Cindy Sheehan arrested by Capitol Police before State of the Union

[FromWayDowntown]

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 Cons utional rights.

[SA210]

Statement from U.S Capitol Police

http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/press..._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]

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]

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]

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

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. , 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]

AHF, Bush insinuated the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq in last nights speech.
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]

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]

AHF, Bush insinuated the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq in last nights speech.
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]

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?

If you quit feeding them, monkies die.

[Gerryatrics]

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]

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

[attyjackiechiles]

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

[SpursWoman]

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.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

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

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.

[boutons_]

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."

( bull . 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 cons ute 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]

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.

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 Cons utional issue with that; nobody's rights were violated.

[Peter]

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]

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?

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/press..._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.



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?...8cbc9ee6a&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?...50772351f&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/press..._02-01-06.html



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 uncons utional to arrest a man who wore a "F**k the Draft" T-shirt into the courthouse? (Cohen v. California, 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/atty...es/002734.html


Cohen v. California

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/com...ech/cohen.html


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

Rhetorically speaking.

NEXT.

[Oh, Gee!!]

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

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

[Peter]

I think I've got a right to be left alone by the ing 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!!]

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]

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

[Peter]

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

[SA210]

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]

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 uncons utional 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 uncons tutionally 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 cir stances. 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 uncons utional to arrest someone under these cir stances, 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 cons utional rights were ever jeopardized.

NEXT.

Indeed.