Cindy Sheehan Arrested

[lyeag]

I just got home and saw the news. Why doesn't any of this shock me? I have to say, the picture of her smiling says it all......

 

[graygables]

Oh, what a load I'd love to know how when they are here and not involving bombs

Random jihad involved person : "Yay, a group of Americans that have almost zero power over the government have started a protest against the war...We have hope now!”

This post is as far as I got and I felt compelled to respond to the global IGNORANCE here. They have CNN, they have news outlets that spin every single thing like this to their advantage. See? Your bombs and suicides are working. The Americans are DIVIDED (aside here: remember the "indivisible" part of the Pledge??? Maybe we should GIVE IT A TRY sometime!) A nation divided is a wounded animal to them.

I was born and raised in the Army. My dad was in Viet Nam. I lived my younger days watching black cars drive up and down my street and friends crying because their daddies were gone and moving away. I lived my whole life knowing that my dad could be sent anywhere in the world at any time and we may not even know where. My FAMILY made sacrifices for this country because my dad was a member of the VOLUNTEER forces that this nation has in place. Ms. Sheehan's son volunteered. If she doesn't like the consequences of his decision, then she should take it up with him, not the rest of the world. She is dishonoring not only her own son, but my father, my family, and all the other military service members and their families as well. She needs to sit down and shut up and that's me, practicing the freedom of speech that my dad and family made sacrifices for.

Like it or not, the US is the world police. Whether THEY like it or not, the US is the world police. This nation has positioned itself as such and now has to follow through. Why we think we can establish a government based on an American sense of democracy, including the seperation of church and state, in a nation that is populated by a people who's INHERENT beliefs PRECLUDE a seperation of church and state is beyond me, but I will not belittle the sacrifices that are being made there by the men and women who volunteered to be honorable and do their duty by this country. "All gave some, some gave all" (on a US monument in Iraq)

 

[Charade]

This post is as far as I got and I felt compelled to respond to the global IGNORANCE here. They have CNN, they have news outlets that spin every single thing like this to their advantage. See? Your bombs and suicides are working. The Americans are DIVIDED (aside here: remember the "indivisible" part of the Pledge??? Maybe we should GIVE IT A TRY sometime!) A nation divided is a wounded animal to them.

I was born and raised in the Army. My dad was in Viet Nam. I lived my younger days watching black cars drive up and down my street and friends crying because their daddies were gone and moving away. I lived my whole life knowing that my dad could be sent anywhere in the world at any time and we may not even know where. My FAMILY made sacrifices for this country because my dad was a member of the VOLUNTEER forces that this nation has in place. Ms. Sheehan's son volunteered. If she doesn't like the consequences of his decision, then she should take it up with him, not the rest of the world. She is dishonoring not only her own son, but my father, my family, and all the other military service members and their families as well. She needs to sit down and shut up and that's me, practicing the freedom of speech that my dad and family made sacrifices for.

Like it or not, the US is the world police. Whether THEY like it or not, the US is the world police. This nation has positioned itself as such and now has to follow through. Why we think we can establish a government based on an American sense of democracy, including the seperation of church and state, in a nation that is populated by a people who's INHERENT beliefs PRECLUDE a seperation of church and state is beyond me, but I will not belittle the sacrifices that are being made there by the men and women who volunteered to be honorable and do their duty by this country. "All gave some, some gave all" (on a US monument in Iraq)

 

[sodaseller]

This post is as far as I got and I felt compelled to respond to the global IGNORANCE here. They have CNN, they have news outlets that spin every single thing like this to their advantage. See? Your bombs and suicides are working. The Americans are DIVIDED (aside here: remember the "indivisible" part of the Pledge??? Maybe we should GIVE IT A TRY sometime!) A nation divided is a wounded animal to them.

I was born and raised in the Army. My dad was in Viet Nam. I lived my younger days watching black cars drive up and down my street and friends crying because their daddies were gone and moving away. I lived my whole life knowing that my dad could be sent anywhere in the world at any time and we may not even know where. My FAMILY made sacrifices for this country because my dad was a member of the VOLUNTEER forces that this nation has in place. Ms. Sheehan's son volunteered. If she doesn't like the consequences of his decision, then she should take it up with him, not the rest of the world. She is dishonoring not only her own son, but my father, my family, and all the other military service members and their families as well. She needs to sit down and shut up and that's me, practicing the freedom of speech that my dad and family made sacrifices for.

Like it or not, the US is the world police. Whether THEY like it or not, the US is the world police. This nation has positioned itself as such and now has to follow through. Why we think we can establish a government based on an American sense of democracy, including the seperation of church and state, in a nation that is populated by a people who's INHERENT beliefs PRECLUDE a seperation of church and state is beyond me, but I will not belittle the sacrifices that are being made there by the men and women who volunteered to be honorable and do their duty by this country. "All gave some, some gave all" (on a US monument in Iraq)

Anyone service member that is "dishonored" by her protests (which I don't necessarily disagree with), is not being true to their vows to support and protect the Constitution. As you allude to, different nations have different political cultures. The political culture expressed in our Constitution is the precise opposite of what you express, as is using the sacrifices of those that serve for political gain.

 

['Canes Fan]

too bad they didn't Taser her. I respected her one man protest in the beginning, but she's obviously loving the attention and being a 15 minute D-list celebrity. that's a media _ _ _ _ E. play hangman with the rest of the blanks.

 

[ThAnswr]

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

There's no constitutional right to visitation or photography, but I would certainly like to know why I couldn't do those things. It's paid for with our tax dollars and we have a right to know how our money is spent.

I have the right to attend an inauguration.

There's no right to an invitation or attendence, but you do have a right to know why you're being arbitrarily denied.

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

You certainly do have the right to petition your government. They work for you.

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

I would suppose you do, but there is no constitutional right to participation with children., but your children certainly do have a right to see their government in action.

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.

Why is it unsafe for you and your children when someone exercises their constitutional right to petition their government.? We do not have the right to go through life free from all unpleasantries or free from witnessing something we don't agree with.

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.

Again, how is someone exercising their constitutional right to petition their government making you unsafe?

Btw, no one ever said you have the right to blockade an entrance. But, the opposite of blocking an entrance isn't forcing people into a designated protest zone so no one has to see or hear them.

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 have no right to go through life free from unpleasantries. If you're content, fine, but that doesn't mean you have the right to tell someone to go somewhere else because it bothers you when they petition their government.

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.

So when did protest become unsafe for society? I would think trying to control protest and make it so difficult for someone to exercise their constitutional rights is what really makes you unsafe.

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.

No one's forcing you to join a protest.

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?

Obstruction and harming other citizens is illegal. However, peaceful protest is not. And that is the difference.

You don't have a right to throw a bomb, but you do have a right to carry a sign. Or is the very act of carrying a sign unsafe?

 

[Tony M]

Almost there Canes Fan.
Here's another example of what the media has done to exploit another tragedy.
http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporle...ola_tporleans/archives/2005_09_26.html#082732

Sorry this time that my signature inappropriately says...

 

['Canes Fan]

but the mayor of new orleans said there could be easily 10,000 people dead due to the storm. who do I believe?

 

[Geoff_M]

Let's say you decide to file suit against the US Government on behalf of Mother Sheehan. You get to argue in the SCOTUS against the law that prohibits stationary protests along the perimeter fence around the White House. How would you argue that such protesters being asked to move ~30 feet across the street represents an un-Constitutional abridgement of their rights? How would you argue that such a requirement effectively mutes the protest? Keep in mind that this isn't a criminal case, therefore you have to prove your case, and not the government. Also, explain why this case is different than any of the protest "buffer" zone laws, or other restrictions that have been placed on organized protests, that our courts have upheld throughout the years.

 

[Nancy]

I have to jump in for just a second here. My family was in DC prior to 9/11. It was my DH and 3 DD's and myself. We stopped in what I thought was a GREAT spot to get a picture. Before I could even get the picture taken we were told by the police that we were not allowed to stop and take pictures there, we were told it's illegal. We were then directed to a spot where we could stop and get our pictures. I politely thanked them and we moved to the area that we could stop in. Were my constitutional rights violated because I couldn't take my families picture where I wanted? If it's against the law, it's against the law regardless of who you are and what you are doing. Even back then there were designated areas for protests, we saw them, there are protesters around the Whitehouse all the time.

 

[ThAnswr]

I have to jump in for just a second here. My family was in DC prior to 9/11. It was my DH and 3 DD's and myself. We stopped in what I thought was a GREAT spot to get a picture. Before I could even get the picture taken we were told by the police that we were not allowed to stop and take pictures there, we were told it's illegal. We were then directed to a spot where we could stop and get our pictures. I politely thanked them and we moved to the area that we could stop in. Were my constitutional rights violated because I couldn't take my families picture where I wanted? If it's against the law, it's against the law regardless of who you are and what you are doing. Even back then there were designated areas for protests, we saw them, there are protesters around the Whitehouse all the time.

I think the point is that you cannot blindly follow a law created in the name of security because elected officials are there to serve you, the citizen and security can be taken to the nth degree.

 

[ThAnswr]

Let's say you decide to file suit against the US Government on behalf of Mother Sheehan. You get to argue in the SCOTUS against the law that prohibits stationary protests along the perimeter fence around the White House. How would you argue that such protesters being asked to move ~30 feet across the street represents an un-Constitutional abridgement of their rights? How would you argue that such a requirement effectively mutes the protest? Keep in mind that this isn't a criminal case, therefore you have to prove your case, and not the government. Also, explain why this case is different than any of the protest "buffer" zone laws, or other restrictions that have been placed on organized protests, that our courts have upheld throughout the years.

I'm not a lawyer and the last lawyer show I watched was LA Law.

The point is not that there can never be restrictions. Sometimes, they're necessary. But, when they are necessary, the citizen does have to know why something is being implemented. It's this mindlessly following orders in the name of security that is dangerous because it sets a precedent whereby the government can go hog wild and uses security as the excuse.

However, setting up a designated protest zone far away from what you're protesting is wrong becuase it is being set up not for security but because the politicians don't want to be bothered and it doesn't look nice for the cameras. Tough. You have a right to petition your government and they have an obligation, as public servants, to hear it. Or don't you think you have that right?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I'm not a lawyer and the last lawyer show I watched was LA Law.

The point is not that there can never be restrictions. Sometimes, they're necessary. But, when they are necessary, the citizen does have to know why something is being implemented. It's this mindlessly following orders in the name of security that is dangerous because it sets a precedent whereby the government can go hog wild and uses security as the excuse.

However, setting up a designated protest zone far away from what you're protesting is wrong becuase it is being set up not for security but because the politicians don't want to be bothered and it doesn't look nice for the cameras. Tough. You have a right to petition your government and they have an obligation, as public servants, to hear it. Or don't you think you have that right?

I believe that in yesterday's protest the people were allowed to walk in front of the White House. There were a number of pictures showing them walking in front of the White House gates. The problem began when some decided to stop walking and start sitting.

Their right to protest was not abridged in any degree, with the possible exception of not being allowed to climb over the fence and charge into the White House. When some decided to violate the terms of their permit, that's when the arrests were made.

BTW, a citizen's right to protest does not generate an obligation by any politician (or any other citizen for that matter) to listen to it. At least, I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution.

 

[Nancy]

I think the point is that you cannot blindly follow a law created in the name of security because elected officials are there to serve you, the citizen and security can be taken to the nth degree.

So now you are advocating breaking the law if it suits your purpose? The law is the law whether it is right or wrong. I teach my children NOT to break the law. They can protest all they want in front of the Whitehouse, they were not denied their right to that, they were told they can not stop and sit on the sidewalk, just like I was told I couldn't have my kids pose for a picture there. We moved a few feet acroos the street and still got a great picture. They could protest anywhere in the vacintity and still make their point...but this got so much more attention...and I'm sorry but that big stupid grin on her face just says it all to me...she deliberately broke the law.

 

[Geoff_M]

But, when they are necessary, the citizen does have to know why something is being implemented.

And what is your Constitutional/Legal basis for that belief? I don't recall laws needing "explaination clauses". But if a reason is what you yearn for here, I'll take a good stab at it: The perimeter fence around the White House is its first line of defense. The Secret Service and/or DC police want to keep that area realitively free of obstruction so it can be better monitored. As such, they prefer groups of people not "set up shop" along that area, but they are more than welcome to protest from across the street.

However, setting up a designated protest zone far away from what you're protesting is wrong becuase it is being set up not for security but because the politicians don't want to be bothered and it doesn't look nice for the cameras.

So you would equate 30 ft as being "far away" and removed from the media?

And lastly, let's not kid ourselves here... This isn't a case of police over-reaction, it's a case of Mother Sheehan, et al, purposefully doing something with the expressed intent of getting arrested in an attempt to try and drag some media spotlight back on them. Here's the "Come watch us get arrested (Gee, isn't this cool just like the 60's!)" press release they sent out beforehand:

9/26 Mass Civil Disobedience Action Against the Iraq War. Cindy Sheehan will participate.

Cindy Sheehan to Join Nonviolent Civil Disobedience at the White House on Monday, Sept. 26
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT:
Sept. 25, 2005 Andrea Buffa [deleted]
Alicia Sexton [deleted]

MEDIA ADVISORY

Cindy Sheehan to Join Nonviolent Civil Disobedience at the White House on Monday, Sept. 26

Hundreds will be arrested as they express their opposition to the Iraq War

WHEN: Monday, Sept. 26, 12:30 PM

WHERE: Lafayette Park entrance to the White House

WHAT: In the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., hundreds of people from throughout the United States will participate in a nonviolent civil disobedience action on Monday, Sept. 26 at the White House. Cindy Sheehan will participate in the action and risk arrest as will members of the clergy and other military families.

Link

 

[Charade]

And the DC police did their duty.

 

[sodaseller]

Sheehan would have no First Amendment Claim. There are three legal principles at stake. To limit speech, government must have a compelling interest, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest, and the restriction must be content neutral.

In this case, the compelling interest is Presidential security. No court will address whether those restrictions are overbroad - they will defer to the Secret Service, and the restrictions are content neutral.

In the case of protesters at campaign rallies, it is not the Secret Service making the calls (as it is at the WH). it is campaign operatives. There goes your compelling interest. Plus, the restrictions are content based - you can waive pro-Bush signs all you want.

No analogy between the two.

 

[toto2]

See... on rare occasions, even us neo-cons can have a change of heart.

We are so often entrenched on our side of these type of debate that we dont often explore the shades of grey between the white and the black. I tend to agree with what she is doing , being anti-war , and you probalbly disagree with it , but with your comment , it was obvious that you went in that grey zone and I would hope that more of us on both sides would explore that grey zone, me included.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

We are so often entrenched on our side of these type of debate that we dont often explore the shades of grey between the white and the black. I tend to agree with what she is doing , being anti-war , and you probalbly disagree with it , but with your comment , it was obvious that you went in that grey zone and I would hope that more of us on both sides would explore that grey zone, me included.

I am all for Ms. Sheehan's exercise of her First Amendment rights. I wholeheartedly support her freedom to protest the war in Iraq, to engage in civil disobedience, to write in her blog, to appear on TV, radio, whatever.

I disagree with the vast majority of her comments; I am very suspicious of her real motivations and intentions. I believe she's been captivated by media attention and that either willingly or unwittingly, she is being used by groups with some questionable agendas.

 

[sodaseller]

True Ghandian nonviolent resistance invites arrest. Ghandi would famously request the maximum sentence be imposed upon him to reveal the injustice. I know of some Jesuits and supportive sisters that have done the same at the former School of the Americas


As long as we're chatting Ghandi and Indian resistance, I should mention one of my two favorite quotes of his, (actually it may be Nehru, but I think Ghandi), that is applicable to this situation and this President. Ghandi (or Nehru) was told that Lord Irwin, the Crown's Governor, prayed for Divine guidance before ordering each act of repression and therefore felt he was acting at God's direction, to which Ghandi replied "what a pity He gives him such poor advice." Very apropos with the latest leader that claims a Divine channel and sees himself as an instrument of Divine Will