Reply With Quote
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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?
Both ejections illegal.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2...ar-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 cir stances 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 en led 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 uncons utional 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 cons uted 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 cons utes 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 cons ute 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 Mic e 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 cons uting "demonstrations" (which, unlike t-shirts, are actually prohibited by the U.S. Code) -- were allowed and apparently encouraged:
(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.
Ouch! Propaganda good....Cindy Sheehan bad.
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.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.
"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.
MSNBCWASHINGTON - 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.
“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
touche!
I think somebody owes you an apologytouche!
From page 1 of this thread... the humor is endless.And... are you sure... because you've been like... wrong about this kind of before.
I'm more than happy to pass out the towels for all the egg on people's faces. And that's alot of egg.
at scotts post
Lost in the 5 pages of partisan blather was this. Granted, I think the ejection of anyone based on wearing a t-shirt in the Congressional chambers seems ridiculous, but apparently the policy was applied to all, regardless of their politics.
Resume mindnumbing slogan spewing.
That wasn't lost. If you go back to many of my previous posts we talk about both of them.
If so, this thread would've died long ago.
Not true, the problem is, one was arrested, one was not.
Strange. I see a lawsuit on the horizon.
She is like a Bush stalker..
Hey any chick that camps out in front of some guys house then follows him around is ing nuts.
Which one resisted ejection?
Hey Vashner, your post for some reason doesn't change this.
the Rep's wife
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.
So which part of that article talked about the Bush conspiracy to have her removed? I must have skimmed past that part.
So at worst we have two ejections and one mistaken arrest. Again, bad policy, but no evidence of an evil Bush conspiracy or whatever.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
