Cindy Sheehan arrested by Capitol Police before State of the Union

**SA210** · 02-02-2006

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 He said they are operating under outdated guidance on House rules regarding demonstrations.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.

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.

**FromWayDowntown** · 02-02-2006

Originally Posted by SA210

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.

Originally Posted by SA210

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.

Originally Posted by SA210

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.

Originally Posted by SA210

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

Originally Posted by SA210

Why do the Capitol Police disagree with you?

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/press..._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

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 of welfare.

What facts? All this thread consists of is 6 pages of you recycling the same tired 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 re ed, 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

Originally Posted by SpursWoman

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

?

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

**SpursWoman** · 02-02-2006

Originally Posted by SA210

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

Originally Posted by SA210

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

It was a joke, jackass.

**SA210** · 02-02-2006

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

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

Originally Posted by SpursWoman

It was a joke, jackass.

harsh

**SA210** · 02-02-2006

Originally Posted by Peter

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.

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

Originally Posted by Peter

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.

except Cindy was arrested for being a "Protester!" She was not asked to leave or change her attire as per the House's rules of decorum. Get your facts straight.

**SA210** · 02-02-2006

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

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

What facts? All this thread consists of is 6 pages of you recycling the same tired 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 re ed, 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

Originally Posted by SA210

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 cons utional law if you truly believe that.

Originally Posted by SA210

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.

Originally Posted by SA210

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 Cons utional 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 cons utional inquiry, and the cons utional inquiry is superior to the strawman that you keep blowing over.

**SA210** · 02-02-2006

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Again, their rights were NOT infringed. You know very little about cons utional 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 Cons utional 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 cons utional inquiry, and the cons utional 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.