Cindy Sheehan Arrested for Wearing T-Shirt

[Yuwipi Woman]

Capital police admit mistake:

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

He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.

....

She said she felt uncomfortable about attending the speech.

“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,” Sheehan wrote. “I didn’t want to be disruptive out of respect for her.”

She said she had one arm out of her coat when an officer 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,” she wrote in her blog. She was then cuffed and driven to police headquarters a few blocks away.

“I was never told that I couldn’t wear that shirt into the Congress,” Sheehan wrote. “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.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

 

[The Old Sarge]

Dress codes do not trump the constitution.

In congressional chambers they do. lol

 

[The Old Sarge]

If you actually read the constitution, you'll find that both houses of congress make whatever rules they choose as far as governing their own business and practices. You may not like it, I may not like, but that's the way it is. And keep in mind that non-members of both houses are only guests. Including the president himself.

The Old Sarge

 

[TeeJay]

...Is there any legislature anywhere on Earth that conducts its business in the face of a braying, spewing mob of deranged leftists? Of course not.

I think there are some legislatures that have regular punch-ups and the like. It isn't confined to left or right either iirc.

I will try and find some links...

Here's the two sets of legislators before they went into the chamber:

and here's what happened inside:

Full set of photos and story:
Parliamentary Debate, Taiwan Style

 

[Rentonite]

Pssst..........Yam............
You are forgetting something, Most of the most argumenative posters here live in a "reality suspension sphere"
They are surrounded with only the understanding that they have chosen, not an understanding dictated by reality.
the argument is silly (as allways) but they will continue to argue for ever.
There is No logic, or proof that they will ever accept.

nothing you can say has any effect.
except sometimes I think we can interupt their constant "America Bad America Bad" chanting when they have to type on the Key board.

 

[nino_savatte]

In my estimation, no one has a Constitutional right to wear a shirt with a message on it in the House chambers. That is, I do not think that House Policy, as enforced against Cindy Sheehan and that other woman last night, is unconstitutional. Further, I think that the House Policy is good and sensible, for the reasons I've stated above and to which no one on this thread has substantively replied. Finally, I think that this is obviously true to all (the reasonableness of the policy, that is) and that the time has come for you to stuff a sock in it, YW.

Unless it happens to be a Protest Warrior T-shirt - right?

Are you a Protest Warrior, yammie? or ae you just an armchair general and bullshitter? Of course you are, you're just like the rest of the gutless wonders we get around here.

 

[nino_savatte]

If you actually read the constitution, you'll find that both houses of congress make whatever rules they choose as far as governing their own business and practices. You may not like it, I may not like, but that's the way it is. And keep in mind that non-members of both houses are only guests. Including the president himself.

The Old Sarge

To me this is an indication of the contempt the powerful have for the less powerful. What difference does it make what anyone wears to Congress, so long as they aren't carrying a weapon? Congress exists mainly to satisfy the needs of corporate America and the greedy.

 

[nino_savatte]

Hysteria.

I'll bet you don't even know what that word means nor have you any clue as to its etymology.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hysteria.

Mealy-mouthed use of derogatory sexist insult unrelated to the issue being addressed.

Pretty much your usual style then.

 

[TAE]

Perhaps if she'd worn one of these T-shirts, she wouldn't have been arrested.
http://www.protestwarrior.com/tshirts.php

Some of them are quite funny actually.

 

[nino_savatte]

Some of them are quite funny actually.

Humour and Protest Warrior in the same breath?

 

[TAE]

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/store/socialist_guerilla_tshirt.jpg

 

[In Bloom]

How does wearing a t-shirt constitute a "protest?"

If somebody had been wearing one of those little ribbons you guys are so nuts over, would they have been thrown out?

 

[TAE]

At least one person was stopped by the police in brighton for wearing an anti-blair t-shirt during the NewLabour conference.

 

[chilango]

If you actually read the constitution, you'll find that both houses of congress make whatever rules they choose as far as governing their own business and practices.

Which supercedes your constitution?

Not much of a democracy is it?

 

[In Bloom]

Which supercedes your constitution?

Not much of a democracy is it?

Don't be silly chilango, after all, it's not like they're paying for those buildings or anything, why should they be allowed access?

 

[chilango]

Don't be silly chilango, after all, it's not like they're paying for those buildings or anything, why should they be allowed access?

 

[The Old Sarge]

To me this is an indication of the contempt the powerful have for the less powerful. What difference does it make what anyone wears to Congress, so long as they aren't carrying a weapon? Congress exists mainly to satisfy the needs of corporate America and the greedy.

sorry. Wrong post.

 

[nino_savatte]

What? You only cite the constitution when you think it suits your argument?

You what?

 

[The Old Sarge]

Yes or no, do you leave your rights at the house door?

Yes. Some of them. Just as you leave some at MY door if you come into MY house. And I leave some of mine if I enter YOUR house.
Rules. Roles of host and guest. See?

 

[The Old Sarge]

Capital police admit mistake:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

The Police Chief is talking about the arrest, not her dismissal from congressional chambers. If you remember back to my first post ... I said she was most likely arrested for refusing to leave or for giving he cops some sort of crap? Well now I think it's coming out via the Chief's own words. They screwed up. They had nothing on her in the first place.

Congress still has the "right" (actually it's the 'authority') to set and enforce a dress code.

 

[The Old Sarge]

To me this is an indication of the contempt the powerful have for the less powerful. What difference does it make what anyone wears to Congress, so long as they aren't carrying a weapon? Congress exists mainly to satisfy the needs of corporate America and the greedy.

Ask congress. THey're in a much better position to answer that question.

But ... when it comes to "protests" ... or "statements" ... or what some stretch to be "rights" ... I think it's a very good idea to limit such things in the halls of congress. They are there to conduct debate, etc. etc. They don't need "protestors" or "rights exercisers" or "statement makers." In fact, any non-member is there as a guest, as I said before. Guests are usually expected to abide by the host's rules? Are they not? Don't like or abide by the rules? Fine. Leave. You're no longer welcome or allowed.

 

[The Old Sarge]

I'll bet you don't even know what that word means nor have you any clue as to its etymology.

Womens' uteruses make them all crazy and shit. So we takes 'em out.

 

[The Old Sarge]

Mealy-mouthed use of derogatory sexist insult unrelated to the issue being addressed.

Pretty much your usual style then.

So Yuwepi gets a pass on her "derogatory insult unrelated to the issue being addressed"?

Double standards, anyone?

 

[The Old Sarge]

How does wearing a t-shirt constitute a "protest?"

If somebody had been wearing one of those little ribbons you guys are so nuts over, would they have been thrown out?

Don't be obtuse. The statement on the shirt usually speaks for itself.

And I agree with you on all the pretty little feelygood ribbons. I'd like to string one of each color into a long enough piece to choke the shit out of the idiots that wear them and keep coming up with more reasons to come up with more ribbons ...

 

[The Old Sarge]

Which supercedes your constitution?

Not much of a democracy is it?

Now how can the constitution supercede the constitution? Be reasonable.

 

[The Old Sarge]

You what?

Sorry, Nino. That was intended for Yuwipi. I don't know how I pressed the wrong quote button.

 

[chilango]

Ask congress. THey're in a much better position to answer that question.

But ... when it comes to "protests" ... or "statements" ... or what some stretch to be "rights" ... I think it's a very good idea to limit such things in the halls of congress. They are there to conduct debate, etc. etc. They don't need "protestors" or "rights exercisers" or "statement makers." In fact, any non-member is there as a guest, as I said before. Guests are usually expected to abide by the host's rules? Are they not? Don't like or abide by the rules? Fine. Leave. You're no longer welcome or allowed.

Surely the House is itself a "guest" of the USA and its people, and should therefore abide by its rules i.e. the Bill of Rights.

Or are you anti american too?

 

[slaar]

chilango and nino - Clearly a silent, t-shirt wearing protest should be allowed. I'd argue she should have stayed, as I suspect will many Americans. But if any American with a grievance was allowed to walk into the Senate or Congress and carry out any protest they wanted that would be a bit stupid, no?

 

[chilango]

chilango and nino - Clearly a silent, t-shirt wearing protest should be allowed. I'd argue she should have stayed, as I suspect will many Americans. But if any American with a grievance was allowed to walk into the Senate or Congress and carry out any protest they wanted that would be a bit stupid, no?

Freedom´s a terrible thing, no?

Point is that the USA lauds itself as the gurantor of freeedom worldwide, and regularly uses this as a pretext to invade, bomb or blockade soveriegn states, yet will not uphold the constitutional rights to freedom of speech of its own citizens.

If I was an American i´d be a little concerned.