NationStates Jolt Archive

Sheehan arrested before the start of the State of the Unnion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/
Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the antiwar 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.

Sheehan, who was invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. The charge was later changed to unlawful conduct, Schneider said. Both charges are misdemeanors.

Sheehan was taken in handcuffs from the Capitol to police headquarters a few blocks away. Her case was processed as Bush spoke.

Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an antiwar 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.

The T-shirt bore the words “2,245 Dead — How Many More??” in reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, protesters told NBC News.

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, wrapped in a bright pink scarf against the cold, protested outside the White House with a handful of others before heading to the Capitol Tuesday evening. There were no cameras around, but the small band faced the executive mansion and repeatedly shouted, “You’re evicted! Get out of our house!”

Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other antiwar 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.

The Associated Press and NBC News’ Sarah Blackwill contributed to this report.

I said in the thread about Sheehan being allowed to sit on the State of the Union that she would be quietely removed before it even began, and here we have it, she was arrested before it started for "demonstrating in the Capitol" and then to unlawful conduct, because the latter is a lot easier to prosecute and would require her doing nothing more than being there.

Sheehan plays "Sit In." Bush counters with "Secret Police Intervention."
I think we should have a new thread, it will be a game: Free Speech Zone or Detention Camp.

Of course. Did you expect any different? The State of the Union is the national day of kowtowing to president. Everyone who doesn't gets swept under the rug.

The wife of Rep. Bill Young was also removed for wearing a shirt that said "Support our Troops - Defending our Freedom."

Apparently any shirt that doesn't say "Bush kicks ass, yee-haw" counts as protesting.

It is really easy to convict people for breaking imaginary laws with obtuse definitions.

The State of the Union Address is a speech to congress. Non-congressmen need not be present.

The wife of Rep. Bill Young was also removed for wearing a shirt that said "Support our Troops - Defending our Freedom."

Apparently any shirt that doesn't say "Bush kicks ass, yee-haw" counts as protesting.

It is really easy to convict people for breaking imaginary laws with obtuse definitions.

Bill Young is a Republican. FYI.

The State of the Union Address is a speech to congress. Non-congressmen need not be present.
They were invited by members of Congress, and it is a public speech, didn't you catch it on every stupid channel?

They were invited by members of Congress, and it is a public speech, didn't you catch it on every stupid channel?
It's a privilege, not a right.

Privileges can be revoked.

is there an actual law against "demonstrating in the capitol"?
if so, they both probably broke the law, you don't wear a shirt like that unless you are trying to prove a point, and you really don't wear a shirt like that to the state of the union address unless you have certain motives.

If there is a law, then I agree....maybe, depending on what the law actually says, that they should have been removed. If there is no such law, then I think the whole thing is a bunch of crap. ;)

It's a privilege, not a right.

Privileges can be revoked.
Like I said, it is easy to convict people for breaking imaginary laws with obtuse definitions.

if so, they both probably broke the law, you don't wear a shirt like that unless you are trying to prove a point
Bush has some problems when "Support our Troops" is being counted as protesting. Unless wearing a T-shirt is illegal in a Congressional meeting.

It's a privilege, not a right.

Privileges can be revoked.

You have to admit that "your shirt has words on it" is a rather odd grounds for revoking the privilege.

(And does a Congressman have a right to attend?)

Bill Young is a Republican. FYI.

I am glad to hear further evidence that, as I suspect, it is a neutral rule against slogans on t-shirts. (Not that specific, perhaps.)

Oh, and this may be slightly off topic..........but did anyone see the poll?

it's seems biased to me...............

Do you agree with the decision by Capitol Police to remove activist Cindy Sheehan from the gallery at the president's State of the Union speech because she was wearing a T-shirt with an antiwar slogan?


Yes, such behavior is not allowed in that setting and is inappropriate.


No, she was a legitimately invited guest and deserves to have her right to free speech honored.

You have to admit that "your shirt has words on it" is a rather odd grounds for revoking the privilege.

(And does a Congressman have a right to attend?)

A Congressman does have a right to attend, considering the State of the Union is a congressional session. Being a congressional session, there are rules that one must follow.

wait so americans can't protest in their capital?

thats fucked up.....

You have to admit that "your shirt has words on it" is a rather odd grounds for revoking the privilege.

(And does a Congressman have a right to attend?)


As I recall, a man was thrown out of the gallery during the impeachment proceedings because he had a shirt on that said "I Hate Clinton".

Rather than judging the words on a shirt, and letting some pass and others not, it's best to exclude everyone with words on their shirt.

I would presume that a Congressman in good standing would have the "right" to attend.

There's nothing that says that they have to let anyone else in the building, invitiation or not.

I think that:

a. Her following has dwindled to near zero
b. To stay newsworthy, she needed an arrest
c. She knew what would happen in advance

That simple.

wait so americans can't protest in their capital?

thats fucked up.....
Remembing, protesting is not for the good of the state.

I think that:

a. Her following has dwindled to near zero
b. To stay newsworthy, she needed an arrest
c. She knew what would happen in advance

That simple.
Kimchi ignores the fact another person was removed for wearing a shirt that says "Support our Troops."

wait so americans can't protest in their capital?

thats fucked up.....

You can protest in the capital - as in the city - but there are rules and requirements in order to do so legally.

As far as I know, you cannot protest in the Capitol - the actual building. Unless you're on a tour (which requires a pass from a member of Congress) or you're on official business, the general public doesn't have access to the building.

Considering the security necessary to keep folks safe - and considering that there have been multiple deaths on the Capitol grounds because of crazy shooters - keeping protestors out of the building doesn't strike me as out of line.

I'm surprised that she passed the Secret Service screening process, considering the things she's said about the President. The fact that she even made it in the chamber makes me nervous.

Remembing, protesting is not for the good of the state.


Kimchi ignores the fact another person was removed for wearing a shirt that says "Support our Troops."
I think you're ignoring my previous post where I said that everyone with words on a shirt is removed in order to be fair.

The fact that she even made it in the chamber makes me nervous.
Yeah, those damn law-abiding protestors are sure scary, especially when compared to the police arresting them on made up charges they can't even keep straight.

I think you're ignoring my previous post where I said that everyone with words on a shirt is removed in order to be fair.
Your example does not support that assumption.

The wife of Rep. Bill Young was also removed for wearing a shirt that said "Support our Troops - Defending our Freedom."

Apparently any shirt that doesn't say "Bush kicks ass, yee-haw" counts as protesting.

It is really easy to convict people for breaking imaginary laws with obtuse definitions.Never heard that one. Nice to know that they were being fair about slogans and such.

You have to admit that "your shirt has words on it" is a rather odd grounds for revoking the privilege.

(And does a Congressman have a right to attend?)
isn't there a law against inciting to riot? it could just be preventive measures. since one saying "Support our troops" were also removed... if it was true.

The viewpoint is that there's a certain level of decorum associated with the State of the Union address every year, and that because of this, those in attendance are required to maintain that state of decorum.

If your remember your high school dress code, it's basically the same thing.

Yeah, those damn law-abiding protestors are sure scary, especially when compared to the police arresting them on made up charges they can't even keep straight.

No, people who have threatened bodily harm to the President and will be within a stones throw of him make me nervous.

isn't there a law against inciting to riot? it could just be preventive measures. since one saying "Support our troops" were also removed... if it was true.

Neither t-shirt could be construed as inciting to riot.

It does sound like their is a law against protesting in the Capitol Building. Apparently a t-shirt slogan counts as protesting. I have no problem with that as long as it is content neutral.

(It is weird that they changed the charge to "unlawful conduct" whatever the hell that is. Also, it sounds like they didn't arrest the other woman. I hope there is video of Sheehan being asked to leave and/or cover-up the slogan before she was arrested.)

No, people who have threatened bodily harm to the President and will be within a stones throw of him make me nervous.

When has Ms. Sheehan threatened the President with bodily harm?

(I find it funny that we have so many conservatives with theories on why she had to be removed when the truth may be a simple rule against t-shirts with slogans.)

hope there is video of Sheehan being asked to leave and/or cover-up the slogan before she was arrested.
They showed a bit of it last night on whatever channel I was watching late late late (sorry, don't remember, it was just before I went to sleep) and from what I could gather from that, and from what the report claimed about it, there didn't seem to be any warnings issued, she was just taken out. Which is unfair, in my mind -- for something that apparently minor, even at a large-scale event of the sort, you'd hope they'd have given her a chance to realize her mistake and correct the wrong....

(It is weird that they changed the charge to "unlawful conduct" whatever the hell that is. Also, it sounds like they didn't arrest the other woman. I hope there is video of Sheehan being asked to leave and/or cover-up the slogan before she was arrested.)

Charges are reduces after arrest/talkin with the DA/plea bargining. Happens all the time.

It would seem that she was initially asked to cover up her shirt, and when she refused she was handcuffed and taken out of the chamber. That's what CNN says.

When has Ms. Sheehan threatened the President with bodily harm?

(I find it funny that we have so many conservatives with theories on why she had to be removed when the truth may be a simple rule against t-shirts with slogans.)

I remember press reports from back in the old Crawford ranch days where she threatened to punch the President in the face if she met him again.

I'm not saying that this is the reason why she was removed. What I said was that I am surprised that she passed the Secret Service background screen for the SOTU speech because of that.

Simonist']They showed a bit of it last night on whatever channel I was watching late late late (sorry, don't remember, it was just before I went to sleep) and from what I could gather from that, and from what the report claimed about it, there didn't seem to be any warnings issued, she was just taken out. Which is unfair, in my mind -- for something that apparently minor, even at a large-scale event of the sort, you'd hope they'd have given her a chance to realize her mistake and correct the wrong....

1. She knew the rules.
2. She knew violating that rule would led to removal.
3. She violated the rule.
4. She was removed.

I don't see any problem.

The viewpoint is that there's a certain level of decorum associated with the State of the Union address every year, and that because of this, those in attendance are required to maintain that state of decorum.

If your remember your high school dress code, it's basically the same thing.
Alright, let's take your analogy a little further. Most high schools, while having a "dress code" in the rules, neither enforce or even are mildly aware of their own dress code. The only time they do anything is in cases of extreme vulgarity or nudity. If a student chose to wear something protesting the administration, they'd probably either be left alone if it wasn't terribly undermining (which I don't personally believe Sheehan's was), or at least be warned to cover it up, not immediately been slapped with a suspension/expulsion. Now, if Sheehan had come naked, that would be another story entirely.....
*shudder* Unpleasant thoughts.

When has Ms. Sheehan threatened the President with bodily harm?

(I find it funny that we have so many conservatives with theories on why she had to be removed when the truth may be a simple rule against t-shirts with slogans.)
Of course it was the T-Shirt... It was a Black Tie affair after all :D

1. She knew the rules.
2. She knew violating that rule would led to removal.
3. She violated the rule.
4. She was removed.

I don't see any problem.
Oh, do they send out informational pamphlets pertaining to the rules of the event? I'm sorry. I wasn't aware. You, sir, have opened my eyes.

The point is that violating the rules shouldn't have to lead to immediate removal, not that she didn't know the rules. Read what I have to say before you hit the reply button, please. That really is irksome.

Simonist']Alright, let's take your analogy a little further. Most high schools, while having a "dress code" in the rules, neither enforce or even are mildly aware of their own dress code. The only time they do anything is in cases of extreme vulgarity or nudity. If a student chose to wear something protesting the administration, they'd probably either be left alone if it wasn't terribly undermining (which I don't personally believe Sheehan's was), or at least be warned to cover it up, not immediately been slapped with a suspension/expulsion. Now, if Sheehan had come naked, that would be another story entirely.....
*shudder* Unpleasant thoughts.
You obviously didn't go to my high school.

But no, I'm not saying that the levels of dress required for the SotU address are identical to those of a high school. I'm using it as a comparison. It's basically the same concept, that of regulating the participants dress for a certain event.

On the same strand of thought, Sheehan refused to cover up her shirt, and at my high school that would have resulted in an suspension.

Charges are reduces after arrest/talkin with the DA/plea bargining. Happens all the time.

Um. Here the charges were changed prior to the DA plea bargain stage. :headbang:

(I don't think it is a big deal, I just hink if protesting is illegal arrest her for protesting. Don't arrest her for "unlawful conduct" whatever the hell that is.
My understanding is they originally arrested her for "demonstrating" and then the police changed the charge.)

Simonist']Oh, do they send out informational pamphlets pertaining to the rules of the event? I'm sorry. I wasn't aware. You, sir, have opened my eyes.

The point is that violating the rules shouldn't have to lead to immediate removal, not that she didn't know the rules. Read what I have to say before you hit the reply button, please. That really is irksome.

I've been to certain Gubernatorial speeches that were not open to the general public. They gave out packets about appropriate behavior, and what was expected.



And my point was that if she knew the rules and concenquences, then immediate application of the consenquences is warrented.

Its obvious to me that she knew the rules, otherwise she would not have covered up her shirt untill her entry into the Capitol.

1. She knew the rules.
2. She knew violating that rule would led to removal.
3. She violated the rule.
4. She was removed.

I don't see any problem.

According to her at least, #1 and #2 aren't true.

Why was the other woman not arrested following your logic?

On the same strand of thought, Sheehan refused to cover up her shirt, and at my high school that would have resulted in an suspension.
Oh, well....at mine, it would've resulted in one of the associate administrators attempting to coerce the student into an oversized, probably smelly old gym shirt, the student getting upset, probably leaving school in the middle of passing period....and getting an honourable mention in the school newspaper the next issue, perhaps even a half-page article if they were either popular or attractive enough for a photo.

But that's what you get when your high school is a social experiment in the way of civil liberties and freedoms in an area that many think they don't belong. Lucky me :p

I said in the thread about Sheehan being allowed to sit on the State of the Union that she would be quietely removed before it even began, and here we have it, she was arrested before it started for "demonstrating in the Capitol" and then to unlawful conduct, because the latter is a lot easier to prosecute and would require her doing nothing more than being there.

Sheehan plays "Sit In." Bush counters with "Secret Police Intervention."
I think we should have a new thread, it will be a game: Free Speech Zone or Detention Camp.
I think not, young dweeb.

Acutally, she should thank the President. He insured that she achieved her objective, which was to fluff up her fading media whoring. :p

Its obvious to me that she knew the rules, otherwise she would not have covered up her shirt untill her entry into the Capitol.
Naw, I would've done the same thing, personally. You don't unveil the attention-getter until you're in the area with all the cameras. That's the point of wearing a shirt like that. Well, and to see if the President will stutter and blink and lick his lips nervously whenever he looks in that direction.

I've been to certain Gubernatorial speeches that were not open to the general public. They gave out packets about appropriate behavior, and what was expected.

Good point. And one that belies her story that she didn't know.


And my point was that if she knew the rules and concenquences, then immediate application of the consenquences is warrented.

Actually, even if she didn't know, the application of the rule would be fair. The only unfair thing would be that they arrested her and not the other woman.

Its obvious to me that she knew the rules, otherwise she would not have covered up her shirt untill her entry into the Capitol.

She was wearing a jacket. Is the only reason to wear a jacket in February in D.C. is to smuggle in a t-shirt slogan?

Simonist']Naw, I would've done the same thing, personally. You don't unveil the attention-getter until you're in the area with all the cameras. That's the point of wearing a shirt like that. Well, and to see if the President will stutter and blink and lick his lips nervously whenever he looks in that direction.
He did that anyway.

Actually, even if she didn't know, the application of the rule would be fair. The only unfair thing would be that they arrested her and not the other woman.



True. Her arrest would be unfair. I don't agree with the arrest, anyway.


She was wearing a jacket. Is the only reason to wear a jacket in February in D.C. is to smuggle in a t-shirt slogan?

Good point. I still have my suspicions.

He did that anyway.
Yeah, I was going to count the stutters, but unfortunately closed captioning is not stutter-friendly. Tsk tsk....never again shall I choose alcohol over the SotU.

Good point. And one that belies her story that she didn't know.Sorry but this make it seem like she didn't read the packet informing of people of acceptable behavior?
Actually, even if she didn't know, the application of the rule would be fair. The only unfair thing would be that they arrested her and not the other woman.maybe they did, but since that other woman wasn't a media darling, no one really cared. Fine paid, end of story. anything more would put the spotlight on "Supporting the Troops."

Simonist']Yeah, I was going to count the stutters, but unfortunately closed captioning is not stutter-friendly. Tsk tsk....never again shall I choose alcohol over the SotU.

Closed captioning of live events is not anything-friendly.

Closed captioning of live events is not anything-friendly.
Sure it is. We took a shot every time the CC corrected itself. That's a friendly system, wouldn't you say?

Touche'

:P

(It is weird that they changed the charge to "unlawful conduct" whatever the hell that is. Also, it sounds like they didn't arrest the other woman. I hope there is video of Sheehan being asked to leave and/or cover-up the slogan before she was arrested.)

I have the feeling that if they make you leave, and you immediately and quietly comply, you don't get arrested.

If you do not comply immediately, it's "unlawful conduct" - rather like the "disorderly conduct" you get if you mouth off to a police officer who gives you a lawful instruction.

I have the feeling that if they make you leave, and you immediately and quietly comply, you don't get arrested.

If you do not comply immediately, it's "unlawful conduct" - rather like the "disorderly conduct" you get if you mouth off to a police officer who gives you a lawful instruction.

I think you are probably right.

I just have this vague spidey sense that something isn't 100% kosher.

I think you are probably right.

I just have this vague spidey sense that something isn't 100% kosher.

I have the feeling she went there intending to get arrested for publicity purposes. Unfortunately, she couldn't hold her tongue (or wear a plain shirt) long enough to get into the gallery.

Would have been a bit smarter to wait until she was in the gallery with a plain shirt, give them absolutely no reason to arrest or remove her, and then when Bush speaks, to shout something and get arrested then.

I have the feeling she went there intending to get arrested for publicity purposes. Unfortunately, she couldn't hold her tongue (or wear a plain shirt) long enough to get into the gallery.

Would have been a bit smarter to wait until she was in the gallery with a plain shirt, give them absolutely no reason to arrest or remove her, and then when Bush speaks, to shout something and get arrested then.

I thought she was at her seat when she was first approached.

Her version is she didn't know about the rule. I'm not sure I believe that. I think you may be right.

I have the feeling she went there intending to get arrested for publicity purposes. Unfortunately, she couldn't hold her tongue (or wear a plain shirt) long enough to get into the gallery.

Would have been a bit smarter to wait until she was in the gallery with a plain shirt, give them absolutely no reason to arrest or remove her, and then when Bush speaks, to shout something and get arrested then.

That's what I expected her to do.

It just sucks that Sheehan was arrested and Bill Young's wife was not.

"I just called for the chief of police and asked him to get his little tail over here," Young said. "This is not acceptable."
http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060201/APX/602010641

It just sucks that Sheehan was arrested and Bill Young's wife was not.

"I just called for the chief of police and asked him to get his little tail over here," Young said. "This is not acceptable."
http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060201/APX/602010641

Hmm, that doesn't sound like a, "No words on your shirt," neutral rule, not if they specifically stated that it couldn't be worn because it was a protest.

Hmm, that doesn't sound like a, "No words on your shirt," neutral rule, not if they specifically stated that it couldn't be worn because it was a protest.

I sincerely doubt that Bill Young's wife refused to leave or refused to cover up the shirt when she was asked, either. I can totally see Sheehan pitching a fit and getting arrested.

Obviously we don't have all the information here yet, so I'll wait for some more press from the Capitol Police. They've not put anything out yet that I've seen.

I sincerely doubt that Bill Young's wife refused to leave or refused to cover up the shirt when she was asked, either. I can totally see Sheehan pitching a fit and getting arrested.

The article expressly says that she left when asked (Young) and argued about it outside the room. Sheehan refused to leave or cover her shirt (according to CNN), although there is no evidence that she "pitched a fit." When she has been arrested in the past, she's been quite docile about it.

My problem is with having the rule at all, whether it is a "no words on your shirt" or a "no protesting". I can understand a rule against interrupting the proceedings (ie. calling out during the speech), but any rule that prohibits expressing whatever you want on your clothing is pretty much bullshit. Much like Bush' "free speech zones," it's basically a, "Say whatever you want, dissent as much as you want, so long as your politicians can't actually hear it," rule.

I sincerely doubt that Bill Young's wife refused to leave or refused to cover up the shirt when she was asked, either. I can totally see Sheehan pitching a fit and getting arrested.

Obviously we don't have all the information here yet, so I'll wait for some more press from the Capitol Police. They've not put anything out yet that I've seen.
She didn't pitch a fit from almost anything I've read. She smiled and went with the officers. But you're right, I'm sure more information will be coming out.

Also it seems Young's wife did argue with the police and this by her own statement.
"Mrs. Young was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.

“They said I was protesting,” she told the St. Petersburg Times. “I said, “Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot.'” "
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060201-0828-stateofunion-sheehan.html

1. She knew the rules.
2. She knew violating that rule would led to removal.
3. She violated the rule.
4. She was removed.

I don't see any problem.


She was well aware at the onset she would be removed or arrested. If they didnt remove her because of the T-shirt, I'm going to assume she would have started making some sort of noise.

She never would have gotten a fraction of the attention by simply being there. And the media is trying hard to get more out of this non-story.

NBC: Charges against Sheehan to be dropped
Antiwar mom removed from State of the Union for wearing protest shirt

WASHINGTON - Charges against antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested after an incident involving a T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address, will be dropped, officials told NBC News Wednesday.

U.S. Capitol Police took Sheehan away in handcuffs and charged her with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, when she showed up to President Bush’s address Tuesday night wearing a shirt that read, “2245 Dead. How many more?” — a reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.

But Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported Wednesday.

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

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

Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, was not the only one ejected from the House gallery. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave, but she was not arrested.

Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”

The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.

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

Well, well, well. 'No rules or laws' eh? Doesn't this add a new element to the debate. Thanks for keeping things interesting CSW.

So, at this point she got dragged out and held because of what? I can't wait to see what the apologists come up with this time.

Well, well, well. 'No rules or laws' eh? Doesn't this add a new element to the debate. Thanks for keeping things interesting CSW.

So, at this point she got dragged out and held because of what? I can't wait to see what the apologists come up with this time.

Apologists, or just reasonable people?

Forcibly removing someone for no reason is reasonable?

Forcibly removing someone for no reason is reasonable?

They had a reason--the PICs beleived she violated the rules. Simple as that.

They had a reason--the PICs beleived she violated the rules. Simple as that.

Rules that don't exist. So where would they have gotten the idea that it was against the rules?

Could it be, perhaps, that they knew there was no rule but that Bush and co. wouldn't like having "protestors" there?

Meanwhile, a "reasonable person" would expect that the people running the security actually know the rules. If they don't, they are incompetent, and I fear for all of our government officials.

Well then, let's put the blame on whoever told them what the rules were.

Land of the free and home of the brave?

Arrested for wearing a T-shirt? Pity. :(

If she wanted to protest, outside where she could legaly protest would have been an ideal spot.

It's a privilege, not a right.

Privileges can be revoked.
And you all think I'm out to lunch when I say America is tumbling headlong into true Despotism.

If she wanted to protest, outside where she could legaly protest would have been an ideal spot.
The entire country is a free speech zone.

If she wanted to protest, outside where she could legaly protest would have been an ideal spot.

As it turns out, there is no legal reason she couldn't wear her T-shirt inside the Capitol, at an event she was properly invited to attend.

I know Bush has people believing that "protesting" means, "standing out of sight where no one can actually see or hear you and saying things that Bush thinks are wrong," but that isn't actually what it is.

The entire country is a free speech zone.
Damn fucking straight.

Just because Bush is trying to make freedom of speech a terrible thing people should be locked away for, does not mean no one has the right to stand around and bitch about stuff all they want.

NBC: Charges against Sheehan to be dropped
Antiwar mom removed from State of the Union for wearing protest shirt

WASHINGTON - Charges against antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested after an incident involving a T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address, will be dropped, officials told NBC News Wednesday.

U.S. Capitol Police took Sheehan away in handcuffs and charged her with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, when she showed up to President Bush’s address Tuesday night wearing a shirt that read, “2245 Dead. How many more?” — a reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.

But Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported Wednesday.

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

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

Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, was not the only one ejected from the House gallery. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave, but she was not arrested.

Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”

The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/
All's well that ends well. I'm glad someone realized the hypocrisy.

I knew some people would use this to attack Bush. He didn't order her arrested and the police don't answer to him but to congress. There, now stop it and move on to something valid.

All's well that ends well. I'm glad someone realized the hypocrisy.
Bullshit, they are just covering their asses, they meant to do it.

I knew some people would use this to attack Bush. He didn't order her arrested and the police don't answer to him but to congress. There, now stop it and move on to something valid.
There's enough to attack Bush about, though his reluctance to deal with people who don't agree with him is one of them - it's better to attack the things he said last night.

Bullshit, they are just covering their asses, they meant to do it.
I'm sure Sheehan was happy to be arrested, though. It only helps her image, so who cares?
The thing I cared about was her being arrested and the rep's wife not being arrested for the same offence. That was bullshit and it's been corrected, so I'm happy to let it go.

It's a privilege, not a right.

Privileges can be revoked.

You failed to refute his point on two separate occaisions, not a good thing. You'd be docked something fierce by the judges for the first time and for the 2nd you'd wish you were disqualified.

I knew some people would use this to attack Bush. He didn't order her arrested and the police don't answer to him but to congress.
Don't recall the requirement to fill out forms promising to vote for Bush to get into his public speeches?

I knew some people would use this to attack Bush. He didn't order her arrested and the police don't answer to him but to congress. There, now stop it and move on to something valid.

Amen!

Don't recall the requirement to fill out forms promising to vote for Bush to get into his public speeches?

I don't recall the State of the Union being a public speech.

Damn fucking straight.

Just because Bush is trying to make freedom of speech a terrible thing people should be locked away for, does not mean no one has the right to stand around and bitch about stuff all they want.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
--George W. Bush
at a Press conference at the Texas State House, May 21, 1999

It's a privilege, not a right.

Privileges can be revoked.
This ranks you even lower than usual. Your honour screams aloud here in ways that will echo in the minds of many who read every future post from you.
Just imagine what else comes to mind in synonomy.

From Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_co/state_of_union_sheehan;_ylt=AnZliVhGqHTNHlJ_Lbu58QNI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)

Police Apologize, Drop Charge Vs. Sheehan By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and the wife of a powerful GOP lawmaker are free women, with apologies from the Capitol Police chief for ejecting them from President Bush's State of the Union address because they wore T-shirts with war messages.

"The officers made a good faith but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush's arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

"Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts," Gainer's statement said.

Gainer added that he was asking the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charge against Sheehan. The statement also said he apologized to the Youngs and "share(d) the department's plans for avoiding this in the future."

"A similar message has been left with Mrs. Sheehan," Gainer said.

For his part, Bill Young said he was not necessarily satisfied.

"My wife was humiliated," he told reporters. He suggested that "sensitivity training" may be in order for Capitol Police.

The statement did not address the removal of a third person, a foreign-born American citizen who was the guest of Rep. Alcee Hastings (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla.

The congressman met with Gainer and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., about the incident.

"I'd like to find out more information," Hastings said in an interview, identifying the man only as being from Broward County in Florida. "He is a constituent of mine. I invited him proudly."

Sheehan's T-shirt alluded to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq: "2245 Dead. How many more?" Capitol Police charged her with a misdemeanor for violating the District of Columbia's code against unlawful or disruptive conduct on any part of the Capitol grounds, a law enforcement official said. She was released from custody and flew home to Los Angeles on Wednesday.

Mrs. Young's shirt read: "Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom."

"They violated my civil rights, they humiliated me," Sheehan told reporters when she arrived in Los Angeles on Wednesday night. "They treated me like instead of having just a T-shirt on I had a weapon."

Asked whether she was causing a disturbance, she said, "I just unzipped my jacket. ... I wasn't boisterous. I didn't say anything. I just sat down."

The two women appeared to have offended tradition if not the law, according to several law enforcement and congressional officials. By custom, the annual address is to be a dignified affair in which the president reports on the state of the nation. Guests in the gallery who wear shirts deemed political in nature have, in past years, been asked to change or cover them up.

Rules dealing mainly with what people can bring and telling them to refrain from reading, writing, smoking, eating, drinking, applauding or taking photographs are outlined on the back of gallery passes given to tourists every day.

However, State of the Union guests don't receive any guidelines, said Deputy House Sergeant at Arms Kerri Hanley. "You would assume that if you were coming to an event like the State of the Union address, you would be dressed in appropriate attire," she said.

___

Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti contributed to this report.

[bolding mine]
So, the Police did apologize for enforcing a vauge interpretation of a White House Ruling and it's agreed that what was broken was more a tradition, not a law.

"There ought to be limits to freedom"
--George W. Bush
at a Press conference at the Texas State House, May 21, 1999
and that is correct. Laws are there to put limits on freedoms. and there are times when some freedoms are called to be suspended and times when some freedoms are granted.

I knew some people would use this to attack Bush. He didn't order her arrested and the police don't answer to him but to congress. There, now stop it and move on to something valid.

No, but this kind of thing has been a hallmark of his presidency. Do you really think he has nothing at all to do with policies that are new to his tenure? (ie. "free speech zones")

I don't recall the State of the Union being a public speech.
I wasn't referring to teh State of the union.

and that is correct. Laws are there to put limits on freedoms. and there are times when some freedoms are called to be suspended and times when some freedoms are granted.
Oh, thanks so much for the sagaciousness. I can't see how "civilisation" made it so far without you.
You probably don't have a clue as to why i picked that phrase now. Or what context it stems from. You'll probably come up with a convenient confabulation though.

She should have waited until halfway through the speech instead of doing it then. I think it was good that she was invited. Bush can't receive all applause.

isn't there a law against inciting to riot? it could just be preventive measures. since one saying "Support our troops" were also removed... if it was true.
If the definition of "inciting to riot" can be streched to cover a persons atire I would be even more disapointed in our society,

She did nothing more then make a specticle out of herself

I dont agree with her but comeon

This whole thread is pointless. The capitol police released her, dropped charges, and admitted they screwed up. She never broke any laws and was admitted to have been unlawfully arrested. It was all a big dumb fuckup.

This whole thread is pointless. The capitol police released her, dropped charges, and admitted they screwed up. She never broke any laws and was admitted to have been unlawfully arrested. It was all a big dumb fuckup.
Actually, the thread is very relevant. At what point is a "free" society no longer a "free" society?

I find that some of these stories from the US and the reactions of some of the American posters here to be very disturbing to say the least.

I got to hear him speaking in Coronado last year, and I didn't have to sign anything...

Bill Young is a Republican. FYI.

Game, set, and match.