Cindy Sheehan Arrested

[mickeyfan2]

I heard on ABC radio the protest permit was only for walking and not sitting. So sitting will get you arrrested. The news even made a point to say how much she smiling in the police car. She wanted to get arrested.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Whether or not the reasons for this war jeopordized this freedom remains to be seen. But of course in a pinch remember, it's all George W. Bush's fault.

 

[sodaseller]

Now this is funny - watch the AP change the lede of this story, not once, but twice, in their attempt to "frame" Cindy Sheehan in just the right way:

Compare these leads:

1:57 p.m.-- Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who has used her son's death in Iraq to spur the anti-war movement, was arrested Monday while protesting outside the White House.

At AP Headquarters: "Oops, did I say "used"? I didn't mean used."

3 p.m.-- Cindy Sheehan, the California woman driven by her son's death in Iraq to re-ignite the anti-war movement, was arrested Monday while protesting outside the White House.

AP Headquarters: "Yeah, driven. That's the ticket."

Update 3: Lead No. 3 on this story at 3:38 p.m.:

Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who became a leader of the anti-war movement following her son's death in Iraq, was arrested Monday along with dozens of others protesting outside the White House.

AP Headquarters: "You know, because the whole process was, like, so organic. Cindy didn't really "use" or "drive" anything so much as she "became" the conscience of a country veering horribly off course. It was her simple request to meet with the President, her private grief, and her authenticity that won us over. Not that we're on her side, mind you."

As far as "using" our honored dead for tawdry political gain, I rather agree with Cohn's observation about this ghoulish prcatice that has become the sine qua non of current GOP agitprop

TNR

Whenever Bush and his allies have faced rising opposition to some element of the Iraq war, they've tried to shut down the argument by suggesting that their critics are undermining the morale and safety of U.S. troops abroad--in effect, using American soldiers as human shields in a p.r. war. They did so most famously, and offensively, at the 2004 Republican National Convention, when an unhinged Zell Miller, the ostensibly Democratic senator from Georgia, accused Democrats of slandering the soldiers. "Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator," Miller said. "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." Republicans and their supporters launched similar rhetorical broadsides after rising insurgency activity in 2004 (when Representative Rob Portman said that criticizing Bush's leadership was "demoralizing" to the troops), after revelations this year about prisoner abuse in military detention facilities (when Deborah Pryce, another House Republican, attacked Democrats for "jumping at any chance to point the finger at our own troops"), and after a recent series of setbacks (when Oliver North lashed out at the "old, anti-military, 'Blame America First' crowd" for dwelling on them).

 

[richiebaseball]

So who gets to wear the ruby red slippers?

My first thought was J Edgar Hoover.

 

[septbride2002]

I don't recall saying it was Casey Sheehan alone who fought for the freedom of speech. Of course we know where the freedom began, but we have had people protecting our freedoms for over 200 years INCLUDING Casey Sheehan.

Whether or not the reasons for this war jeopordized this freedom remains to be seen. But of course in a pinch remember, it's all George W. Bush's fault.

It is ammussing to me how I don't even agree with this woman - but yet I get slapped with the "I want to blame everything on Bush" mantra that this board has going. Guess what - Not only can I disagree with Bush, but I can also disagree with Cindy Sheehan. I haven't blamed one dang thing on Bush in this conversation - but yet here we go with the snarky remarks.

The only thing I've disagreed with on anyone here is that I don't think she is dishonoring her son's legacy.

~Amanda

 

[dcentity2000]

She may be getting her way with the UK. The rumoured pullout date is May next year for us - Blair has of course denied it ironically on the same day that someone was arrested for leaking information to the press (in relation to the shot Brazillian).



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

I've disagreed with on anyone here is that I don't think she is dishonoring her son's legacy.

Whenever honour is brought up, it's time to duck and cover - it's purely subjective and based entirely on emotional set. One man's honour is another man's dishonour.

For example: it is a dishonour to the soldiers to set them to a war based on poorly researched evidence with known flaws without having exhausted political means first.

[EDIT]: Just to state, it is a further dishonour not to apologise. It is a dishonour in the first instance as it demeans the supposed value of their lives.



Rich::

 

[gradtchr]

It's about time she got arrested.

 

[sgtdisney]

It is ammussing to me how I don't even agree with this woman - but yet I get slapped with the "I want to blame everything on Bush" mantra that this board has going. Guess what - Not only can I disagree with Bush, but I can also disagree with Cindy Sheehan. I haven't blamed one dang thing on Bush in this conversation - but yet here we go with the snarky remarks.

The only thing I've disagreed with on anyone here is that I don't think she is dishonoring her son's legacy.

~Amanda

It was meant as a joke. I have no idea what your opinion on Bush is, obviously. I just think Cindy Sheehan is really dishonoring her son with her strange behavior and words. We can agree to disagree on this point, I am sure.

 

[ThAnswr]

As a private citizen.. I have as much right to access and feel safe in a location..as someone does to protest in it. You may protest the government--but what right do you have to get in MY way and prevent me from exhibiting MY first amendment rights. Protestors haven't played fair--there are now rules for that.

You lost me. Could you explain this, please.

 

[simpilotswife]

Why??? Are we not allowed to disagree with this administration without being arrested? You all may disagree with Sheehan but that doesn't make her a "nut". At least she is out there speaking up for what she believes in.

I don't understand how you can support a man who has sent Americans to die and more die everyday and be so nasty to a woman who wants to have them come home alive.

And no we are not better off with Saddam gone, Iraqi is better off but the US isn't. I get sick of hearing that line in defense of the war. I will never believe that getting rid of him was worth 1900 American lives. And for all of you who think it was in response to 9/11, we will soon have more dead from the war than died on 9/11, and we have not even made a dent in their organization.

It reminds me of the Republican Convention here in NY. They arrested some people on the flimsiest of pretexts just so they wouldn't remind people about what a horrible president we have.

 

[chadfromdallas]

It reminds me of the Republican Convention here in NY. They arrested some people on the flimsiest of pretexts just so they wouldn't remind people about what a horrible president we have.

Didn't a few lawsuits come out of the most recent one? I thought I saw something on it about guy having false charges and such filed against him. Some guy had it on video camera.

 

[dcentity2000]

I remember when Bush visited over here (I think it was Bush) - protesters were arrested under the ancient crime of "malicious sitting". Gimme a break!



Rich::

 

[AllyandJack]

People were arrested at the DNC, too....and they were blocks away from the convention site.

This isn't a partisan issue, it's a politician issue.....all parties. They're too busy patting each other on the back to remember that they work for us.

But, I guess it was a real security issue for Kerry and Kennedy, but not for Bush....I'll just answer my own question.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

You lost me. Could you explain this, please.

For example--I have the right to visit the white house and snap a picture.

I have the right to attend an inauguration.

I have the right ot visit my congressmen (we have all men...so yes that's what i meant to call it).

I have the right to do this with my children if I so choose.

I mentione this things as I have done all these in the past year--as is my right to do so. Should every Tom Dick and Harry be allowed to just show up and protest--it can interfere with my rights as well as be unsafe for my children and I.

I don't have to have a permit--on occasion, I might need an appointment or a ticket..but as a private citizen--I can show up at these locations at anytime I want....without fear for my safety and without being blockaded by someone else expressing their first amendment rights. Noone has the right to decide that b/c they are unhappy with something to interfere with other citizens who may be quite content or really not give a care one way or the other.

You want to protest, go right ahead. However--b/c some idiots decided that their first amendment rights -- over the course of our history...could include things that would endanger the safety of others--be it Joe President, Jill Congresswoman, or the avereage citizen, measures had to be taken to ensure the safety of all.


You stated earlier....something to the affect that they have the right to protest the government....

However--where does your right to protest end and my rights to NOT protest begin.

In other words--when is what you are doing considered unfair and illegal when it pertains to obstructing or harming other citizens--be them ordinary or elected?

 

[AllyandJack]

In other words--when is what you are doing considered unfair and illegal when it pertains to obstructing or harming other citizens--be them ordinary or elected?

I'd like to know this, too. A "peace protester" did over $500. worth of damage to my car. I'm trying to drive through Boston and they're having one of their demonstrations - in the middle of Boylston Street. As I'm driving by at 3mph so as not to kill any of them (I behaved), they're banging on the hood of my car.

Where is my right to drive on a public street without having people damage my car?

 

[sodaseller]

From a legal perspective, we all must endure the "bother" of witnessing protests we do not agree with (though not car damage). Courts have ruled that the expressive effect of protest is lost if they are not visible, and that authorities should not be trusted in zoning permissible protest areas out of sight in the name of protecting others from being offended, even from protests that are deemed offensive across a broad swath (i.e. Nazis in Skokie). Those legal principles are subject to exception, of course, and in this case it was security concerns rather than convenience. But the right to protest would be hollow were it made invisible. With limited exception ("fighting words"), we do not permit a "heckler's veto." Citizens in a democracy must witness and even bear some inconvenience witnessing messages they do not like.

IMO, these fairly well-settled legal principles were routinely violated in the name of "security" during last year's campaign. While I would never personally go to a political opponent's rally and display confrontational signs because I think it's rude (and no one is supposed to be able to shout interruptions), traditionally candidates and supporters were made to endure witnessing countersigns. I know I have been many rallies in my lifetime and have never failed to see signs from those that disagreed. Last year in St. Pete at the Kerry/Edwards rally, Bush supporters had the space literally across the street from the entrance you could not avoid seeing them. At the President's rallies, "security" (often campaign operatives) routinely removed protesters from anywhere close to the rally, where they could never be seen by cameras. That's wrong

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I understand that soda seller...but in interest of MY safety..this is why there is permitting and "zones"...which I have no problems with. I'd like to know that I can go someplace on any day of the week without fear and risk.

I have no problem seeing protestors and waving signs. I have a problem when they obstruct my view, step on my foot, shove me out of the way, make me lose my child, or obstruct my access to an area that I have an absolute right to be in.

 

[Charade]

I just heard Congresswoman (D) Cynthia McKinney say that while bodies were being collected at the Superdome, military recruiters "blew into" the Astrodome to "reap" the harvest.

She also managed to include the 2000 and 2004 election "fraud", 9-11 and Valerie Plame in her speech at the protest about what??? The war in Iraq. Ok.

http://www.wakahiru-me.com/media/vid/cspan/cspan_iraq_protest_mckinney_050924a.wmv

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I hope that they get her into some sort of phyciatric ward where she can get the help she so obviously needs.

I don't agree with this war either. But this woman is a whack job. There's dissent and then there is just being a loon...