Author Topic: Cindy Sheehan arrested... (Read 4033 times)

280plus · « **on:** January 31, 2006, 06:19:55 PM »

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was arrested and removed from the House gallery Tuesday night just before President Bush's State of the Union address, a police spokeswoman said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.

Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.

Police handcuffed Sheehan and removed her from the gallery before Bush arrived. Sheehan was to be released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.

"I'm proud that Cindy's my guest tonight," Woolsey said in an interview before the speech. "She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq."

Woolsey offered Sheehan a ticket to the speech Gallery 5, seat 7, row A earlier Tuesday while Sheehan was attending an "alternative state of the union" press conference by CODEPINK, a group pushing for an end to the Iraq war.

Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.

Lennyjoe · « **Reply #1 on:** January 31, 2006, 06:46:38 PM »

Quote; "She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq"

In your eyes maybe but not in mine. This woman has had her 10 minutes of fame and now needs to just go away.

Felonious Monk/Fignozzle · « **Reply #2 on:** January 31, 2006, 07:01:16 PM »

Her husband has filed for divorce, I'm sure due in part to her whackjob activities.

Standing Wolf · « **Reply #3 on:** January 31, 2006, 07:40:43 PM »

What some women won't do to try to get a date with Michael Moore!

telewinz · « **Reply #4 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:48:34 PM »

Wearing a T-Shirt with a slogan? Wow, she's lucky she wasn't arrested for assault with intent to commit bodily harm. Some people get all the breaks.

280plus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2006, 02:46:59 AM »

I wonder if Lynn Woolsey D California feels like a big A double S...

Ben · « **Reply #6 on:** February 01, 2006, 05:03:08 AM »

Quote

I wonder if Lynn Woolsey D California feels like a big A double S...

Her District is in Santa Rosa County, so I doubt it. She's probably in a latte shop this morning being congratulated on her political coup.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #7 on:** February 01, 2006, 05:08:06 AM »

Some of you guys are missing the point here. According to the article, she wore a T-shirt with political slogans on it into the Capitol building and was arrested? WTF happened to the 1st amendment?

280plus · « **Reply #8 on:** February 01, 2006, 05:17:47 AM »

Apparently there is no protesting allowed in the capitol building. I know little else about the rule, where it came from or how far back it goes. I'd be interested in hearing more now that you mention it. I'm imagining that if everyone who wanted to protested in the Capitol building nothing would ever get done. There'd be all chaos all the time. Just a shot in the dark on my part.

And apparently she knew this because she didn't expose it until after she got in. If she had thought about it a little more she might have waited till GWB was in the middle of things before tipping her hand.

TarpleyG · « **Reply #9 on:** February 01, 2006, 05:23:30 AM »

Are telewinz and I the only ones concerned about this? Was she making a stink other than wearing a T-shirt? If she was sitting quietly, I see no problem with this, certainly nothing to be arrested/detained for. Every day that goes by, I loathe this government that much more. Don't they get it? I don't want the .gov telling me what's best for me.

Pb · « **Reply #10 on:** February 01, 2006, 05:34:22 AM »

I agree that arresting her was the wrong thing to do. Especially since that was what she was probably hoping for, and now she has her newspaper story.

bermbuster · « **Reply #11 on:** February 01, 2006, 05:49:10 AM »

Quote from: TarpleyG

Are telewinz and I the only ones concerned about this? Was she making a stink other than wearing a T-shirt? If she was sitting quietly, I see no problem with this, certainly nothing to be arrested/detained for. Every day that goes by, I loathe this government that much more. Don't they get it? I don't want the .gov telling me what's best for me.

Add me to the list of readers who are concerned about this.

Ben · « **Reply #12 on:** February 01, 2006, 05:49:51 AM »

Quote

WTF happened to the 1st amendment?

My take on it is that in this case, nothing. The rules on decorum are clearly marked on the tickets and on signs before entering. She could have worn the T-shirt outside the building, on a White House tour, or any number of events without a problem. The rules are there to protect the First Amendment Rights of those doing business in the Capitol building. Whoever is President has the right to give a speech there without having his or her First Amendment Rights disrupted.

Edited to add:Though leaving her in her seat would probably have helped the President, as the TV cameras spending half the time panning to her and her Tshirt would have made her look even more whacked than she is. Even fence sitters would be thinking, "give it a rest lady!"

Guest · « **Reply #13 on:** February 01, 2006, 07:07:39 AM »

Yes, there should be free speech in the Capitol. DUH!

StopTheGrays · « **Reply #14 on:** February 01, 2006, 07:08:39 AM »

When Clinton was being impeached someone was ejected for wearing a shirt critical of Clinton. A wife of a congressman was also ejected during the SOTU who wore a shirt supporting the troops. Right or wrong the rules of the gallery say no protests from the gallery.

All in all, Cindy is a woman in need of some help. I do not want to see what happens to her when the left is done with her because they are all she has right now.

Guest · « **Reply #15 on:** February 01, 2006, 08:14:23 AM »

A T-shirt alone doesn't seem like "protest" to me. So yeah, this is bothersome.

Sheehan has posted her own version of what happened:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020106Z.shtml

She claims she had no idea such a shirt was illegal and had no intention of "protesting"...BUT she also says she wouldn't have been displeased if a camera had panned against that shirt.

Hmmmm.

So...I'm bothered, yeah, but she's clearly not 100% blameless here.

The next step is, will she be able to get a jury trial if the charges are misdemeanor level or above? If the penalties are at all serious but she doesn't get a jury, then...well that's a fairly serious step on this nation's part, one that would disturb me much more than the initial arrest.

So let's see how the charges shake out.

Felonious Monk/Fignozzle · « **Reply #16 on:** February 01, 2006, 08:31:10 AM »

Quote from: bermbuster

Quote from: TarpleyG

Are telewinz and I the only ones concerned about this? Was she making a stink other than wearing a T-shirt? If she was sitting quietly, I see no problem with this, certainly nothing to be arrested/detained for. Every day that goes by, I loathe this government that much more. Don't they get it? I don't want the .gov telling me what's best for me.

Add me to the list of readers who are concerned about this.

Many years ago, I went in to vote in a presidential election wearing a campaign T-Shirt. Apparently, there IS a law on the books that you cannot do this. I was sincerely ignorant of the law, but that did not stop them from asking me nicely to leave, which I did, long enough to put on a jacket I had in the car and come right back in to vote, with no trouble from anyone.

I am POSITIVE that Cindy Whackjob was asked nicely to either cover it up or change it prior to being escorted out/arrested. I'm sure she made a total a$$ of herself at that time.

Sergeant Bob · « **Reply #17 on:** February 01, 2006, 08:43:45 AM »

She got exactly what she wanted. She went there wanting to make a spectacle of herself and she succeeded. Nothing happened that she didn't want to happen.

So, what rights were violated?

K Frame · « **Reply #18 on:** February 01, 2006, 08:59:49 AM »

According to AP, Sheehan was asked to either remove the shirt or cover it up.

She supposedly didn't respond, in any way, to the officer, so she was removed.

I have no problem with this at all.

Why?

Because you have to have some structural and procedural rules so that you can ensure that government functions (no jokes, please) on at least some level.

Due to any number of court rulings over the years, these rules often have to be absolute - in other words, you can't define what constitutes "protest," or the next think you know you've got 500 antideathprowarabortionlowergunstaxesoutlawhomepenaltyschool protestors screaming in the gallery 24x7 after the federal courts overthrow the rules as being too selective. How productive would THAT be? Not very.

No court has ever held the First Amendment to mean "You have the absolute right to say/do absolutely anything absolutely anywhere absolutely anytime you absolutely feel like it."

The Founding Fathers apparently didn't hold this everythinganytimeanywherewhenever view, either, because the first gallery rules were laid out in the late 1700s in response to serious shenanigans.

There was even talk, for a time, of making all deliberations of the House and Senate completely secret.

Look, the bitch wants to protest? That's great. She has a million and one venues by which to do so. No one is saying that she can't protest. The only thing that's being said is that there are places where protest is unacceptable.

And to be perfectly honest, I'd like to see every legislator from both parties be strapped to his/her seat and wearing a ball gag for the duration. This up/down rauccous applause thing is getting out of hand.

LawDog · « **Reply #19 on:** February 01, 2006, 09:02:04 AM »

Quote

So, what rights were violated?

Her right to interrupt and interfere with a Constitutionally-mandated -- Article II, Section 3 -- duty of the President.

Quote

I am POSITIVE that Cindy Whackjob was asked nicely to either cover it up or change it prior to being escorted out/arrested.

Article states that the police told her she couldn't wear that shirt. It further states that she "did not respond."

LawDog

K Frame · « **Reply #20 on:** February 01, 2006, 09:24:08 AM »

Somehow I don't think that breaking a law is a "right."

It might be a duty, in some cases, but I'm not sure about it being a right.

280plus · « **Reply #21 on:** February 01, 2006, 11:20:37 AM »

Quote

Somehow I don't think that breaking a law is a "right."

Don't get me started on the Ninth Amendment again... shocked

K Frame · « **Reply #22 on:** February 01, 2006, 11:25:35 AM »

"Don't get me started on the Ninth Amendment again... "

Not sure how to take this...

280plus · « **Reply #23 on:** February 01, 2006, 11:31:49 AM »

Read the Ninth Amendment...

Cheesy

K Frame · « **Reply #24 on:** February 01, 2006, 11:40:36 AM »

I've read the 9th Amendment.

I've also read messages by some who claim that its wording gives absolute license to make everything a right.

And, apparently unlike many others, I've actually read the Supreme Court's judicial references to the 9th Amendment, and you'll see that it's never been construed to be a blanket absolute to cover things such as pedophilia, human sacrifice during religious ceremonies, etc.

News:

Author Topic: Cindy Sheehan arrested... (Read 4033 times)

Felonious Monk/Fignozzle

Guest

Guest

Felonious Monk/Fignozzle