the House of Representatives.''

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
================================================== ========

Their rights were violated.

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:38 PM

Woolsey Statement Regarding Cindy Sheehan
February 1, 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) today issued the following statement regarding Cindy Sheehan’s arrest in the gallery of the House of Representatives before the State of the Union address. Mrs. Sheehan was Rep. Lynn Woolsey’s guest to the President’s State of the Union address.

“Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the President? Cindy Sheehan, who gave her own flesh and blood for this disastrous war, did not violate any rules of the House of Representatives. She merely wore a shirt that highlighted the human cost of the Iraq war and expressed a view different than that of the President. Free speech and the First Amendment exist to protect dissenting statements like Ms. Sheehan’s last night.

“Stifling the truth will not blind Americans to the immorality of sending young Americans to die in an unnecessary war, against a nation that posed no threat to our security. The President's speech last night was yet another attempt to distort history, as he suggested -- once again -- that the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq. Everyone knows this is not true. We must not be afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes. It's time to bring our troops home.”
================================================== =======

Their rights were violated.

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-01-2006, 11:41 PM

So what? Both sides had someone thrown out. It's a draw, deal with it. Quit being such a whiny little cunt.

I'm just wondering, how does your post change the fact that Sheehan was unlawfully arrested and her rights were infringed on?

And what is this about, all politicians lie anyway? Wasn't Bush the one that promised to restore honor and integrity to the White House? That seems pretty weak.

It doesn't change a damn thing. Sue me. As for my point about politicians, it's true. They all lie. Just some lie more than others. Trying to hate on Bush for what you perceive to be a lie is just weak and ignorant, IMO.

Do you realize what the chief demoratic complaint is about Bush's time in office? That we used the wrong reasons to put a guy who killed over 250,000 of his own people behind bars.

That's it. Fuck, you are crying about us kicking Saddam's ass because we thought he had WMD instead of us saying he's an asshole on a Hitleresque level and we need to do something about it.

And he didn't lie. Based on the best intelligence at the time, that was coming from every highly regarded intelligence branch in the world - from the CIA to MI6 to the Mossad to what used to be the KGB - they all said Saddam had WMD. They were wrong.

Doesn't make Bush a liar. Does make you pathetic as Cindy Sheehan for whining about *the reasons* we kicked Saddam's ass. He deserved to get his ass kicked. It's just that the pacificistic left would only join the march to war if they thought there was a chance they could be at the wrong end of a WMD. Every intelligence agency in the world thought Iraq did. Get over it.

SA210

02-01-2006, 11:45 PM

AHF, Bush insinuated the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq in last nights speech. :lol
Now that should end all this jibberish about Bush not being a liar, but nice try though.

And by the way, you are the one that said Cindy Sheehan broke the law. That seems pretty ignorant IMO, you might wanna read the entire thread and take that back.

Darrin

02-02-2006, 05:14 AM

So which part of that article talked about the Bush conspiracy to have her removed? I must have skimmed past that part.

It's the latest in a series of bricks - pre-screening questions and/or every member of the audience with "informal" Q and As, barring the House of Commons from any kind of dissent as Bush addressed the body - going as far as to have a member dragged out of the chamber when he attempted to jeer Bush's comments - announcing policy intiatives and holding town-hall meetings in only states President Bush won handedly - this is the latest episode of a long list of episodes of this administration (not specifically Bush) quelling dissent.

Gerryatrics

02-02-2006, 08:01 AM

AHF, Bush insinuated the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq in last nights speech. :lol
Now that should end all this jibberish about Bush not being a liar, but nice try though.

SA210, you've said some pretty dumbass stuff in this thread, but this goes beyond "dumbass" to "can you really be this stupid yet find your way to a messageboard and actually type out semi-legible messages". Of course most of your material seems to be ripped images and copied articles from blogs, so I'm probably giving you too much credit.

Now, just to give you a chance to explain the afore mentioned dumbass statement, when exactly during the State of the Union address did President Bush state or insinuate that the terrorists that committed the attacks of 9/11 were from Iraq?

Yonivore

02-02-2006, 08:11 AM

Gerryatrics

02-02-2006, 08:17 AM

I avoided it for six pages, but that statement was so dumb I just couldn't help myself. I am curious to see if he can actually provide a remotely sane and reasonable answer. I'm guessing he's going to post another picture of Cindy Sheehan then crown himself winner of the debate.

FromWayDowntown

02-02-2006, 10:34 AM

I'm still trying to figure out what "rights" were violated.

attyjackiechiles

02-02-2006, 11:07 AM

Cindy needs to give me a call!
The actions of the Capital police were pompous, zealous....outrageous!!

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 12:10 PM

I'm still trying to figure out what "rights" were violated.

That, and where's all the righteous indignation for the Republican lady that was made to leave...for no damn good reason, apparently. :spin

JohnnyMarzetti

02-02-2006, 12:15 PM

That, and where's all the righteous indignation for the Republican lady that was made to leave...for no damn good reason, apparently. :spin

There was no damn good reason for either lady to have been removed but then again the Dumbya way is to act first then apologize later. :rolleyes

boutons_

02-02-2006, 12:17 PM

The Capitol's Tempest in a T-Shirt

Chief Apologizes for Ejections at State of Union

By Petula Dvorak
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 2, 2006; A01

Two T-shirts -- one black, the other heather gray -- spotted in the House gallery the night of the president's State of the Union speech caused a major ruckus on Capitol Hill.

It spilled into yesterday and came complete with impassioned political speeches, strident questions about rights being trampled, threats of lawsuits and a hat-in-hand apology from the U.S. Capitol Police chief.

The black shirt with white letters was worn by celebrated war protester Cindy Sheehan; the white letters read: "2,245 Dead. How Many More?" Beverly Young, the wife of a Republican congressman, sported a heather gray top with red, white and blue letters saying, "Support the Troops."

The wearers were hustled out of the House gallery by Capitol police who said the shirts amounted to protesting.

( who do these thugs work for? the Repugs. Who is so naive to think that this policy was not fully defined for the thugs by Repug political operatives? )

Late yesterday, after C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) had taken to the floor with an impassioned speech and his wife's T-shirt held aloft, Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer showed up at his office to apologize.

Gainer said he also would ask that charges against Sheehan -- she was arrested; Beverly Young left before it came to that -- be dropped. "It was," he said, "a good-faith mistake by officers operating under poor direction."

( bullshit. mistake or no mistake, Mission Accomplished, anti-Repug Dissent Squashed )

After a night of fingerprinting and booking and lockup, Sheehan departed the city. But Young had not, and her response as she enjoyed hugs from supporters yesterday after the apology was to call Gainer "an idiot." Witnesses said her words for him were much saltier the night before.

The drama in cotton unfolded when Sheehan, who received a spectator ticket from Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-Calif.), took her seat and unzipped her jacket, revealing her antiwar message. Sheehan's son, Casey, was a soldier who was killed in Iraq in 2004.

A Capitol Police officer spotted the words, pointed to her and yelled, "Protester!" Sheehan said. "He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat, and roughly . . . shoved me up the stairs," she said, adding that she was handcuffed, taken away, fingerprinted and booked.

That was before the speech.

About 45 minutes into the speech, an officer asked Beverly Young to step outside, where he told her: "We consider you a protester" because of her shirt, she said.

She said she angrily challenged officers to explain what law she had violated, and they threatened arrest.

She said an officer mentioned that Sheehan was removed earlier and therefore "it was kind of only fair" that she be asked to leave, too.

"They publicly humiliated me," Young told reporters. "They insulted our troops."

When the congressman heard what had happened to his wife, he summoned Gainer to his office and called Karl Rove, the president's deputy chief of staff.

"When your wife is insulted and embarrassed, you do tend to get a little offended," Young said yesterday, explaining his upbraiding of Gainer that night and his fervent speech on the House floor yesterday morning, when he waved the shirt and bellowed about his wife's ejection: "Shame! Shame!"

Young said he wouldn't be so mad if it were just Sheehan. "I totally disagree with everything she stands for," he said. But by removing his wife, Gainer's officers clearly "acted precipitously," Young said.

Attorneys on Sheehan's side and attorneys for Young pored over case law yesterday, trying to find precedent for the ejection.

Gainer's office didn't respond to inquiries until after 5 p.m., when he walked into Young's office and apologized.

"We've asked the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charge against Sheehan," Gainer said later. "Our interactions both with her and Beverly Young were inappropriate."

He said he will clarify rules about disruption to remind officers that "simply having a T-shirt on" does not constitute lawbreaking.

After the mea culpa, Beverly Young, in her T-shirt again, was not forgiving, calling Gainer "an idiot" who should be replaced.

Her husband said he doesn't want Gainer fired, but when asked if he might take legal action, he said, "I'm taking it one step at a time."

Staff writer Charles Babington contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

FromWayDowntown

02-02-2006, 12:27 PM

There was no damn good reason for either lady to have been removed but then again the Dumbya way is to act first then apologize later. :rolleyes

It may be that there wasn't a good reason to have them removed, but that doesn't mean that some cognizable right was infringed. Even the government can restrict your right to free expression if the restriction is based on the time, place, and/or manner of delivery and if the restriction is viewpoint neutral. Like I say, it probably wasn't the right thing to do, but that doesn't mean that it infringed on the rights of either Cindy Sheehan or Beverly Young -- it just means that they weren't permitted to say what they wished at that time, in that place, and via that manner. There's no Constitutional issue with that; nobody's rights were violated.

Peter

02-02-2006, 12:33 PM

There's apparently a ban on protesting in the gallery. That has been enforced in the past, as someone with an 'Impeach Bill' t-shirt was throw out back in the day. I'm sure all of the conspiratorial nabobs were worried about that.

If Cindy Sheehan matters to your existence, you have none.

SA210

02-02-2006, 12:36 PM

SA210, you've said some pretty dumbass stuff in this thread, but this goes beyond "dumbass" to "can you really be this stupid yet find your way to a messageboard and actually type out semi-legible messages". Of course most of your material seems to be ripped images and copied articles from blogs, so I'm probably giving you too much credit.
You saying that I've said "dumb*ss stuff" doesn't make it so. Although quite a few of you in this thread would like to believe it, it doesn't mean it's true. I mean, how much have yall been proven wrong already in this thread alone? And how is it an arguement to say I posted copied articles? :lol

That shows you have no arguement. It's just jibberish like the rest of them, to deflect and misguide and to stray people away from the truth and the point of this topic. That's all it is. To sum that little point up really quick for simple minds like yours, um,
when I made this thread, I posted my opinions, beliefs, and what I felt was going on and followed it with facts.

Now, you can't just say things without backing it up as most of you have tried doing. I'm sure you've seen many threads that people need to post evidence of what they are claiming. Most in here claimed Cindy Sheehan was lying, was asked to leave first, but resisted, was asked to cover her shirt, but resisted, and that Bill Youngs wife did Not resist, and Cindy Sheehans resistance is what lead to Her arrest and why republican Bill Youngs wife left without resistance, was why she was Not arrested.

However, all these were nothing but all of yalls theories and prejudment close-mindedness opinions that you all wanted to believe, but yet provided NO evidence whatsoever. Only your words expressing your dissent of Cindy Sheehan no matter what the truth was. And it entirely came to show NONE of it was true, in fact it was the opposite. Bill Youngs wife argued with them and was allowed to leave on her own, Cindy Sheehan was just immediately rushed out and arrested.

I provided articles and proof to back up what I was saying. Even a statement from The Capitol Police themselves shows that all of you were wrong and really showed your closemindedness and hate.
http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/pressreleases/2006/pr_02-01-06.html

And as SpursWoman said herself, "showed how some of you wouldn't know objective if it bit you in the *ss and then crawled on up there anyway". It shows how that statement really applies to certain people.

As for the pictures. You know the saying, "A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words." And another one is "Keep it Simple Stupid". Whether it be photoshopped or a simple picture, it does indeed get the message and point across, PERIOD.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/goodbad27ru.jpg

Why beat around the Bush? Politics is really dirty, but I say, why argue and argue and argue and type thousands of little and big words and interpretations and twists and spins to each story, to divert or change the truth to our own liking, when all you have to post, is the simple point and let the chips fall where they may, CUT and DRY.

That is the truth, many of you can't live with that, because it's too simple, but so hard to concede the point and talk facts instead of our own wants. Like an unspoken rule. Now that seems really stupid to me.

Now, just to give you a chance to explain the afore mentioned dumbass statement, when exactly during the State of the Union address did President Bush state or insinuate that the terrorists that committed the attacks of 9/11 were from Iraq?

This has been discussed and argued on television and the web. I never said Bush ''Said". I said he insinuated. He insinuated in a way so that we couldn't say he actually mentioned "Iraq" verbally while many could make it seem as if her were only talking about Afghanistan and others. But many will draw their own conclusions to their liking.

It is discussed here in this video link, please watch it all, because many in here continue to make the mistake to not read everything, but just post their opinions of what they want to believe without caring for or analyzing the facts.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=13266052-3354-421f-9785-4548cbc9ee6a&f=00 (http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=13266052-3354-421f-9785-4548cbc9ee6a&f=00)

Today our Nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal: the end of tyranny in our world. On September 11th, 2001, America found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state seven thousand miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country.
-George W. Bush State of the Union Address 01-31-2006

President Bush doing his best to confuse and mislead America. And here is another video link where it is discussed with Rudy Guliani. Now Guliani NEVER denies the President was talking about Iraq, he just defends how there are terrorists in Iraq as well as other places.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=fdd0c156-1c05-4e2f-a837-5d250772351f&f=00 (http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=fdd0c156-1c05-4e2f-a837-5d250772351f&f=00)

To sum it up, Bush implied in so many words, the reasoning why we went to Iraq was to go after "tyrannical" states because they basically harbor terrorists and that, this is our goal, to go after tyrannical states. We went after Afghanistan if you want to call it that and Iraq. The truth is the 9/11 terrorists weren't from Iraq, whom we invaded along with Afghanistan first, but these terrorists were from two of our allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

They even go on to say that Bin Laden offered his powers to the Saudi Arabian Government to defend him if Iraq (Saddam Hussein) attacked him before the war a few years back, meaning Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies. So the Iraq/Bin Laden link that many try to use (:cough: gtown) is baloney.

Debate all you want, twist and spin his actual meaning. The "Bush hasn't lied" outcry is the one that's actually getting old.

I'm still trying to figure out what "rights" were violated.

You also said she broke the law. I'm still trying to figure out which one.

She did break the law.

The Capitol Police disagree and say she did Not break the law.
http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/pressreleases/2006/pr_02-01-06.html

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/STG_HZ_WeScrewedUp_150p.jpg

If you are arrested unlawfully, manhandled and stopped from expressing your 1st Ammendment rights that ARE NOT against the law in the Capitol Building when it comes to wearing a shirt, then YES, your "rights" have been violated.

"Did you know that in 1971, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to arrest a man who wore a "F**k the Draft" T-shirt into the courthouse? (Cohen v. California (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html), you can look it up.) So now Alito's on the court for 45 minutes and your civil liberties are already going down the toilet.
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002734.html

Cohen v. California

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html

So, if it is unconstitutional to arrest someone under these circumstances, wouldn't that mean cerain liberties were violated? Or is ther no connection whatsoever?

Rhetorically speaking.

NEXT.

Oh, Gee!!

02-02-2006, 12:38 PM

I'm still trying to figure out what "rights" were violated.

I think I've got a right to be left alone by the fucking pigs unless I'm doing something wrong or ask for their assistance

Peter

02-02-2006, 12:41 PM

I think I've got a right to be left alone by the fucking pigs unless I'm doing something wrong or ask for their assistance

Well, yeah. Apparently the policy is that protesting in the gallery is "doing something wrong".

Oh, Gee!!

02-02-2006, 12:48 PM

Well, yeah. Apparently the policy is that protesting in the gallery is "doing something wrong".

except chief wiggum admitted that they were wrong for arresting her b/c the rules do not say that T-shirts are a form of protest. NEXT!!

SA210

02-02-2006, 12:50 PM

I refer everyone to my previous post. And the case would be settled.

Peter

02-02-2006, 12:51 PM

So there are to be no rules governing behavior on Capitol Hill? Next.

SA210

02-02-2006, 12:56 PM

So there are to be no rules governing behavior on Capitol Hill? Next.
There is no "Next" for you. Your reaching. Read my post a few posts back. No law was broken by Bill Youngs wife or Cindy Sheehan. Read the facts for a change. You might learn something. You don't look "all there" by your attempt of continuing to refute irrefutable facts like many others in here are trying to do.

After you open your mind and read that post, this is what I say to all of you,

"NEXT."

FromWayDowntown

02-02-2006, 01:02 PM

You also said she broke the law. I'm still trying to figure out which one.

I also said that it made no difference whether there was a law in place or not. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on expression do not infringe First Amendment rights. So, even if she didn't break the law, she was only denied that forum, and not because of her viewpoint, as evidenced by Beverly Young's ejection.

If you are arrested unlawfully, manhandled and stopped from expressing your 1st Ammendment rights that ARE NOT against the law in the Capitol Building when it comes to wearing a shirt, then YES, your "rights" have been violated.

"Did you know that in 1971, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to arrest a man who wore a "F**k the Draft" T-shirt into the courthouse?

I'm quite familiar with Cohen and you apparently, haven't read it very closely. The issue in Cohen was whether the statute that permitted his arrest was unconstittutionally vague -- not whether his arrest was an appropriate use of the time, place, and manner restriction.

In the first place, Cohen was tried under a statute applicable throughout the entire State. Any attempt to support this conviction on the ground that the statute seeks to preserve an appropriately decorous atmosphere in the courthouse where Cohen was arrested must fail in the absence of any language in the statute that would have put appellant on notice that certain kinds of otherwise permissible speech or conduct would nevertheless, under California law, not be tolerated in certain places.

That distinction, it would seem, is fatal to your argument here -- Cohen says nothing about whether the police could have ejected him from the courthouse to maintain some level of decorum in that building, based on a time, place, and manner basis. It says, instead, that the California law is too vague:

Against this background, the issue flushed by this case stands out in bold relief. It is whether California can excise, as "offensive conduct," one particular scurrilous epithet from the public discourse, either upon the theory of the court below that its use is inherently likely to cause violent reaction or upon a more general assertion that the States, acting as guardians of public morality, may properly remove this offensive word from the public vocabulary.

* * * *

It is, in sum, our judgment that, absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Because that is the only arguably sustainable rationale for the conviction here at issue, the judgment below must be reversed

Thus, Cohen is inapposite to your argument. It says that a state cannot punish citizens for using certain words in public -- in other words, a state cannot prohibit altogether the use of a incendiary word. It does not say, though, that the state is powerless to eject those who use such words (or otherwise express themselves) at inappropriate times or places. Ample other authority, however, supports the concept that the government can limit speech in certain circumstances. Find me a case that says time, place and manner restrictions are no longer valid, or that they don't apply in the United States Capitol, and we can talk.

So, if it is unconstitutional to arrest someone under these circumstances, wouldn't that mean cerain liberties were violated? Or is ther no connection whatsoever?

Read above. Again, Cohen doesn't say that and perverting that holding to support a claim that rights were violated in this context is ridiculous.

I'm all about defending civil rights and liberties when they're legitimately jeopardized. I'd think that the discussion of the NSA surveillance program and the numerous threads concerning church-state separation would bear me out on that. But in this case, I don't see how anyone's constitutional rights were ever jeopardized.

NEXT.

Indeed.

Oh, Gee!!

02-02-2006, 01:04 PM

So there are to be no rules governing behavior on Capitol Hill? Next.

There are rules in place; Cindy Sheehan violated none of them. NEXT!!

SA210

02-02-2006, 01:09 PM

I also said that it made no difference whether there was a law in place or not. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on expression do not infringe First Amendment rights. So, even if she didn't break the law, she was only denied that forum, and not because of her viewpoint, as evidenced by Beverly Young's ejection.

I'm quite familiar with Cohen and you apparently, haven't read it very closely. The issue in Cohen was whether the statute that permitted his arrest was unconstittutionally vague -- not whether his arrest was an appropriate use of the time, place, and manner restriction.

That distinction, it would seem, is fatal to your argument here -- Cohen says nothing about whether the police could have ejected him from the courthouse to maintain some level of decorum in that building, based on a time, place, and manner basis. It says, instead, that the California law is too vague:

Thus, Cohen is inapposite to your argument. It says that a state cannot punish citizens for using certain words in public -- in other words, a state cannot prohibit altogether the use of a incendiary word. It does not say, though, that the state is powerless to eject those who use such words (or otherwise express themselves) at inappropriate times or places. Ample other authority, however, supports the concept that the government can limit speech in certain circumstances. Find me a case that says time, place and manner restrictions are no longer valid, or that they don't apply in the United States Capitol, and we can talk.

Read above. Again, Cohen doesn't say that and perverting that holding to support a claim that rights were violated in this context is ridiculous.

I'm all about defending civil rights and liberties when they're legitimately jeopardized. I'd think that the discussion of the NSA surveillance program and the numerous threads concerning church-state separation would bear me out on that. But in this case, I don't see how anyone's constitutional rights were ever jeopardized.

Indeed.
Not so fast. I'll use the "Keep it Simple Stupid" way to refute.
How many words do you have to put together to finally understand that...

The Capitol Police say she BROKE NO LAW.

NEXT, indeed.

Oh, Gee!!

02-02-2006, 01:09 PM

But in this case, I don't see how anyone's constitutional rights were ever jeopardized.

I'm pretty sure Cindy Sheehan won't have trouble finding an attorney who will reach a different conclusion.

SA210

02-02-2006, 01:10 PM

Indeed

SA210

02-02-2006, 01:11 PM

I'm pretty sure Cindy Sheehan won't have trouble finding an attorney who will reach a different conclusion.
She's already found one.

FromWayDowntown

02-02-2006, 01:12 PM

Not so fast. I'll use the "Keep it Simple Stupid" way to refute.
How many words do you have to put together to finally understand that...

The Capitol Police say she BROKE NO LAW.

NEXT, indeed.

I'll keep it simple for you as well:

TIME PLACE AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE LAWS!

You harp so much on the existence or not of a law, but that's not the question. The question is whether in ejecting her for wearing the shirt, the Capitol Police engaged in anything other than reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions and whether such efforts were viewpoint neutral.

And good luck to Cindy in suing the federal government on any tort claim -- sovereign immunity can be a real problem in that case.

SA210

02-02-2006, 01:21 PM

I'll keep it simple for you as well:

TIME PLACE AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE LAWS!

You harp so much on the existence or not of a law, but that's not the question. The question is whether in ejecting her for wearing the shirt, the Capitol Police engaged in anything other than reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions and whether such efforts were viewpoint neutral.

And good luck to Cindy in suing the federal government on any tort claim -- sovereign immunity can be a real problem in that case.

Time and place are important to the President. Must rush that woman out at that moment. Her rights were violated. Funny, people even try and say the law permits Bush to do these wiretaps without a court order when he even disagrees with himself on the matter.

You're the one that said she broke the law, that was a question up for debate, now that is settled. A T-shirt was not against the law to be worn at the SOTU. The Capitol Police admit that themselves. So, her rights were violated. As Oh Gee!! said, other attorneys will disagree with you.

Even though those are the facts, there, apparently will be a back and forth with this, as if there even should be.

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 01:26 PM

And as SpursWoman said herself, "showed how some of you wouldn't know objective if it bit you in the *ss and then crawled on up there anyway". It shows how that statement really applies to certain people.

Her situation has nothing whatsoever to do with being objective, I am not morally required to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when she has repeatedly been in trouble for being disruptive outside of the appropriate bounds.

The fact that those blood-sucking left extremist have quite notably used and taken advantage of that poor woman to the point that they've made her anything but credible and sullied what was once a very noble objective, I'm even less inclined to do so.

That is not even remotely comparable to the bullshit ya'll sling around here. Ya'll would blame AIDS on the Bush Administration if you could find some left-wing fruitcake blog link that said so.

SA210

02-02-2006, 01:37 PM

Her situation has nothing whatsoever to do with being objective, I am not morally required to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when she has repeatedly been in trouble for being disruptive outside of the appropriate bounds.

The fact that those blood-sucking left extremist have quite notably used and taken advantage of that poor woman to the point that they've made her anything but credible and sullied what was once a very noble objective, I'm even less inclined to do so.

That is not even remotely comparable to the bullshit ya'll sling around here. Ya'll would blame AIDS on the Bush Administration if you could find some left-wing fruitcake blog link that said so.
You claimed crap that wasn't true, because that's what you wanted to believe without having an opened mind. Plain and simple. Now all you have is egg on your face. And it doesn't change anything for you to respond and deny that or to pretend to blow it off.

And Bush has repeatedly lied to America, so noone is morally required to give him the benefit of the doubt. As you say, That isn't even remotely comparable to the bs yall sling about Cindy Sheehan.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30591&highlight=bush+lied

FromWayDowntown

02-02-2006, 01:45 PM

You're the one that said she broke the law, that was a question up for debate, now that is settled. A T-shirt was not against the law to be worn at the SOTU. The Capitol Police admit that themselves. So, her rights were violated.

Now you're being disingenuous. I originally said she broke the law. I apologize for not having independently researched the ordinances and statutes applicable to conduct in the United States Capitol. When I learned that there is no law governing the situation, I acknowledged that, but I also said that it did not matter whether her ejection was based on a written law.

So, while I originally justified the ejection (and the absence of a constitutional violation) on my belief that the protest was illegal, I've subsequently acknowledged both that there was no law (as you've gone out of your way to repeat) and that the ejection was not made unconstitutional by the absence of a law. So, you can back off the "you're the one who said she broke the law" nonsense and engage me in the merits if you so choose.

Sheehan's ejection could have just as easily been based on a verbal policy -- and it would be equally defensible if it were based on only a verbal policy. Or if it were based only on the judgment of an officer in the moment. The only question is whether the restriction (from whatever source) on her right to free speech (which, again, is not absolute) is reasonable and whether it was viewpoint neutral.

Your only argument to contest the reasonableness is either: (1) a dislike for the President and a distrust for the motives of his Administration -- neither of which has been proven to be a reason for Sheehan's ejection; or (2) the absence of a written law applicable to this situation -- again, a matter that is irrelevant, given that time, place, and manner restrictions do not require positive law for their enforcement. So, what you're left with (other than conjecture) is a viewpoint hostility argument, but that argument is undermined fairly significantly by Beverly Young's ejection.

Even though those are the facts, there, apparently will be a back and forth with this, as if there even should be.

There's only back and forth on this because you refuse to acknowledge anything other than my original (and admittedly uninformed) post and cannot, apparently, address the focal constitutional issue at play here.

As Oh Gee!! said, other attorneys will disagree with you.

Cindy Sheehan will find an attorney who, in the heat of the moment, will take her case. But that attorney will quickly find that the law does not support an argument that Sheehan's rights were infringed.

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 01:54 PM

You claimed crap that wasn't true, because that's what you wanted to believe without having an opened mind. Plain and simple. Now all you have is egg on your face. And it doesn't change anything for you to respond and deny that or to pretend to blow it off.

And Bush has repeatedly lied to America, so noone is morally required to give him the benefit of the doubt. As you say, That isn't even remotely comparable to the bs yall sling about Cindy Sheehan.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30591&highlight=bush+lied

I don't regularly watch it, but I assumed MSNBC had people that knew what they were talking about. Obviously not. And don't even fucking pretend you knew any differently until you found that article. :lol

There is no egg on my face, honey. I wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to a serial rapist at a sorority party with a big bottle of ruffies, either.

Crookshanks

02-02-2006, 02:03 PM

Selective outrage on free speech
Feb 2, 2006
by Debra Saunders

I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan. She lost her beloved son, Casey, in the Iraq war, and for that she has my sympathy.

But losing your son in a war doesn't give you license to violate House decorum, as she did by wearing a t-shirt (reading: "2,245 Dead. How many more?") before President Bush's State of the Union speech Tuesday night. It also doesn't grant you special wisdom on foreign relations in South America. If it did, Sheehan would not have let herself be embraced by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

While supporters say Sheehan's loss gives her credibility, I don't see antiwar types changing their tune after listening to parents of slain vets who support the war. So her words don't change my mind, not when she talks like a little girl.

Worse, Sheehan feeds the conceit of many Bay Area war protesters -- that they are brave warriors risking their safety and the wrath of the Bushies as they protest the war.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., obviously buys into that conceit. Woolsey, who invited Sheehan to the address, issued a statement Wednesday that asked, "Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the president?"

Ditto Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who told The San Francisco Chronicle, "I'm still trying to find out why the president's Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery."

I expect members of the House to show more political sophistication than a novice blogger. They must know that the Capitol Police report to Congress -- not the Bushies. But Stark, who introduced a resolution calling for a probe into the police action, is happy to mislead.

It is clear that the Capitol Police were not acting as pro-war censors, as they also invited Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., to leave because she was wearing a t-shirt that read, ''Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom.''

(Sheehan asks why she was the only one arrested. Duh. She's not married to a congressman. And rightly, the charges against Sheehan were dropped on Wednesday. The Capitol Police have apologized.)

If Sheehan wants to fight for First Amendment rights, she might want to stand up for The Respect Life Ministry of the Oakland Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. The group paid to put up billboards on BART that ask the question, "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" Abortion-rights activists defaced and tore down billboards -- squelching the message of a dissenting voice in the Bay Area. Suzanne ''Sam'' Joi, a member of Code Pink, which has hosted many Sheehan events, told The Chronicle: ''I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''

Free speech? Sheehan should take a look at how her buddy Chavez treats dissidents. As Jackson Diehl reported in The Washington Post last year, the Chavez-controlled legislature passed new media laws that included this choice provision: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the president of the republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of six to 30 months if the offense is serious, and half of that if it is light."

Dissidents who stand up to Chavez are courageous. They risk time in a Venezuelan prison. Californians who bash Bush on the war risk being hailed as local heroes and appearing on cable news.

Personally, I wish the Capitol Police had allowed Sheehan to stay for the speech in her t-shirt. I think she would have chased a few moderate voters into the pro-Bush column. But that could happen anyway. Americans have to notice when a friend of Hugo Chavez bemoans that she was denied free speech -- when she never seems to stop talking.

Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:04 PM

Now you're being disingenuous. I originally said she broke the law. I apologize for not having independently researched the ordinances and statutes applicable to conduct in the United States Capitol. When I learned that there is no law governing the situation, I acknowledged that, but I also said that it did not matter whether her ejection was based on a written law.

So, while I originally justified the ejection (and the absence of a constitutional violation) on my belief that the protest was illegal, I've subsequently acknowledged both that there was no law (as you've gone out of your way to repeat) and that the ejection was not made unconstitutional by the absence of a law. So, you can back off the "you're the one who said she broke the law" nonsense and engage me in the merits if you so choose.
Very well, you acknowledge they both broke no law. My point is if they didn't, then their rights were violated.

Sheehan's ejection could have just as easily been based on a verbal policy -- and it would be equally defensible if it were based on only a verbal policy. Or if it were based only on the judgment of an officer in the moment. The only question is whether the restriction (from whatever source) on her right to free speech (which, again, is not absolute) is reasonable and whether it was viewpoint neutral.

Apparently there was no verbal policy either. Maybe a plan.

Your only argument to contest the reasonableness is either: (1) a dislike for the President and a distrust for the motives of his Administration -- neither of which has been proven to be a reason for Sheehan's ejection; or (2) the absence of a written law applicable to this situation -- again, a matter that is irrelevant, given that time, place, and manner restrictions do not require positive law for their enforcement. So, what you're left with (other than conjecture) is a viewpoint hostility argument, but that argument is undermined fairly significantly by Beverly Young's ejection.

Not really. Beverely Hill was ejected a whole 45 minutes later. This is critical.
Boutons posted:

About 45 minutes into the speech, an officer asked Beverly Young to step outside, where he told her: "We consider you a protester" because of her shirt, she said. She said she angrily challenged officers to explain what law she had violated, and they threatened arrest. She said an officer mentioned that Sheehan was removed earlier and therefore "it was kind of only fair" that she be asked to leave, too.
-The Washington Post

Maybe they felt the heat about to come their way from what they did with Sheehan. Seems pretty obvious and that someone would be closedminded to not make that connection.

There's only back and forth on this because you refuse to acknowledge anything other than my original (and admittedly uninformed) post and cannot, apparently, address the focal constitutional issue at play here.
Read my first statement.

Cindy Sheehan will find an attorney who, in the heat of the moment, will take her case. But that attorney will quickly find that the law does not support an argument that Sheehan's rights were infringed.
By being arrested, manhandled, embarrased, bruised and rushed out of a place where she had a right to express herself with a T-Shirt that violated no law, and capitol Police agree it was wrong what they did. Ok.

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:06 PM

I don't regularly watch it, but I assumed MSNBC had people that knew what they were talking about. Obviously not. And don't even fucking pretend you knew any differently until you found that article. :lol

There is no egg on my face, honey. I wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to a serial rapist at a sorority party with a big bottle of ruffies, either.
Just another post that said nothing and changed nothing. You pre-judged her off of what you wanted to be true and what you wanted to believe. And that was wrong. Your smiley was a nice try, but didn't change anything.

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-02-2006, 02:09 PM

And Bush has repeatedly lied to America, so noone is morally required to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Again, all politicians lie.

If you reference Iraq, all Bush did wrong was listen to the CIA, Mossad, MI:6, FSK (Russians), and ISA (Poland).

What a liar :rolleyes

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-02-2006, 02:09 PM

Just another post that said nothing and changed nothing.

Sort of like every retarded ass post you've made in this thread :lol

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:12 PM

Sort of like every retarded ass post you've made in this thread :lol
Man, you've been owned on here by scott. :lol keep reaching popping in and out letting others argue for you. No matter what yall say the facts remain.

Peter

02-02-2006, 02:12 PM

There are rules in place; Cindy Sheehan violated none of them. NEXT!!

She did, as did Young and the individual at the impeachment debate.

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:13 PM

She did, as did Young and the individual at the impeachment debate.
yea, ok, the facts are out dude.

Peter

02-02-2006, 02:16 PM

Yes they are. FWD laid them out.

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 02:17 PM

Just another post that said nothing and changed nothing. You pre-judged her off of what you wanted to be true and what you wanted to believe. And that was wrong. Your smiley was a nice try, but didn't change anything.

Are you really that obtuse? That's not even close to what I've said. :lol

Oh, Gee!!

02-02-2006, 02:19 PM

She did, as did Young and the individual at the impeachment debate.

US Capitol Police Chief Gainer disagrees with you:

On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said neither woman should have been removed from the chamber. "We made a mistake," he told CNN.

He said an apology was made to Bill and Beverly Young, and the congressman has been told that Capitol officers will receive better training. He said they are operating under outdated guidance on House rules regarding demonstrations.

"Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful," Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.

Gainer said he has attempted to reach Sheehan to tell her he is recommending that charges be dropped and to express his willingness to talk to her at her convenience, but has only been able to leave her a message.

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:20 PM

Yes they are. FWD laid them out.
Why do the Capitol Police disagree with you? :lol

And by the way, FWD now says, no law was broken. If only you'd actually read some things instead of being selective as many of you are.

http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/pressreleases/2006/pr_02-01-06.html

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:21 PM

Are you really that obtuse? That's not even close to what I've said. :lol
:lol now that is funny. We all know your viewpoint. But again, your one liner changed nothing.

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 02:23 PM

"Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful," Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.

That can be pretty tricky though if you think about it. T-shirts are not the norm at SOU addresses and they stick out like a sore thumb. Just sitting there in one is going to draw attention to it. How's that for :spin ? :)

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:24 PM

US Capitol Police Chief Gainer disagrees with you:

On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said neither woman should have been removed from the chamber. "We made a mistake," he told CNN.

He said an apology was made to Bill and Beverly Young, and the congressman has been told that Capitol officers will receive better training. He said they are operating under outdated guidance on House rules regarding demonstrations.

"Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful," Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.

Gainer said he has attempted to reach Sheehan to tell her he is recommending that charges be dropped and to express his willingness to talk to her at her convenience, but has only been able to leave her a message.
:lmao Oh, Gee!! it doesn't matter. they still continue to drag on something that's not even refutable.

The people they are arguing for don't even agree with them.
but whatever they need to tell themselves.:lol

FromWayDowntown

02-02-2006, 02:24 PM

Very well, you acknowledge they both broke no law. My point is if they didn't, then their rights were violated.

That's a rather myopic view of the way the law works. Were that true, there would be no such thing as a time, place, and manner restriction, for the most part, since most limitations like this one are based on the idiosyncratic facts of a particular situation and, thus, are not susceptible to comprehensive policy-making.

Apparently there was no verbal policy either. Maybe a plan.

Again, the absence of a verbal policy or a written policy is insignificant. It is the action of removal that is significant -- predicated on whatever basis -- and the only questions surrounding that action that need be answered are whether the removal was reasonable and whether the removal was based on a viewpoint-neutral approach. You have only conjecture ("Maybe a plan.") to say that it was orchestrated by anyone other than the arresting officer, and even then, the arresting officer has no reporting responsibilities to anyone in the Executive Branch. So your claim of conspiracy, absent a smoking gun, is rather far-fetched.

Not really. Beverely Hill was ejected a whole 45 minutes later. This is critical.
Boutons posted:

About 45 minutes into the speech, an officer asked Beverly Young to step outside, where he told her: "We consider you a protester" because of her shirt, she said. She said she angrily challenged officers to explain what law she had violated, and they threatened arrest. She said an officer mentioned that Sheehan was removed earlier and therefore "it was kind of only fair" that she be asked to leave, too.
-The Washington Post

Maybe they felt the heat about to come their way from what they did with Sheehan. Seems pretty obvious and that someone would be closedminded to not make that connection.

So there's a connection. And? The point is that the police understood that they had made a decision and from that point forward, had to be viewpoint neutral in enforcing that decision. That's precisely what they did. If they didn't have a basis in written policy or law to make that determination, they made a decision and then applied it consistently.

This isn't about open-mindedness. It's about understanding that there are limits. You don't have an absolute right to free speech -- you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't publish obscene materials, you can't use fighting words, you can have your speech restricted in certain forums -- and suggesting otherwise is nonsense.

If you were right here, Congress would basically have no right to limit the expression of anyone who is in the House of Representatives or the Senate, no matter how disruptive that person might be. Clearly, that is not the law.

Sometimes, politics gets in the way of even good sense.

By being arrested, manhandled, embarrased, bruised and rushed out of a place where she had a right to express herself with a T-Shirt that violated no law, and capitol Police agree it was wrong what they did. Ok.

Good luck with the Federal Tort Claims Act, then.

Peter

02-02-2006, 02:25 PM

Why do the Capitol Police disagree with you? :lol

And by the way, FWD now says, no law was broken. If only you'd actually read some things instead of being selective as many of you are.

http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/pressreleases/2006/pr_02-01-06.html

I never said it was illegal for the t-shirt to be worn, only that it was against House rules and the House has the right to establish rules for attendees in order to maintain decorum.

Otherwise, what you guys suggest is that no such rules can be established in the House chamber and anarchy can reign in the gallery.

The precedent you offered did not at all support your position, so now all you have to offer is the age old method of spamming the thread as if the volume being any louder makes your point any less inane and absurd.

Aggie Hoopsfan

02-02-2006, 02:25 PM

keep reaching popping in and out letting others argue for you. No matter what yall say the facts remain.

I keep popping in and out because I have a job, unlike most of you on the left sucking the tit of welfare.

What facts? All this thread consists of is 6 pages of you recycling the same tired shit over and over (Bush is a liar for listening to the top 6 intelligence agencies in the world, kicking Cindy out was a conspiracy despite the wife of a Republican Congressman also got the boot), and two pages of the rest of us pointing out what an idiot you are.

I can't figure out what you remind me more of: a 6 year old little girl holding her breathe until everyone agrees, or some retarded, living in his basement wannabe version of Pee Wee Herman sitting there at your keyboard screaming "I know you are but what am I?"

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:26 PM

That can be pretty tricky though if you think about it. T-shirts are not the norm at SOU addresses and they stick out like a sore thumb. Just sitting there in one is going to draw attention to it. How's that for :spin ? :)
:lol

Really, this is getting ridiculous. Obviously, they didn't do anything wrong, but way to go. Your looking more credible now than ever. :spin

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 02:29 PM

:lol now that is funny. We all know your viewpoint. But again, your one liner changed nothing.

No, I think it's safe to say that everyone but you has a good idea of what it is.

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 02:29 PM

:lol

Really, this is getting ridiculous. Obviously, they didn't do anything wrong, but way to go. Your looking more credible now than ever. :spin

It was a joke, jackass.

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:30 PM

That's a rather myopic view of the way the law works. Were that true, there would be no such thing as a time, place, and manner restriction, for the most part, since most limitations like this one are based on the idiosyncratic facts of a particular situation and, thus, are not susceptible to comprehensive policy-making.

Again, the absence of a verbal policy or a written policy is insignificant. It is the action of removal that is significant -- predicated on whatever basis -- and the only questions surrounding that action that need be answered are whether the removal was reasonable and whether the removal was based on a viewpoint-neutral approach. You have only conjecture ("Maybe a plan.") to say that it was orchestrated by anyone other than the arresting officer, and even then, the arresting officer has no reporting responsibilities to anyone in the Executive Branch. So your claim of conspiracy, absent a smoking gun, is rather far-fetched.

So there's a connection. And? The point is that the police understood that they had made a decision and from that point forward, had to be viewpoint neutral in enforcing that decision. That's precisely what they did. If they didn't have a basis in written policy or law to make that determination, they made a decision and then applied it consistently.

This isn't about open-mindedness. It's about understanding that there are limits. You don't have an absolute right to free speech -- you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't publish obscene materials, you can't use fighting words, you can have your speech restricted in certain forums -- and suggesting otherwise is nonsense.

If you were right here, Congress would basically have no right to limit the expression of anyone who is in the House of Representatives or the Senate, no matter how disruptive that person might be. Clearly, that is not the law.

Sometimes, politics gets in the way of even good sense.

Good luck with the Federal Tort Claims Act, then.
And it continues. It's funny how a simple case of infringement on 2 people's rights and the people who admit that ejecting them and arresting one of them was wrong, can somehow be twisted and turned into alot of baloney.

Simple, they were ejected unlawfully. It shouldn't have happened. Spin will never change that.

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:31 PM

It was a joke, jackass.
harsh

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:35 PM

I never said it was illegal for the t-shirt to be worn, only that it was against House rules and the House has the right to establish rules for attendees in order to maintain decorum.

Otherwise, what you guys suggest is that no such rules can be established in the House chamber and anarchy can reign in the gallery.

The precedent you offered did not at all support your position, so now all you have to offer is the age old method of spamming the thread as if the volume being any louder makes your point any less inane and absurd.
:lol you guys have made this comical. There wasn't a law, a rule or anything else you can make up. You guys are spamming as if the volume being any louder would change that.

Oh, Gee!!

02-02-2006, 02:37 PM

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:38 PM

I keep popping in and out because I have a job, unlike most of you on the left sucking the tit of welfare.

What facts? All this thread consists of is 6 pages of you recycling the same tired shit over and over (Bush is a liar for listening to the top 6 intelligence agencies in the world, kicking Cindy out was a conspiracy despite the wife of a Republican Congressman also got the boot), and two pages of the rest of us pointing out what an idiot you are.

I can't figure out what you remind me more of: a 6 year old little girl holding her breathe until everyone agrees, or some retarded, living in his basement wannabe version of Pee Wee Herman sitting there at your keyboard screaming "I know you are but what am I?"
So I take it by your job and that allowing you to only pop in and out would explain how you haven't actually read the whole thing. You just post what you want to believe. Reminds me of how a child would act.

FromWayDowntown

02-02-2006, 02:41 PM

It's funny how a simple case of infringement on 2 people's rights

Again, their rights were NOT infringed. You know very little about constitutional law if you truly believe that.

can somehow be twisted and turned into alot of baloney.

As can an argument that relies on no legal authority to suggest that someone's rights were somehow infringed through the even-handed decision to eject persons wearing t-shirts bearing political messages.

Simple, they were ejected unlawfully. It shouldn't have happened. Spin will never change that.

Yet your entire argument is based on spin that ignores well-settled principles of Constitutional law. Who's spin is worse here? If I'm spinning, I'm at least relying on what the law says about when and where First Amendment rights exist. You apparently can't be bothered by the meaning of the First Amendment, because you're so wrapped up in whether or not there was an express policy about t-shirts. The existence or non-existence of that policy is immaterial to the constitutional inquiry, and the constitutional inquiry is superior to the strawman that you keep blowing over.

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:47 PM

Again, their rights were NOT infringed. You know very little about constitutional law if you truly believe that.

As can an argument that relies on no legal authority to suggest that someone's rights were somehow infringed through the even-handed decision to eject persons wearing t-shirts bearing political messages.

Yet your entire argument is based on spin that ignores well-settled principles of Constitutional law. Who's spin is worse here? If I'm spinning, I'm at least relying on what the law says about when and where First Amendment rights exist. You apparently can't be bothered by the meaning of the First Amendment, because you're so wrapped up in whether or not there was an express policy about t-shirts. The existence or non-existence of that policy is immaterial to the constitutional inquiry, and the constitutional inquiry is superior to the strawman that you keep blowing over.
We should get some lawyers in here. I relied on facts of what happened over what people wanted to believe. No matter what you want it to be, if I were treated in that same way, my rights would have been violated. There is a reason for the First Ammendement. For our Freedom of Speech rights. That was taken away from her, seeing as how she was within her right to wear that shirt and within her right to be there. And that is true, not spin.

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 02:49 PM

We should get some lawyers in here.

You know FWD is an attorney, right? :wtf

Oh, Gee!!

02-02-2006, 02:51 PM

You know FWD is an attorney, right? :wtf

no, really??? he only mentions that fact in, like, every post

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:52 PM

You know FWD is an attorney, right? :wtf

You know I was being sarcastic, right?

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 02:56 PM

no, really??? he only mentions it in, like, every post

Originally Posted by SA210

Sorry, I thought I was pretty specific with who I was asking. I thought everyone knew also.

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 02:57 PM

You know I was being sarcastic, right?

No...it sounded like you were serious. I guess you threw me off because there wasn't a " :rolleyes " attached. Sorry.

Oh, Gee!!

02-02-2006, 02:58 PM

Sorry, I thought I was pretty specific with who I was asking. I thought everyone knew also.

This is a public forum, stop infringing on my rights

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:58 PM

It was definitely sarcasm.

SA210

02-02-2006, 02:59 PM

This is a public forum, stop infringing on my rights
Be careful, you have no rights considering the time and place of this incident.

psst spurswoman, that was sarcasm.

Spurminator

02-02-2006, 02:59 PM

Anyone remember when DeSPURado used to post here?

I'm having some deja vu...

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 03:00 PM

This is a public forum, stop infringing on my rights

:lol

Then take that offensive shirt off. :spin

SA210

02-02-2006, 03:01 PM

:lol I'm out guys, seriously, great talk. I have a meeting to go to. Until my return, keep telling yourselves what you want to believe.

Peace!!

FromWayDowntown

02-02-2006, 03:01 PM

We should get some lawyers in here. I relied on facts of what happened over what people wanted to believe. No matter what you want it to be, if I were treated in that same way, my rights would have been violated. There is a reason for the First Ammendement. For our Freedom of Speech rights. That was taken away from her, seeing as how she was within her right to wear that shirt and within her right to be there. And that is true, not spin.

It's not a matter of what I believe. It's a matter of what the law is. The law is that government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that limit speech and expression, irrespective of whether there is a policy (written or verbal) that directs the limitation. The only question is whether the limitation is reasonable and whether the limitation is viewpoint neutral.

Cindy Sheehan might, I suppose, have a claim for false arrest or something along those lines, but that would not be a claim based on an infringement of her First Amendment rights. You're right to say that claim would be based on the absence of a law to support her ejection, but in the end, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Look, this isn't personal for me. I actually have agreed with you a number of times on a variety of topics, SA210. But I think you're misapprehending the scope of the First Amendment. If the government had wholly prohibited Cindy Sheehan from making her statement, you'd have a good argument. But the government didn't do that -- she certainly could have stood on any street in D.C. wearing that t-shirt and could not have been stopped from doing that (unless she broke another law). In this case, the government simply prohibited her from making her statement in the Capitol building in conjunction with the State of the Union address.

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 03:01 PM

Anyone remember when DeSPURado used to post here?

I'm having some deja vu...

:lol

DeSPURado was a law student, wasn't he?

SpursWoman

02-02-2006, 03:03 PM

Until my return, keep telling yourselves what you want to believe.

I will, if you promise to look up the definition of opinion while you're "out". :lol

Oh, Gee!!

02-02-2006, 03:03 PM

:lol

Then take that offensive shirt off. :spin

who says I'm wearing clothes? growl

Yonivore

02-02-2006, 03:04 PM

:lol

Then take that offensive shirt off. :spin
You take your's off first! :elephant

SA210

02-02-2006, 03:06 PM

It's not a matter of what I believe. It's a matter of what the law is. The law is that government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that limit speech and expression, irrespective of whether there is a policy (written or verbal) that directs the limitation. The only question is whether the limitation is reasonable and whether the limitation is viewpoint neutral.

Cindy Sheehan might, I suppose, have a claim for false arrest or something along those lines, but that would not be a claim based on an infringement of her First Amendment rights. You're right to say that claim would be based on the absence of a law to support her ejection, but in the end, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Ok, I can see your point there. But in the arrest, that in itself, stopped her from expressing that 1st ammendment right.

Look, this isn't personal for me. I actually have agreed with you a number of times on a variety of topics, SA210. But I think you're misapprehending the scope of the First Amendment. If the government had wholly prohibited Cindy Sheehan from making her statement, you'd have a good argument. But the government didn't do that -- she certainly could have stood on any street in D.C. wearing that t-shirt and could not have been stopped from doing that (unless she broke another law). In this case, the government simply prohibited her from making her statement in the Capitol building in conjunction with the State of the Union address.
Which she had a right to do. That right was taken away.

Anyhow, until later, I gotta go, good talk.

Peace.