Cindy Sheehan Arrested for Wearing T-Shirt

[davekriss]

Again, this point (Grainer's statement) has already been addressed on this thread. Reply to what was said or else fuck off.

BTW, Cindy's antics got minor play not at all disruptive to the President. And you might want to ask yourself a little question: Is Karl Rove sorry, going into an election campaign, that the Democrat side of the largest issue before our country is being carried by Cindy Sheehan? (Keep in mind that she was placed in the gallery by a Democrat Congresswoman from California.) Do you really think that in a choice between Pres. Bush and Mother Sheehan, the American people are going to side with her? If so, you know little about America.

Because you or someone else believes he or she responded to Gainer's (not Grainer's, btw) statement, the rest of us are supposed to say, O, alrighty then, since you responded we must be wrong and you must be right.

The point is you must refute or defeat the argument. Is Police Chief Gainer lying or wrong when he says the Police had no grounds to cart Sheehan off in cuffs to headquarters? Is he wrong when he says she violated no law and the police officers were overzealously enforcing their interpretation of an unwritten rule? Since when does an unwritten rule have the force of law to the point where a citizen can be, albeit temporarily, denied not only her right of speech but her right to basic, physical freedom? Someone in cuffs, doncha' know there potato, is not what any of us would call free! But maybe that's just one of them there left wing biases you so diligently battle here on these boards.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It has been responded to with error and fallacious argument. So, pumpkins, you'll have to scrape together a better argument.

We can live in hope, I suppose.

Having said that, he hasn't actually managed a decent argument since joining. Plenty of insults, lies and evasions, but no actual decent arguments.

 

[rogue yam]

The point is you must refute or defeat the argument.

Exactly. So do so.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Qed

 

[davekriss]

More info (found here ), in Cindy Sheehan's own words:

My ticket was in the fifth gallery, front row. An officer — who a few minutes later would arrest me — helped me to my seat. I had just sat down and was warm from climbing three flights of stairs, so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out when the officer saw my shirt and yelled "protester!" He then hauled me out of my seat and shoved me up the stairs.

The officer ran, pulling me with him, to an elevator, yelling at everyone to move out of the way. Then he handcuffed me as we rode down and then took me outside to await a squad car.

Despite what was said in several reports, I was never asked to change the shirt or zip up my jacket. If I had been asked to do those things I would have and expressed concerns about the suppression of my freedom of speech later.

I was immediately and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct." The reports about my being "vocal," attributed to the police, are also untrue.

Lawyers have advised me that I was well within my constitutional rights to wear a T-shirt emblazoned with a slogan. The police belatedly agreed and said they would drop the charges. I don't understand how they could have held me in jail for four hours before saying that this was all a mistake.

Convenient. Sheehan in cuffs and far away from the pristine scene of our Dear Leader. This way Bush's anger won't rise, resulting in one of his usual word salads and reveal to all the world what a petty tyrant he is. Kinda' like the Libby court date, conveniently set for after the 2006 congressional elections, this way the truth that that will tell won't disrupt the election process, eh? Republithug modus operandi through and through. Hide truth, exercise brute force.

 

[davekriss]

More fun stuff for our righty friends, found here :

The ejection of two women from the U.S. Capitol for wearing message T-shirts during President Bush's State of the Union speech this week was the latest incident in a growing trend of stifling dissent.

Capitol Police later apologized for ejecting the women -- after one of them, the wife of a congressman, complained bitterly, as did her husband. The police acknowledged they'd acted overzealously.

But their actions weren't atypical in today's overheated political climate. Protesters outside political conventions are herded behind razor wire far from the action, citizens wearing a rival candidate's stickers are forcefully ejected from presidential campaign rallies on public property, and those who heckle the president or broadcast issue ads within 60 days of an election can be prosecuted.

<snip>

This trend has a chilling effect on those who disagree with people in power, analysts say. "The long-term consequence is a higher degree of self-censorship," O'Neill said. "Society is the poorer when deprived of the marketplace of ideas."

<snip>

Recall during the presidential elections that protestors were caged in "free speech zones", sometimes a mile away from presidential rallies and replete with fences and razor wire. I recall one incident that had police sharpshooters walking above us on walkways and in full riot gear.

This is the "free speech" sweet potato and Old Sarge seek to defend. Can't afford the risk of mob rule, ya' know.

 

[davekriss]

While I should've shut up after Bernie's well placed QED, here's one more ( source ):

...What happened to Cindy Sheehan at the State of the Union Address must galvanize us all into impassioned action -- our blood boiling with the transfused spirit of Jefferson and Paine.

Invited to attend by a member of Congress, Ms. Sheehan was swatted down like a fly in the “people’s house” as a “protester” for wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the number of U.S. troops lost in Iraq.

Dragged off and arrested, her entirely peaceful, constitutionally protected right to make a compelling point about a controversial war in which her own son was killed . . . was obscenely seen not as an act completely consistent with our storied freedom, but as a dangerous threat against it!

During that address, gangster Bush defiantly declared he would continue illegal, warrantless, NSA spying on American citizens, as officials gathered before him gave a standing ovation.

Within the space of a few minutes, as the whole world watched, people who absurdly imagine themselves exemplary American patriots thereby displayed utter contempt for both the First and Fourth Amendments of our hallowed Bill of Rights.

That strange, whirring resonance you heard in the background was Patrick Henry spinning in his grave!

<snip>

True conservative Americans would be just as appalled at the squelched expression of free speech at the SOTU address as any left libertarian. It is an ignoble violation. While GWB most probably didn't have any hand in it (it may very well have been, as Police Chief Gainer says, just an act of ill-informed, over-zealous police officers), it is the climate cultivated by the Bush Regime that makes possible such egregious violations of our basic principles. After all, they torture. They spy without warrant on Americans. They lie and dissemble to achieve illegal war. They cultivate hysteria to achieve their ends. They create a culture of fear in which the mother of a dead GI needs to be arrested for a T-Shirt emblazoned with the number of war dead on it, in which the values and principles upon which this nation purportedly was founded are trampled in the name of "security", all while no-bid contracts are handed off to the politically friendly and tax cuts given to the rarified few of Bush's Base.

We, true Patriots both left and right, believe in free speech. We believe in the free expression of dissent, the free flow of ideas even when distasteful to power. It is what most of us proudly identify with when we say we are American. Sweet potato and others appear to be traitors to these ideals. They would apologize for power even if it carts dissenters off to gulags, built by Halliburton no doubt, all in false belief that anything their rogue State does is good and noble and right. To believe otherwise is to recognize the rogue in themselves, and that is just not permissible for them. They thus embrace and defend hysteria.

 

[fela fan]

That's a nice post dave, especially your summing up of bush and what he stands for.

As for rogue yam, that's life mate. We'll never not have these sorts of people in our midst. They're in all countries.

They're not really worth any effort at all. Anyway it's them, not us, that have to deal with themselves 24 hours a day. That's punishment enough eh!

 

[pbman]

The thing that got me was that it was only a fucking T-shirt. How can anyone be threatened by a T-shirt? Its bizarre and completely unnecessary.

So then how about if we wore anti-abortion shirts during clintons state of the union address?

Something with a bloody fetus.

It's only a t-shirt.

 

[The Old Sarge]

But do these rules actually specify the attire that should be worn by visitors - this is what I am trying to establish. Not whether they determine their own rules - that's a foregone conclusion. Isn't there some sort of public gallery in Congress for visitors (as there is here)? Surely they are not allowed into the chamber. I know of few 'democracies' where this is the case.

The public gallery is like a big balcony that overlooks the floor. It's considered part of the chamber. Although, I think in special cases, like the State of the Union Address, some visitors are invited to sit among the members. I could be mistaken about that.

The biggest catch in the dress code, as far as Ms. Sheehan goes, is that you cannot conduct any sort of protest or demonstration ... as her shirt did. That's why the congressman's wife was also asked to leave. Her shirt made a "statement" that someone considered a "demonstration."

 

[davekriss]

So then how about if we wore anti-abortion shirts during clintons state of the union address?

Something with a bloody fetus.

It's only a t-shirt.

Why, o why, does the Right here resort to logical fallacy and then triumphantly assert that they've won a point?

With pb, all that heavy metal in the boodstream may have effected his cognitive abilities, so I don't assert it is intentional, but note lead-man that when you imply that Sheehan's arrest is justified because (you are certain) that a bunch of pro-lifers in bloody T-Shirts would likewise be ejected from a Clinton SOTU, you are engaging in the fallacy know as an Appeal to Common Practice, and avoid addressing the issue at hand. Your post is rendered irrelevant. Can you therefore do better?

Can you refute the assertion that Cindy Sheehan was wrongfully ejected from House chambers, wrongfully cuffed, and wrongfully held in detention during the SOTU address? If so, how so?

 

[davekriss]

The biggest catch in the dress code, as far as Ms. Sheehan goes, is that you cannot conduct any sort of protest or demonstration ... as her shirt did. That's why the congressman's wife was also asked to leave. Her shirt made a "statement" that someone considered a "demonstration."

So then it is your contention then (repeating from an earlier post) that Police Chief Gainer is lying or wrong when he says the Police had no grounds to cart Sheehan off in cuffs to headquarters? Is he wrong when he says she violated no law and the police officers were overzealously enforcing their interpretation of an unwritten rule? Since when does an unwritten rule have the force of law to the point where a citizen can be, albeit temporarily, denied not only her right of speech but her right to basic, physical freedom?

Gainer says (as linked to below), "...neither Mrs. Sheehan’s manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention. ... Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts."

Is Chief Gainer just flat out wrong? If so, how so? And do you have links to back it up?

 

[toggle]

So then how about if we wore anti-abortion shirts during clintons state of the union address?

Something with a bloody fetus.

It's only a t-shirt.

oh look, nazi boy decided it was time to show his face here again.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The public gallery is like a big balcony that overlooks the floor. It's considered part of the chamber. Although, I think in special cases, like the State of the Union Address, some visitors are invited to sit among the members. I could be mistaken about that.

The biggest catch in the dress code, as far as Ms. Sheehan goes, is that you cannot conduct any sort of protest or demonstration ... as her shirt did. That's why the congressman's wife was also asked to leave. Her shirt made a "statement" that someone considered a "demonstration."

But based on what Gainer said, the cops incorrectly carried out an unwritten rule, meaning that her t shirt didn't constitute sufficient protest or demonstration to properly attract police attention.

 

[Jessiedog]

Nice one dave.



Woof

 

[nino_savatte]

The public gallery is like a big balcony that overlooks the floor. It's considered part of the chamber. Although, I think in special cases, like the State of the Union Address, some visitors are invited to sit among the members. I could be mistaken about that.

The biggest catch in the dress code, as far as Ms. Sheehan goes, is that you cannot conduct any sort of protest or demonstration ... as her shirt did. That's why the congressman's wife was also asked to leave. Her shirt made a "statement" that someone considered a "demonstration."

The only unelected people allowed into he chamber for the State of the Union address are the military and the corporate fat cats.

 

[nino_savatte]

So then how about if we wore anti-abortion shirts during clintons state of the union address?

Something with a bloody fetus.

It's only a t-shirt.

I guess you didn't take the hint the first time -eh, Nazi boy?

Enjoying the protection of your Canadian friend? Don't get too comfortable.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So then how about if we wore anti-abortion shirts during clintons state of the union address?

Something with a bloody fetus.

It's only a t-shirt.

Yeah, but you're suggesting not a T-shirt with a slogan, but one with a slogan and an offensive graphic, you vile anti-Semitic piece of shit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

oh look, nazi boy decided it was time to show his face here again.

Yeah, he posted on a thread in general yeaterday.

Probably thinks he can worm his way back without being called on that Jew-hate he was spouting.

 

[pbman]

oh look, nazi boy decided it was time to show his face here again.

Kiss my ass.

 

[pbman]

Why, o why, does the Right here resort to logical fallacy and then triumphantly assert that they've won a point?

With pb, all that heavy metal in the boodstream may have effected his cognitive abilities, so I don't assert it is intentional, but note lead-man that when you imply that Sheehan's arrest is justified because (you are certain) that a bunch of pro-lifers in bloody T-Shirts would likewise be ejected from a Clinton SOTU, you are engaging in the fallacy know as an Appeal to Common Practice, and avoid addressing the issue at hand. Your post is rendered irrelevant. Can you therefore do better?

Can you refute the assertion that Cindy Sheehan was wrongfully ejected from House chambers, wrongfully cuffed, and wrongfully held in detention during the SOTU address? If so, how so?

Its justified cause the rules aply to everyone.

Even anti-war commies.

And if one of us, wore, an anti-abortion t-shirt, you guys would be screaming like little girls.

 

[pbman]

I guess you didn't take the hint the first time -eh, Nazi boy?

Enjoying the protection of your Canadian friend? Don't get too comfortable.

Yes i've developed a great love of scocalism.

 

[Dandred]

The nazi persicution/genocide of the jews was brought on by the jewish commies murdering ten's of million of aryan peasants.

Back again, nazi, can't spell, shit stain?


(sorry to insult shit stains)

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes i've developed a great love of scocalism.

Really? I thought you had a thing about "socalism". What's this "scocalism" stuff, Klaus Barbie?

 

[The Old Sarge]

But based on what Gainer said, the cops incorrectly carried out an unwritten rule, meaning that her t shirt didn't constitute sufficient protest or demonstration to properly attract police attention.

I said from the very beginning that the police screwed up.

The debate/argument with Yuwipi was over house rules aqnd the house's constitutional authority to make them.

 

[toggle]

Its justified cause the rules aply to everyone.

Even anti-war commies.

And if one of us, wore, an anti-abortion t-shirt, you guys would be screaming like little girls.

as opposed to whining like a nazi shite?

 

[The Old Sarge]

It's amazing how little the Right posting on this thread seems to know about the incident, law, and decorum.

This, from the Gainer press release (available here ):

Will Old Sarge and sweet potato say Gainer is wrong? That the Police Chief doesn't know what he's talking about? No, instead there is explicit Constitutional grounds to put Cindy in handcuffs and drive her off the Hdqtrs several blocks away? Or was this just business as usual, police in our police state snuffing out expression of dissent?

Please, Dave, show me where I said anything of the kind. Here's a couple of things for you to review:

1. I said from the very beginning that I did not believe Sheehan was arrested solely because she wore a certain t-shirt.

2. Very early in this discourse, I wagered that she was arrested, not for wearing a particular shirt, but for refusing to leave chambers when asked or for possibly giving the police some sort of guff when they attempted to enforce the rule. I also said it would likely come out that the arrest was a botch.

3. I said very openly that while I have no problem at all with congress setting a dress code, and enforcing it, that Sheehan's shirt was probably not very good cause to eject her. But the fact of the matter was/is that congress DOES have the authority to make its own rules and enforce them. Nothing in those dress rules mentions arrest. Never has. Just ejection.

4. Now here you are posting the quote that seems to support just about all I've posted, followed by some lame inference about what I have said or not said. I suggest you read this entire thread ... again, if you bothered to in the first place.

The Old Sarge

 

[The Old Sarge]

More fun stuff for our righty friends, found here :


Recall during the presidential elections that protestors were caged in "free speech zones", sometimes a mile away from presidential rallies and replete with fences and razor wire. I recall one incident that had police sharpshooters walking above us on walkways and in full riot gear.

This is the "free speech" sweet potato and Old Sarge seek to defend. Can't afford the risk of mob rule, ya' know.

Know what? If you were within reach, I'd smack the shit out of you for misquoting and attributing to me things I have neither said nor implied. Get your shit together or shut the fuck up.

 

[The Old Sarge]

So then it is your contention then (repeating from an earlier post) that Police Chief Gainer is lying or wrong when he says the Police had no grounds to cart Sheehan off in cuffs to headquarters? Is he wrong when he says she violated no law and the police officers were overzealously enforcing their interpretation of an unwritten rule? Since when does an unwritten rule have the force of law to the point where a citizen can be, albeit temporarily, denied not only her right of speech but her right to basic, physical freedom?

Gainer says (as linked to below), "...neither Mrs. Sheehan’s manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention. ... Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts."

Is Chief Gainer just flat out wrong? If so, how so? And do you have links to back it up?

My contention is that I never said that. Try again.

 

[The Old Sarge]

But based on what Gainer said, the cops incorrectly carried out an unwritten rule, meaning that her t shirt didn't constitute sufficient protest or demonstration to properly attract police attention.

That's pretty much what I said in the very beginning. lol

She DID violate a rule, but they over-reacted by arresting her. Unless, like I speculated earlier, she was arrested for refusing to go or for giving the cops guff. There never was, and never will be any provision in the rules to arrest violators. They are simply barred or asked to leave if already inside.

The Old Sarge