WTF?

I am second to no one in my public disgust for Cindy Sheehan. She has, in my opinion, brokered her legitimate grief over the loss of her son for more than her fair share of limelight, which she has used to galavant across the globe spreading her idiotic political beliefs while trashing this country at every opportunity, all the while shmoozing with every odious scumbag and dictator who will embrace her. Suffice it to say, I am not a fan.

Regardless of my opinion of Sheehan, this really honks me off:

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war 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 had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.

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

It was one thing when I thought she was arrested for unfurling a banner in the Capitol or some sort of civil disobedience. But arrested for wearing a t-shirt? WTF? What the hell is going on? Someone fill me in on why an anti-war t-shirt is a criminal offense.

*** Update ***

From the comments:

any and all kinds of sloganeering or demonstrating is strictly forbidden in the Capitol. A few of my friends and I once tried to have take a group picture (after a rally that had a permit ended) with the building in the background and were shooed away by the Capital Police for violating the rule merely by havign signs in our possession on the steps. As that happened in 1988 (when the other party controlled the Congress), I doubt George W. Bush had anything to do with it.

The fact is, Cindy knew perfectly well she was violating the law – why cover the shirt until she was seated otherwise? The career Capitol Police officers … tried to warn her, but she ignored them. So they arrested her which was, I have not the slightest doubt, precisely what she wanted.

OK. Makes sense, although some history on why sloganeering is banned and why a t-shirt would be considered ‘sloganeering’ woul be appreciated. Learn something every day.

*** Update ***

Two comments would seem to indicate that t-shirts are not conisdered a protest:

However, there is a section which probably does specifically apply (again, I’m not an attorney and cannot claim certain knowledge either way): 40 USC 5104 (e) (2) ( C)

(e) Capitol Grounds and Buildings Security. – …
(2) Violent entry and disorderly conduct. – An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly – …
( C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either House of Congress or a Member, committee, officer, or employee of Congress or either House of Congress;

The hard part (to my understanding) is proving “with intent to disrupt”. “She’s done it in the past” isn’t sufficient, else any bank robber who came near a bank could be arrested. Still, this seems the most applicable to the situation.

And more here from the Pete Stark thread above:

Except it did not violate any law as t-shirts are specifically excluded (.pdf warning):

Believing that the Capitol Police needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a demonstration,” the United States Capitol Police Board issued a regulation that interprets “demonstration activity” to include: parading, picketing, speechmaking, holding vigils, sit-ins, or other expressive conduct that convey[s] a message supporting or opposing a point of view or has the intent, effect or propensity to attract a crowd of onlookers, but does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message.”

More as it trickles in.






284 replies
  1. 1

    Thank you, John. Thank you.

    I agree with you 1000%. I disagree with Sheehan but arresting her for wearing a T-Shirt is completely unaccepatable.

  2. 2
    yet another jeff says:

    Because it’s SOP for people with offensive shirts, or cars with non-approved bumperstickers to get escorted from Bush events.

    See Denver….

  3. 3
    ppGaz says:

    Gutsy post, John. At tip of the ppG cap to you.

  4. 4
    Digital Amish says:

    State of the Union. nuff said.

  5. 5

    Uhh, yea that was suppose to be 100%–not 1000%. I’m not big on exaggerating percentages…

  6. 6
    Ancient Purple says:

    Because Bush believes he is a king, John. And you don’t criticize the imperium. Ever.

    Unfortunately, the Capitol Police reports to the Congress and since the Republicans control both houses, I am sure they had “arrest on sight” orders on any person who had anything remotely challenging of the idiot president.

    Welcome to the Western Hemisphere’s counterpart to Iran.

  7. 7
    ppGaz says:

    Addendum: You can take down my snark on the other Sheehan thread.

  8. 8
    rilkefan says:

    Sure, a good post, but “gutsy”?

  9. 9
    rilkefan says:

    No diet snark either, ppG.

  10. 10
    HH says:

    And leave it to a member of the left in good standing posting in comments to put it all into perspective. That’s right, you see, in Iran, they merely cuff you at protests instead of, you know, torturing and killing you.

  11. 11
    Joey says:

    And leave it to a member of the left in good standing posting in comments to put it all into perspective. That’s right, you see, in Iran, they merely cuff you at protests instead of, you know, torturing and killing you.

    And leave it to a member of the right to be doing the actual revoking of the right to protest.

  12. 12
    Pb says:

    Thanks for the update John, I couldn’t agree more.

    Also, “anti-war slogan” is one of those exaggerations–what it actually said was “2,245 Dead – How Many More??” The former is a fact, the latter a good question, especially when you consider that her son was one of the 2,245.

    She should get a full apology from President Bush on national television, or, barring that, he should resign in shame for failing to “protect and defend the Constitution” from himself. But neither of those will happen, because he has no shame, along with far, far too many other people these days it seems.

  13. 13
    yet another jeff says:

    Look up the word ‘analogy’ HH.

    Otherwise, reasonable folks might think that you’re saying everything is cool as long as somebody is worse.

  14. 14
    DougJ says:

    John, I’m sorry but I’ve got to disagree with you here. Wearing an anti-war tee-shirt to the State of the Union address is a slap in the face to our leaders and to our nation. It’s the kind of thing that makes us look weak and divided to our enemies. The police have every right to stop that kind of thing from happening. Remember, that by stopping her from wearing that tee-shirt they’re protecting your right to blog, watch Joss Wheadon movies, drink Johhny Walker blue, etc. Just keep that in mind next time you mouth off about the men in blue, who are bigger heros than you and your pajama-clad fans will ever be.

  15. 15
    demimondian says:

    No diet snark either

    How is diet snark different from ordinary snark? Do they sweeten it with saccharine instead of real, natural high-fructose corn syrup?

  16. 16
    srv says:

    But arrested for wearing a t-shirt? WTF? What the hell is going on? Someone fill me in on why an anti-war t-shirt is a criminal offense.

    Again, people have been getting filtered out of public events by the Secret Service for years. Just for wearing a T-shirt or holding a sign – and not vocally protesting.

    Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear the Brett Bursey case. He was arrested at Bush speech in 2002 in South Carolina. He wouldn’t leave (he had a shirt and a megaphone) an undefined “restricted area” and go to a designated “Free Speech” zone. The SS had the local cops arrest him. The locals dropped the charges, so:

    Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department—in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.—quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding “entering a restricted area around the President of the United States.” If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5000 fine. Federal magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey’s request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a “petty offense.” Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide.

    And two weeks ago, the Supreme Court f’d all of you up the a** and refused to hear the appeal.

    Not get back into your Free Speech zones and zip it.

  17. 17
    DougJ says:

    That’s right, you see, in Iran, they merely cuff you at protests instead of, you know, torturing and killing you.

    I’m glad someone here understands what’s going on here. The people who are criticizing the police here are the very same people who supported Saddam and who now support the mud mullahs of Iran.

    Freedom isn’t free. You’re all stuck in a pre-911 mindset. No wonder you losers can’t win elections.

    And, John, you’re a fucking RINO. Why don’t you move to Rhode Island and get a gay marriage to Lincoln Chafee already?

  18. 18
    ZTN says:

    John,

    You sound surprised to hear that this happened.

    I’ll never understand how people can still not understand.

  19. 19
    HH says:

    “Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor…”

    A law passed since 2001, right? Because Bush’s America and Iran are JUST ALIKE.

  20. 20
    tbrosz says:

    Does anyone honestly think that Sheehan was just going to sit there quietly in her chair with her anti-war shirt through the whole speech?

    Yeah, they should have left her there. Then when she pulled off whatever crackpot thing she had in mind, stand up screaming, throw herself off the balcony, whatever, everyone would see the new face of the Democratic Party.

  21. 21
    srv says:

    The link from two years ago:

    The administration quarantines dissent

    Where the hell have y’all been?

  22. 22
    DougJ says:

    Srv, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. So the black-robed tyrants wouldn’t save little baby Brett and his anti-American message of hate. You think that has something to do with freedom. You wouldn’t know freedom if it grabbed you, flew you to Egypt, and waterboarded you.

  23. 23
    Louise says:

    Those folks in Denver had the t-shirts on *under* other shirts and never showed them. They had a bumper sticker on their car. And a Bushco guy, pretending to be Secret Service, rustled them out of a speech.

    So Cindy — in the gallery, where the cameras might catch her? That’s akin to having a weapon from this administration’s perspective.

  24. 24
    Ancient Purple says:

    And leave it to a member of the left in good standing posting in comments to put it all into perspective. That’s right, you see, in Iran, they merely cuff you at protests instead of, you know, torturing and killing you.

    That “whooshing” sound you hear going over your head is called “hyperbole.”

    But since “hyperbole” is a four-syllable word, I am sure it confused you.

  25. 25

    The next senator from California…

  26. 26
    yet another jeff says:

    Ah, yes…HH found the small print that states that an analogy is a resemblance in some particulars between things that are identical in all ways.

  27. 27
    DougJ says:

    Does anyone honestly think that Sheehan was just going to sit there quietly in her chair with her anti-war shirt through the whole speech?

    Damn straight, tbrosz! Before 911, a lot of people thought the laws were fine the way they were, where we waited until people committed crimes before we arrested them. But by then it’s too late. Thank God now we’re arresting people who have committed no crime but who may commit crimes later. That’s what the Patriot Act is all about.

  28. 28
    Dodd says:

    Sorry to disappoint the Bush haters, but any and all kinds of sloganeering or demonstrating is strictly forbidden in the Capitol. A few of my friends and I once tried to have take a group picture (after a rally that had a permit ended) with the building in the background and were shooed away by the Capital Police for violating the rule merely by havign signs in our possession on the steps. As that happened in 1988 (when the other party controlled the Congress), I doubt George W. Bush had anything to do with it.

    The fact is, Cindy knew perfectly well she was violating the law – why cover the shirt until she was seated otherwise? The career Capitol Police officers (who deserve better than to be accused of being SS troops for the party Purple dislikes) tried to warn her, but she ignored them. So they arrested her which was, I have not the slightest doubt, precisely what she wanted. She’ll let go of her 15 minutes when we pry it from her cold, dead fingers.

  29. 29
    KC says:

    I think what happened to Cindy Sheehan tonight was wrong, but I have to admit, it’s tough for me to care. I try to avoid her as much as I can, though John makes that task difficult.

  30. 30
    DougJ says:

    That’s akin to having a weapon from this administration’s perspective.

    I’d say it’s worse. Words have consequences. The Newsweek report on the Koran that went down the toilet caused more deaths than the bombs that hit Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do.

  31. 31
    DougJ says:

    Thank you Dodd for setting the freedom-hating Saddam-loving insurgents straight.

    Stick that shit in your lattes, liberal motherfuckers.

  32. 32
    ppGaz says:

    No, it’s just that John takes a lot of crap from us on this subject, so I don’t see the problem with taking it down a notch when he steps up like this.

    All of this stuff is theater. The anti-Sheehan snark, and the outrage we react with. So, in this particular scene, the right thing to do is to put a lid on my snark for now.

  33. 33

    “Wearing an anti-war tee-shirt to the State of the Union address is a slap in the face to our leaders and to our nation. It’s the kind of thing that makes us look weak and divided to our enemies.”

    Feckless, vainglorious twits who get obsessive-compulsive about anything that might possibly, even the teeniest bit, detract from their overblown concept of “the dignity of the office” are seen the world over for what they are. And what they are is small and lacking in faith in our Constitution and traditions of free expression.

    No, I don’t believe anything goes. Wearing a protest T-shirt to the State of the Union address was tacky. It will surely diminish Sheehan in the minds of Democrats and liberals who aren’t on the fringe, along with lots of other people.

    But John is right; it’s not sufficient offense for an arrest. At the most, the officers should’ve admonished her not to create a disturbance so as to call attention to herself and her shirt.

  34. 34
    Ancient Purple says:

    The people who are criticizing the police here are the very same people who supported Saddam and who now support the mud mullahs of Iran.

    Oh, please. I was only a pool boy for Saddam that one summer.

  35. 35
    Perry Como says:

    Never forget “Granny D”.

  36. 36
    Lis Riba says:

    According to the MSNBC story linked above, Sheehan was charged with “unlawful conduct” for wearing the t-shirt.

    Boy, I’ve heard of strictly enforced dress codes, but isn’t that a bit much???

  37. 37
    DougJ says:

    Look, Anderson, we’re at war. It’s war time rules. George Bush is a war president. You think FDR would have put up with this tee-shirt crap? He would have shipped her ass off to one of those japanese internment camps.

  38. 38
    yet another jeff says:

    That’s the thing…this has been happening for years to folks without the name recognition…why is anyone now surprised?

    Hell, during the GOP convention, they arrested almost as many people that happened to be near protesters as they did protesters. The country club set is all about appearances, you know.

  39. 39
    DougJ says:

    And let me add that FDR was only dealing with the Nazis. The Islamofascists make those guys look like boyscouts.

  40. 40
    Ancient Purple says:

    (who deserve better than to be accused of being SS troops for the party Purple dislikes)

    Score! I got someone to bring up the Nazis first.

    I love you, Godwin.

  41. 41
    Joey says:

    (who deserve better than to be accused of being SS troops for the party Purple dislikes)

    Actually, I think the “ss” referred to the Secret Service.

  42. 42
    Cyrus says:

    tbrosz Says:

    Does anyone honestly think that Sheehan was just going to sit there quietly in her chair with her anti-war shirt through the whole speech?

    Yeah, they should have left her there. Then when she pulled off whatever crackpot thing she had in mind, stand up screaming, throw herself off the balcony, whatever, everyone would see the new face of the Democratic Party.

    So you’re saying that because she is, in your subjective opinion, likely to commit a crime, it’s legal and ethical to treat her as if she already has?

    I’m about to start acting like ppGaz.

  43. 43
    yet another jeff says:

    Can Bush declare war with a signing statement since Congress won’t do it? Then there would be no question of his powers. Also, I think the retroactive deadline for FISA warrants increases to 45 days during declared war.

  44. 44

    But you know, here we are going into the wee hours of the morning talking about the heavy-handedness of Bush’s goons when the Prez just gave his big speech.

    She does know how to get people’s attention.

  45. 45

    I swear on my word, once I have enough money I’m leaving this shithole of a country.

    Freedom and Justice for all my FUCKING ASS!

  46. 46
    ppGaz says:

    “SS troops” definitely does not mean “Secret Service”.

    It stood for Schutzstaffel, Hitler’s bodyguard.

  47. 47
    Pb says:

    Dodd,

    She didn’t have a sign, and she wasn’t demonstrating. As for “why cover the shirt” if she didn’t have something to hide–she was wearing a coat, asshole. People do that in winter. Now slink back into your hole, or read up on the first amendment to the Constitution.

  48. 48
    Bruce in Alta California says:

    Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do.

    I do watch what they say and watch what they do and then I place a call to Homeland Security (its on my speed dial). Conservatives need to do our part in conserving the American way.

    That is one of the two things all good Americans do. The other is to root for their favorite sports team.

  49. 49
    Steve says:

    MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

    This case may seem at first blush too inconsequential to find its way into our books, but the issue it presents is of no small constitutional significance.

    Appellant Paul Robert Cohen was convicted in the Los Angeles Municipal Court of violating that part of California Penal Code § 415 which prohibits “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct . . . .” He was given 30 days’ imprisonment. The facts upon which his conviction rests are detailed in the opinion of the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, as follows:

    “On April 26, 1968, the defendant was observed in the Los Angeles County Courthouse in the corridor outside of division 20 of the municipal court wearing a jacket bearing the words ‘Fuck the Draft’ which were plainly visible. There were women and children present in the corridor. The defendant was arrested. The defendant testified that he wore the jacket knowing that the words were on the jacket as a means of informing the public of the depth of his feelings against the Vietnam War and the draft…

    To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance. These are, however, within established limits, in truth necessary side effects of the broader enduring values which the process of open debate permits us to achieve. That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense not a sign of weakness but of strength. We cannot lose sight of the fact that, in what otherwise might seem a trifling and annoying instance of individual distasteful abuse of a privilege, these fundamental societal values are truly implicated. That is why “wholly neutral futilities . . . come under the protection of free speech as fully as do Keats’ poems or Donne’s sermons,” Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 528 (1948) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting), and why “so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability,” Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971)…

    It is, in sum, our judgment that, absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Because that is the only arguably sustainable rationale for the conviction here at issue, the judgment below must be

    Reversed. [Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)]

    Thanks for this post, John.

  50. 50
    Ancient Purple says:

    Actually, I think the “ss” referred to the Secret Service.

    Really? How many times in your life have you heard the Secret Service referred to as the “Secret Service troops”?

  51. 51
    Joey says:

    “SS troops” definitely does not mean “Secret Service”.

    It stood for Schutzstaffel, Hitler’s bodyguard.

    Christ, I know what SS stood for, but in his post, I took “ss” to mean the Secret Service. If I misinterpreted it, ignore my comment. But WW II, particularly Nazi Germany, is one of my specialties. I may be young, but know my history.

  52. 52
    HH says:

    “Also, ‘anti-war slogan’ is one of those exaggerations—what it actually said was ‘2,245 Dead – How Many More??'”

    I’m sure John will apologize as that is clearly a pro-war statement.

  53. 53
    Caleb says:

    Enough about this!

    Getting to more pressing matters…..did you know that Jerome Bettis recieved a key to the city of Detroit? yea, only the second time that Detroit has given a key to a person in the last 26 years.

    That other person?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    wait for it……..
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Saddam Hussein.

    LOL!

    (Go Stillers!) :-)

  54. 54
    Joey says:

    Really? How many times in your life have you heard the Secret Service referred to as the “Secret Service troops”?

    Whoah, here. I’m confused. I thought he was attacking you for saying “ss” in reference to … Oh, fuck it. Ignore everything I’ve said.

  55. 55
    Perry Como says:

    Hell, during the GOP convention, they arrested almost as many people that happened to be near protesters as they did protesters. The country club set is all about appearances, you know.

    If you are innocent you have nothing to fear. “We’re from the government, we’re here to help”, has to be the epitome of conservative politics.

  56. 56
    Sam says:

    Uhh…

    Is DougJ serious? Because if so, then he’s absolutely the man.

  57. 57
    yet another jeff says:

    Bruce:

    My local sports team is superior to your local sports team.

  58. 58
    HH says:

    “That ‘whooshing’ sound you hear going over your head is called ‘hyperbole.'”

    And it’s pretty much all the left knows how to do, and one way in which they shoot themselves in the foot almost daily.

  59. 59
    DougJ says:

    The shirt was a mini-tee that exposed her midriff. ‘Nuff said.

  60. 60
    ppGaz says:

    Okay, but the phrase “SS troops” is not Secret Service. The Secret Service does not have “troops”, they have agents. And the aforementioned phrase is always taken to mean Hitler’s guard.

  61. 61
    Sherard says:

    Bullshit you morons. I’m fucking sorry, but the Capitol rotunda during the State of the Fucking Union Address is absolutely NOT the place for some fucking protest.

    Have some goddam courtesy. Yeah, she ought to be dragged out of there. Some of you people are out of your fucking minds.

  62. 62
    HH says:

    “Sorry to disappoint the Bush haters, but any and all kinds of sloganeering or demonstrating is strictly forbidden in the Capitol.”

    Iran! American Taliban! The Constitution shredded!

  63. 63
    Ancient Purple says:

    Whoah, here. I’m confused. I thought he was attacking you for saying “ss” in reference to … Oh, fuck it. Ignore everything I’ve said.

    Naw. It’s late and most of us have had plenty to drink.

    So, let’s just call it a slight miscommunication and drink some more.

  64. 64
    ZTN says:

    tbrosz Says:

    Yeah, they should have left her there. Then when she pulled off whatever crackpot thing she had in mind, stand up screaming, throw herself off the balcony, whatever, everyone would see the new face of the Democratic Party.
    ———————————————————–

    Sheehan is a fringe element whose fame from a well intentioned demonstration has turned her into a self-important and annoying attention-getter.

    She’s the face of nothing. She doesn’t have party leaders on speed dial like Falwell and Robertson do. And I DO NOT think they are the face of the GOP though some Leftists would like to think so. Her lingering relavance is maintained by a lazy media that gives her headlines instead something important. Fringe elements are easy strawmen for partisan remarks.

  65. 65
    DougJ says:

    Thank God you’re back Sherard. That stuff you posted about the ecofreaks love of wind power yesterday really cracked me up.

    These lefties don’t understand that freedom isn’t free. They’re still stuck in a pre-911 mindset.

  66. 66
    ppGaz says:

    Yeah, she ought to be dragged out of there

    Hmm. A simple “please come along with us, Ma’am” should suffice. What is the “dragging” for, unless she resists?
    Did she resist?

  67. 67
    Joey says:

    Okay, but the phrase “SS troops” is not Secret Service. The Secret Service does not have “troops”, they have agents. And the aforementioned phrase is always taken to mean Hitler’s guard.

    Yeah, again, I know, the Einsatgrupen, Death’s Head, all that. I got two threads confused, and in another thread somebody mentioned “ss” sans the “troops” part in reference to the Secret Service. I was thinking that that comment about the “SS troops for the party Purple doesn’t like” was in reference to that comment in another thread. Sorry for the confusion guys, it was my mistake.

  68. 68
    HH says:

    “She’ll let go of her 15 minutes when we pry it from her cold, dead fingers.”

    And she even fooled John, who usually sees through this crap.

  69. 69
    DougJ says:

    Preach it, HH.

  70. 70
    Joey says:

    So, let’s just call it a slight miscommunication and drink some more.

    Trust me, I wish I could. The vicodin’s better than nothing though :)

  71. 71
    Perry Como says:

    The shirt was a mini-tee that exposed her midriff. ‘Nuff said.

    Don’t get John all hot and bothered like that. I’m surprised Sheehan hasn’t tattooed her stomach with, “THIS IS WHERE DEAD SOLDIERS COME FROM”. In Fraktur.

  72. 72
    Ancient Purple says:

    I’m fucking sorry, but the Capitol rotunda during the State of the Fucking Union Address is absolutely NOT the place for some fucking protest.

    Perhaps we should go back to the 122-year-old tradition of the President writing out his SOTU and mailing it to the Library of Congress where it was conveniently forgotten or ignore.

    I think America would be much better off.

  73. 73
    HH says:

    “She doesn’t have party leaders on speed dial like Falwell and Robertson do.”

    Again, which Republican invited those two to the SOTU?

  74. 74
    ppGaz says:

    Sheehan is a fringe element

    The last time I looked, disgruntlement with the war, and a belief that the government misled the people to get the war, were the majority positions in this country.

  75. 75
    Ancient Purple says:

    Trust me, I wish I could. The vicodin’s better than nothing though :)

    And you didn’t share? You BEAST!

  76. 76
    just says:

    There’s a new provision added to the New Patriot Act in December which would make Cindy Sheehan’s “crime” of wearing the wrong shirt an automatic felony.

    Think about that. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with her politics or not. Arresting people for what they are wearing is a fascist act.

    The true state of the union? You can get arrested for wearing the wrong t-shirt.

  77. 77
    Joey says:

    And you didn’t share? You BEAST!

    Hey, I got two refills on it

  78. 78
    DougJ says:

    Did you just make that up now, Perry? God, that’s funny. So wrong, but so right.

  79. 79
    Perry Como says:

    Perhaps we should go back to the 122-year-old tradition of the President writing out his SOTU and mailing it to the Library of Congress where it was conveniently forgotten or ignore.

    I’m surprised that President Bush even bothers anymore. The Congress only gets in the way of presidenting.

  80. 80
    yet another jeff says:

    Maybe a majority…but I’ve been camping around Crawford in the summer…and it’s a fringe element that will do that for sure.

  81. 81
    Pb says:

    Sherard, HH, etc.

    Say it with me now: wearing a t-shirt does not constitute a ‘protest’. But if it did, I can’t think of a better place for one. Extra credit for anyone who can name all the first amendment rights that Cindy Sheehan could possibly have been legally exercising under the Constitution–I’ve seen her use all five of them in the past.

  82. 82
    DougJ says:

    Are you for real, HH? You sound an awful lot like a parody.

  83. 83
    HH says:

    “she was wearing a coat, asshole. People do that in winter.”

    Yeah that’s the ticket…

  84. 84
    ppGaz says:

    but I’ve been camping around Crawford in the summer

    I think you’d just as well camp in Phoenix in July.

    For fun, I recommend noontime tennis matches, followed by a big 3 pm barbeque.

    Once your body temperature goes over 106, you won’t remember the pain.

  85. 85
    ZTN says:

    HH Says:

    “She doesn’t have party leaders on speed dial like Falwell and Robertson do.”

    Again, which Republican invited those two to the SOTU?

    ——————————————————–

    What’s your point? If you weren’t invited to the SOTU, you’re not noteworthy?? So I guess the Muslim sitting next to Laura Bush must have more influence in America than many public figures who weren’t invited. Uh, NO.

    come on now.

  86. 86
    Steve says:

    Bullshit you morons. I’m fucking sorry, but the Capitol rotunda during the State of the Fucking Union Address is absolutely NOT the place for some fucking protest.

    Have some goddam courtesy. Yeah, she ought to be dragged out of there. Some of you people are out of your fucking minds.

    No kidding. Sheesh. The First Amendment has those “rotunda penumbras,” you know.

  87. 87
    Perry Como says:

    Did you just make that up now, Perry? God, that’s funny. So wrong, but so right.

    Yeah, but I have to credit Family Guy for the inspiration.

  88. 88
    Pb says:

    DougJ,

    I hope HH is a parody. He certainly seems to be innoculated against facts, anyhow.

  89. 89
    DougJ says:

    Look, Homo Hater or whatever HH stands for, stay away from the one line stuff or people really will think you’re me.

  90. 90
    EL says:

    It would be interesting to see what happened if someone had worn a “Support George Bush!” T-shirt. No sloganeering?

  91. 91
    HH says:

    protest (n.) – An individual or collective gesture or display of disapproval.Again, for those of you, many of you apparently, unfamiliar with the Capitol police, you can get booted out of the area for far less than wearing a t-shirt. I’d love to see Cindy’s hot-shot lawyer claim that the shirt wasn’t a protest.

  92. 92
    DougJ says:

    PB, I can’t tell anymore. They all sound like parodies now, even Stormy and Darrell.

  93. 93

    Wow, I honestly didn’t expect the Pro-Fascism people to show up here.

    I guess I was wrong.

  94. 94
    Ancient Purple says:

    Homo Hater or whatever HH stands for

    Every time I see HH post, I always think of Harold Heckuba for some odd reason.

  95. 95
    HH says:

    A Democrat invited Cindy there. If she is truly a “fringe element” (or not, because the polls agree with her – get your stories straight, people), let her fellow Democratic politicians say so.

  96. 96
    DougJ says:

    I’d love to see Cindy’s hot-shot lawyer claim that the shirt wasn’t a protest.

    That’s awfully fishy. I say he’s a parody. He’s a pretty good one. A little too hostile though.

  97. 97
    ppGaz says:

    protest (n.) – An individual or collective gesture or display

    Dragged out?

  98. 98
    Perry Como says:

    Again, for those of you, many of you apparently, unfamiliar with the Capitol police, you can get booted out of the area for far less than wearing a t-shirt. I’d love to see Cindy’s hot-shot lawyer claim that the shirt wasn’t a protest.

    Like I said, don’t forget Granny D. Redress of grievances has no place in the Capitol.

  99. 99
    HH says:

    The Capitol police, for time immemorial, are now practitioners of Fascism, are they? Wow, keep em coming, this is entertaining!

  100. 100
    srv says:

    Okay, but the phrase “SS troops” is not Secret Service. The Secret Service does not have “troops”, they have agents. And the aforementioned phrase is always taken to mean Hitler’s guard.

    Actually, a recent bill formalized the Secret Services Uniformed service. There is debate as to whether-or-not it is intended to expand federal POLICE powers. Note that more and more events like the Super Bowl are being designated Special Security Events, which fall under the Secret Service (even if the president isn’t there).

    I expect the federales to finally make the big leap into in-situ “state” policing powers in the next few years (FBI police powers only extend to where the commerce clause can be argued).

  101. 101
    DougJ says:

    How about scs? What’s her deal? Real or a parody? She’s the one I really can’t figure out.

  102. 102
    yet another jeff says:

    HH does have a dictionary! I noticed you backed off of the analogy bit. ;)

    However, maybe you shouldn’t worry about the lawyers since the likelyhood is high that no charges will be filed and she’s already on her way home. The idea isn’t to charge her with a crime, it’s just to get her out of the way for an hour.

  103. 103
    ZTN says:

    ppGaz Says:

    Sheehan is a fringe element

    The last time I looked, disgruntlement with the war, and a belief that the government misled the people to get the war, were the majority positions in this country.

    ————————————————————

    so obviously true. thank you

    She also has two arms, two legs, thinks the earth is round and believes murder and theft is wrong. I think we all know there’s a little more to the aura of Sheehan than a few core or maninstream beliefs.

    I generally hold these simple, basic positions. But that doesn’t mean that I would go to the lengths and “look-at-me” campaigns that Sheehan has. Let’s respect come nuance here.

  104. 104
    ppGaz says:

    The Capitol police, for time immemorial, are now practitioners of Fascism

    But, you said “drag her out.”

  105. 105
    Ancient Purple says:

    Wow, I honestly didn’t expect the Pro-Fascism people to show up here.

    Never underestimate the power of the people from Stepford.

  106. 106
    yet another jeff says:

    ZTN…she also has a midriff….

  107. 107
    ppGaz says:

    But that doesn’t mean that I would go to the lengths and “look-at-me” campaigns that Sheehan has.

    Really? What’s your idea of “protest?”

    Hostile meditation?

    How about Rosa Parks’ “ooh, look at ME, sittin in whitey’s seat.” Uppity, eh?

  108. 108
    Ancient Purple says:

    How about scs? What’s her deal? Real or a parody? She’s the one I really can’t figure out.

    I think she is just young and idealistic.

    Not to worry. She will be as jaded and hostile as the rest of us in no time.

  109. 109
    Steve says:

    Thank God we’re spreading freedom over there, so we don’t have to spread it over here.

  110. 110
    ppGaz says:

    How about scs? What’s her deal? Real or a parody?

    Alas, very real.

  111. 111
    ppGaz says:

    Thank God we’re spreading freedom over there, so we don’t have to spread it over here.

    BLOD.

  112. 112
    yet another jeff says:

    Very real, but that’s what homeschooling will do.

  113. 113
    Dodd says:

    Lest there be any confusion, I absolutely meant Schutzstaffel. His statement unmistakably accused the career Capitol Policemen who enforced the law of acting as thugs for the GOP:

    Unfortunately, the Capitol Police reports to the Congress and since the Republicans control both houses, I am sure they had “arrest on sight” orders on any person who had anything remotely challenging of the idiot president.

    That is typical of unhinged left wingnut hyperbole, but they deserve better, no matter what one thinks of the President.

    She didn’t have a sign, and she wasn’t demonstrating. As for “why cover the shirt” if she didn’t have something to hide—she was wearing a coat, asshole. People do that in winter. Now slink back into your hole, or read up on the first amendment to the Constitution.

    Who could argue with such a reasoned and civil response? Well, I can for one. I am a lawyer, after all. 40 USC 5104(f)(2) expressly states that “a person may not display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.”

    Cohen v. California stands for the proposition that the First Amendment protects the wearing of a shirt some may find offensive. But there are reams of jurisprudence to the effect that time, place, and manner restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights are perfectly Constitutional. They are much in keeping with ‘electioneering’ laws that limit how one can engage in one’s First Amendment rights within a certain range of a polling place on election day.

    Furthermore, there are provisions whereby one can get a permit to engage in activities otherwise prohibitted by Sec. 5104. Ms. Sheehan did not follow them, therefore her misdemeanor arrest was not only what she wanted, it was both lawful and appropriate.

  114. 114
    ZTN says:

    HH Says:

    A Democrat invited Cindy there. If she is truly a “fringe element” (or not, because the polls agree with her – get your stories straight, people), let her fellow Democratic politicians say so.

    ——————————————————-

    I don’t think the Dems or anyone needs to say that. Her core beliefs aren’t what make her “fringe” in my opinion. It’s her mannerisms overzealous attention-getting.

  115. 115
    ppGaz says:

    Very real, but that’s what homeschooling will do.

    And what is this thing she has about people scanning their pets?

  116. 116
    Joey says:

    Lest there be any confusion, I absolutely meant Schutzstaffel. His statement unmistakably accused the career Capitol Policemen who enforced the law of acting as thugs for the GOP:

    Yeah, sorry again. That entire thing was just caused by a bit of confusion on my part. I’ll blame it on the vicodin. I’m going to go to bed now before I cause any further problems. :)

  117. 117
    Brian says:

    I love the high dudgeon, John, but her getting arrested only helped the Democrats. The SOTU speech is not place for her type of “protest”. Fine to do it outside the Capitol doors, but not inside. Everything has its place. Free Speech is not threatened with this action.

    Get over yourself.

  118. 118
    yet another jeff says:

    Well, if you’re going to scan a pet, you should use a flatbed scanner. Feeders are just cruel.

  119. 119
    yet another jeff says:

    Goddamn, Dodd…the only thing worse than the whittling away of liberty is the droning of law and order types citing us into submission.

  120. 120
    ppGaz says:

    Well, if you’re going to scan a pet, you should use a flatbed scanner. Feeders are just cruel.

    Not if your pet is a flatworm.

  121. 121
    DougJ says:

    This thread is a fricking wingnut magnet.

  122. 122
    Perry Como says:

    “a person may not display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.”

    So much for all of those little ribbons, bracelets and lapel pins.

  123. 123
    ZTN says:

    ppGaz Says:

    But that doesn’t mean that I would go to the lengths and “look-at-me” campaigns that Sheehan has.

    Really? What’s your idea of “protest?”

    Hostile meditation?

    How about Rosa Parks’ “ooh, look at ME, sittin in whitey’s seat.” Uppity, eh?

    —————————————————–

    I think you’re purposely looking for something to disagree with. Like I’ve said elsewhere, I was on her side at the protest at the ranch. But lately, she’s getting annoying to me. I can’t explain it any better. I think she’s trying to be bigger than original and USEFUL role in our debate on the war.

    Think of it as someone telling a few good jokes and then thinking they’re the world’s gift to comedy. 3000 jokes later, people start wishing that person would just cool it a bit. Sorry if that’s a bad analogy.

  124. 124
    yet another jeff says:

    Duly noted, ppGaz.

  125. 125

    I love the high dudgeon, John, but her getting arrested only helped the Democrats. The SOTU speech is not place for her type of “protest”. Fine to do it outside the Capitol doors, but not inside. Everything has its place. Free Speech is not threatened with this action.

    Get over yourself.

    Read that John. Read that shit. That is what people who support Bush believe.

    How can you side with these insane bastards? How can you?!

  126. 126
    Perry Como says:

    Well, if you’re going to scan a pet, you should use a flatbed scanner. Feeders are just cruel.

    beer | nose > keyboard

    You should give warnings.

  127. 127
    Mr Furious says:

    Get back to me after Sheehan is arrested next week at the SuperBowl. Yawn.

    Her whole point is getting arrested. I simply cannot get exorcised over this. I’m willing to buy the “no sloganeering in the Capitol” rule and not attribute this solely to Bush running a no-speech zone.

    It’s gotta be pretty clear to anyone with common sense that you cannot create a disturbance at the State of the Union Address, and if somehow that escapes you, I’m sure it’s well-posted and explained before you enter.

    Then again, I think everybody would have survived just fine even if Sheehan and some other plants started chanting during the address. And I will say, she might have sat quietly, hoping for the stray camera pan to carry her shirt’s message. They jumped the gun by arresting her.

  128. 128
    ppGaz says:

    Think of it as someone telling a few good jokes and then thinking they’re the world’s gift to comedy.

    That may be the most inapt comparison of the day.

    Look, she’s a war protester. WTF? You talk as if you want her to entertain you, or show off her boobs.

    She’s protesting a war ginned up with lies for crissakes.

  129. 129
    ppGaz says:

    Wait a minute. My flatworm proposition was gold!

  130. 130
    rilkefan says:

    “device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.”

    I take it you called the cops to drag those Republicans wearing crosses and elephant pins and flag decals off to jail.

    She wasn’t wearing a cross, she was wearing a fact. It’s bad for our country’s leader to be seen to have to be protected from a fact.

  131. 131
    Dodd says:

    So much for all of those little ribbons, bracelets and lapel pins.

    Congresscritters may do as they please. 5104(e)(3):

    Exemption of government officials.— This subsection [5104] does not prohibit any act performed in the lawful discharge of official duties by—
    (A) a Member of Congress;
    (B) an employee of a Member of Congress;
    ( C) an officer or employee of Congress or a committee of Congress; or
    (D) an officer or employee of either House of Congress or a committee of that House.

    Sec. 5106 allows for prohibitions to be suspended, as they regularly do. Doubtless the ribbons are allowed for non-employees thusly.

    As for droning people into submission, well, you’ve got the wrong guy. I just get irritated at being called an “asshole” when I know the law by someone who clearly hasn’t a clue.

  132. 132
    stickler says:

    What’s the deal with scs? She’s a parody. Guarantee it. Nobody could be that stupid, or that drunk, that consistently.

    Drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

  133. 133
    Ancient Purple says:

    Lest there be any confusion, I absolutely meant Schutzstaffel. His statement unmistakably accused the career Capitol Policemen who enforced the law of acting as thugs for the GOP:

    I am glad you quoted what I said. Perhaps you can highlight the words “Nazi” or “Gestapo” or “SS” or “thug” in my statement. I didn’t use any of those terms. I said that they probably had orders to “arrest on sight” anyone who had anything negative to say about the idiot King.

    I stand by that statement because I seriously doubt that the Capitol Police would have arrested anyone who was wearing a “I (heart) George W. Bush” t-shirt.

  134. 134
    rilkefan says:

    Wait a minute. My flatworm proposition was gold!

    Yuh-huh. What about your flatcat proposition?

  135. 135
    ZTN says:

    ppgaz,

    I apologized in advance for the analogy. I think you get my meaning just fine, though.

    I agree with you, sheehan and most other people on the war.
    That’s not my point or my beef with her. Look, her husband left her because she was getting obsessed with the whole thing. This isn’t about her son anymore. She’s jumping the shark now. She’s turning into a lightning rod. Her move to attack Feinstein and run for the Senate is going a bit too far.

  136. 136
    stickler says:

    This thread is a fricking wingnut magnet.

    I can hear banjos. And the stereo isn’t playing. And I live in Lake Oswego, where the upper crust have banjo players shot for sport.

    Time to refill the glass, I guess.

  137. 137
    Steve says:

    Who could argue with such a reasoned and civil response? Well, I can for one. I am a lawyer, after all. 40 USC 5104(f)(2) expressly states that “a person may not display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.”

    You think a t-shirt is a “flag, banner, or device”?

    You think an anti-war t-shirt is designed “to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement”? If being anti-war qualifies as a “movement” for purposes of this statute, then any opinion whatsoever can be characterized as part of a “movement.”

    You show me someone who was thrown out of the Capitol for wearing a “Support the Troops” pin and I’ll agree this wasn’t content-based discrimination. Until then, you can stop waving your law degree in my face.

  138. 138
    ppGaz says:

    I seriously doubt that the Capitol Police would have arrested anyone who was wearing a “I (heart) George W. Bush” t-shirt.

    I a totally on your side here, as I hope you know, but … the Capitol Police are just the kind of folks who would take you away for wearing an I Heart President Bush shirt. They have no warm and friendly side back there, no sense of humor at all. They run a very tight ship.

  139. 139
    rilkefan says:

    Congresscritters may do as they please.

    Leave them, drag out their spouses and guests.

  140. 140
    ppGaz says:

    PS — I mean, in the gallery. For ordinary visitors just doing the looky-lou thing every day, no. But the gallery isn’t open to the general public.

  141. 141
    srv says:

    40 USC 5104(f)(2) expressly states that “a person may not display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.”

    If Sheehan’s shirt falls under that, what about the lapel pin on GW? Or a tie with donkeys or elephants?

  142. 142
    Dodd says:

    I said that they probably had orders to “arrest on sight” anyone who had anything negative to say about the idiot King.

    Indeed you did. A probability you attributed directly to the control of the chamber by Republicans. The clear implication was that the Capitol Police would take and carry out orders to harass citizens selectively based on political affiliation – an accusation which you cannot back up with the slightest shred of evidence, but have nevertheless just repeated. I think my metaphor was therefore quite apt – or were we are supposed to take that as something other than an imputation that they lack the honour to carry out their duties in the manner they have sworn to?

  143. 143
    srv says:

    (B) an employee of a Member of Congress;

    Oh, man. I got a great idea. One of these dems should hire Cindy!

  144. 144
    ppGaz says:

    Her move to attack Feinstein and run for the Senate is going a bit too far.

    Hmm. Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think she has gone anywhere near “too far.”

  145. 145
    yet another jeff says:

    Yeah, but they’ll take you down for wearing a “I (screwdriver) George W. Bush” t-shirt.

  146. 146
    Ancient Purple says:

    I a totally on your side here, as I hope you know, but … the Capitol Police are just the kind of folks who would take you away for wearing an I Heart President Bush shirt. They have no warm and friendly side back there, no sense of humor at all. They run a very tight ship.

    I will take your word for it, ppG. But, I hope you won’t take offense if I wait to see that in action.

    I am sorry if I sound jaded, but after what this administration and party has done with “free speech zones,” the removal of the “Denver three” and other things, I would not put it past them to have issued orders to clamp down on anything that dare question Bush.

  147. 147
    yet another jeff says:

    ppGaz…yeah, the flatworm bit was excellent. Very nice.

  148. 148
    Pb says:

    Dodd,

    If–in your legal opinion as a lawyer–you think that 40 USC 5104(f)(2) applies here, then you should just give up your law license right now, because it prima facie does not.

  149. 149
    ppGaz says:

    How about Intercourse President Bush?

    Or President Bush Can Vacuum Cleaner My Male Member?

  150. 150
    yet another jeff says:

    Dodd, the probability was based on how people get taken out of Bush speeches for wearing inappropriate shirts over the past couple of years. To be fair, it seems to be a W control freak thing rather than a GOP SOP thing.

  151. 151
    Dodd says:

    You think a t-shirt is a “flag, banner, or device”?

    A device as used here means “an emblematic design” and the word is chosen precisely to cover the various means people might choose to try and get around the statute (i.e., by claiming that she wasn’t holding a sign or banner, just wearing a shirt), so yes, absolutely. And, yeah, sorry, but Sheehan is part of a movement and there’s no denying that her shirt carried a clear, perfectly understood message, one that is a common one among that movement’s adherents.

    You can parse the law all you like, but Sheehan knew she was breaking it. That was the whole point. She wanted to get arrested at the SOTU. It makes sense, really, since that gets her the attention she wants. What doesn’t make sense is why so many apparently intelligent people other than her want her to have it.

  152. 152
    Perry Como says:

    Sec. 5106 allows for prohibitions to be suspended, as they regularly do. Doubtless the ribbons are allowed for non-employees thusly.

    Is this an official notice posted somewhere? I’m genuinely curious about this. You can be detained or arrested on Capitol ground for wearing something non-PC. This is the official policy of the Federal government.

  153. 153
    yet another jeff says:

    ppGaz…I don’t know about whether or not those shirts would cause trouble at a speech…but I really like the idea of the vacuum cleaner emblem.

  154. 154
    Kimmitt says:

    John, I have to join the chorus of those asking what rock you’ve been hiding under for the past five years.

  155. 155
    Pb says:

    Dodd,

    By that reasoning, all of Congress is part of ‘movements’. They’re called ‘parties’ and they have ‘agendas’ that promote shadowy ‘issues’ relating to things like ‘Iraq’ and ‘our troops’. I will henceforth assume you are a parody, because if you aren’t, then you are beyond parody with this tortured line of reasoning.

  156. 156
    rilkefan says:

    The clear implication was that the Capitol Police would take and carry out orders to harass citizens selectively based on political affiliation – an accusation which you cannot back up with the slightest shred of evidence […]

    Sadly, this is the voice of ignorance.

  157. 157

    Look, her husband left her because she was getting obsessed with the whole thing.

    Really? then how do explain that her husband filed for divorce beofre she got involved in the anti-war movement?

    You people fucking diguest me.

  158. 158
    yet another jeff says:

    Dodd…you promised not to drone.

  159. 159
    ZTN says:

    ppGaz Says:

    Her move to attack Feinstein and run for the Senate is going a bit too far.

    Hmm. Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think she has gone anywhere near “too far.”

    ——————————————————

    Fair enough, although I susoect we’d probably agree on more than would disagree.

  160. 160
    Dodd says:

    the probability was based on how people get taken out of Bush speeches for wearing inappropriate shirts over the past couple of years. To be fair, it seems to be a W control freak thing rather than a GOP SOP thing.

    I won’t belabour the fact that protest zones began under his predecessor. I will merely remind you that those have nothing to do with the Capitol Police. I already told you I got rustled off the steps outside for the same thing 19 years ago.

    If—in your legal opinion as a lawyer—you think that 40 USC 5104(f)(2) applies here, then you should just give up your law license right now, because it prima facie does not.

    As a laywer I am, of course, always willing to entertain an argument that the law I’ve cited is inapplicable. But that requires actually making one, which you have failed to do. Simply tossing in a little Latin doesn’t count, so perhaps you’d like to present an argument because the law seems directly on point…?

  161. 161
    ppGaz says:

    but I really like the idea of the vacuum cleaner emblem.

    Me too. And it would be a conversation starter.

    “What does your shirt mean?”

    “President Bush can suck my dick.”

    “Word up!”

    etc

  162. 162
    ZTN says:

    The Disenfranchised Voter Says:

    Look, her husband left her because she was getting obsessed with the whole thing.

    Really? then how do explain that her husband filed for divorce beofre she got involved in the anti-war movement?

    You people fucking diguest me.

    ———————————

    Disgust? sheesh, relax. It’s just what I heard.

  163. 163
    Steve says:

    I already told you I got rustled off the steps outside for the same thing 19 years ago.

    I don’t think you said you got rustled off the steps for wearing a t-shirt with a slogan, nor would I believe you if you did.

    Again, show me a single person escorted out of the Capitol Grounds for wearing a “Support the Troops” pin (clearly a device, clearly part of a movement, right?), if you wish to persist in the frivolous argument that this was not content-based discrimination.

  164. 164
    Dodd says:

    By that reasoning, all of Congress is part of ‘movements’. They’re called ‘parties’ and they have ‘agendas’ that promote shadowy ‘issues’ relating to things like ‘Iraq’ and ‘our troops’. I will henceforth assume you are a parody, because if you aren’t, then you are beyond parody with this tortured line of reasoning.

    I guess you missed the part where I quoted the statute that exempts Congresscritters and their employees?

    Is this an official notice posted somewhere? I’m genuinely curious about this.

    I have no way of knowing, as that was merely a suppostion. But PC has nothing to do with it. Whether the Capitol Police arrest people for de minimus violations like lapel pins is most likely a matter of unwritten policy, just as every other cop in the country will ignore minor offenses not worth the trouble to spend time and paperwork arresting someone for.

    That isn’t the point. The point is that, whether or not someone who clearly has a anti-Bush axe to grind thinks it tortured or not, this law has been in effect for decades and Sheehan knew she was violating it. She was warned (i.e., given a chance to abide by the law and stay), but chose to ignore the warning. She was arrested. I fail to see the problem.

  165. 165
    Lis Riba says:

    It’s the kind of thing that makes us look weak and divided to our enemies.

    In my eyes, being able to handle dissent gracefully is a sign one is… confident in one’s democracy. Inability to cope with those who disagree is a sign of weakness.

    What was it Teddy Roosevelt said? If you’ve got a big stick, you don’t need to swing it around?

  166. 166
    Dodd says:

    I don’t think you said you got rustled off the steps for wearing a t-shirt with a slogan, nor would I believe you if you did.

    I stated quite plainly above that I had a sign. Which amounts to the same thing: Displaying a device intended to attract attention to a party, organization, or movement (though, arguably, signs fall under a different subsection from “devices”). And I was most certainly ushered off the steps; the Capitol Police wouldn’t even let us stand there long enough to take a photo.

    Wold they have done the same for a shirt? I very much doubt that they would have, absent some other form of misbehsaviour. This was shortly after a legally permitted rally and there were thousands of people in t-shirts, some with messages. Inside the SOTU is altogeher different.

  167. 167
    Pb says:

    Dodd,

    I wasn’t kidding the first time–you really are making a ridiculous argument. But against my better judgement–how about this: if you think it applies, then why don’t you state, for the record, specifically what “party, organization, or movement” Cindy Sheehan was bringing “into public notice” with what “flag, banner, or device” that was “designed or adapted” to do so, under the subsection that covers “Parades, Assemblages, and Display of Flags”.

    Also, let us know how broad you think this provision is. Would an American flag count? How about a symbol of a donkey? Or an American flag pin? A shirt that makes reference to a political party? A black armband? A purple heart band-aid? Good thing she didn’t have any of those.

    And then we get to what she actually did have: a factual statement about the number of casualties our military has currently sustained in Iraq, followed by a question inquiring as to the eventual total, printed on her t-shirt. No “flag, banner, or device” found, no “party, organization, or movement” mentioned. Not even a solicitation! As I said originally, ridiculous. And this is all before we even attempt to reconcile any obvious Constitutional issues.

  168. 168
    Steve says:

    It’s a truly silly argument you’re making, but more to the point, having the police hustle someone out for wearing an expressive t-shirt is totally not what America is about. And I knew that well before I went to law school.

  169. 169
    Perry Como says:

    I fail to see the problem.

    Obviously. The problem is it’s a bad law. That’s why I keep bringing up Granny D.

  170. 170

    Disgust? sheesh, relax. It’s just what I heard.

    Well then ZTN, please research the claims you hear befor repeating them. I think we would all appreciate it.

  171. 171

    You guys wann hear something ironic…I was just banned from commenting at America Blog because I strongly suggested they should ink to this post.

    I really couldn’t care less as John Avarivos is a heterophobe…

  172. 172
  173. 173
    srv says:

    I have just applied for a patent on the Burning Flag Lapel Pin. We have the technology.

  174. 174
    Perry Como says:

    I have just applied for a patent on the Burning Flag Lapel Pin. We have the technology.

    I was thinking about an LEDish type lapel pin that can change its message. You walk in with a flag and it switches to the Bill of Rights. Hopefully you can switch it back to the flag before the Capitol police see you.

  175. 175
    Dodd says:

    Well, I did a little research and will attempt to answer your questions. The law was passed in 1946. It was used to effect a total ban on demonstrations on the Capitol grounds for almost 30 years, until an appellate court ruled that they qualified as a public space. After that, only rule relating to time, place, and manner could be applied. A couple/three years ago, another court ruled that the places selected for those were too far away, whittling away still more at the areas the Capitol Police could restrict activity (I didn’t read the case, just a news report, but my impression was that the ruling would have allowed me to take the picture I wanted).

    I cannot find a case in which T-shirts or buttons were at issue. In fact, they seem to have allowed them prior to the more recent ruling I mentioned. That being the case, I have to retract my previous certainty that this was a clear-cut case. If there’s a new rule about them, I haven’t found it, nor have I found any caselaw showing that such a rule has been tested in court.

    It still seems to me that 5104 would apply. But only if that is a longstanding policy, as opposed to an ad hoc decision made on this occasion. No matter what one thinks of the President, I am disinclined to think the Capitol Police would let a political message determine how they enforce the law. Nevertheless, Ms. Sheehan’s arrest is a less obviously correct decision than I thought, given the caselaw newer than my own experience with them.

  176. 176
    Pb says:

    Dodd,

    Thanks for digging into it a bit more; I’m a concerned citizen, but IANAL, or even a paralegal. :)

  177. 177
    Ancient Purple says:

    Thanks for digging into it a bit more;

    Agreed. Thank you for doing the research.

  178. 178
    rilkefan says:

    was just banned from commenting at America Blog because I strongly suggested they should link to this post.

    Seriously? That’s majorly uncool (or however one expresses that sentiment these days). Note I guess that some people are a bit riled lately and not acting as rationally as one would like.

  179. 179

    I appreciate your candid post, Dodd.

    It could go either way, but I want to thank you for being up-front about the situation.

  180. 180

    rilkefan

    nah, rilkefan, I’m dead serious.

    I was quite surprised actually as I was banned for commenting about someone’s free speech.

    It was just too ironic for my tastes…

  181. 181
    rilkefan says:

    Dodd, good on you.

    Note that there was an instance not too long ago where a group of Democratic reps were forced out of the room where they were meeting by some police-like entity at the behest of the Republican leadership.

  182. 182
    Pb says:

    TDV,

    Eh, Americablog looks like yet another crappy low-rent weblog without even threaded comments, who needs ’em anyhow…

    (I’m such a snob. For the record, I think Balloon Juice is probably the only blog I regularly read and comment in now that doesn’t have threaded comments, because somehow I can still follow it decently. Must be the spiffy layout… :))

  183. 183
    rilkefan says:

    TDV, that was an interectional “Seriously?” – I wasn’t doubting you. You’re right about the irony.

    I see that the thread has a nice scrubbed feel to it – one reference out of the blue to John Cole.

    Apropos of nothing, there’s an ad here that features a fetching blonde waitress in a tight white top in the top panel and a (not Kainesque but…) brunette in a uniform in the bottom panel, and something about changing one’s life. I don’t get it.

  184. 184
    Dodd says:

    Having retracted my certainty as to the application of the law in this case, I must add that I don’t see how one can seriously argue that the “anti-war movement” is not, you know, a movement (your “better judgment” is on the fritz if you want to try to argue that it isn’t one). Or that a motif – listing the number of war dead and asking an obviously political question (“How many more?”) – commonly used at rallies and events held by that movement would not qualify as an “emblematic image”? If it isn’t that, what is it? That it states a truth does not change its emblematic status. If the T-shirt is not the political protest it is clearly intended to be, what purpose does it serve?

    Obviously, “device” is an ambiguous word – purposely so, I should think (elsewise, clever people will argue late into the night that while hammers and sickles are emblems, frequently repeated anti-war slogans are just facts, not messages promoting a point of view). I cannot see how one could reasonably limit it only to graphical iconography. As for Constitutional issues, electioneering laws have long been sustained (subject, as here, to limits on the physical area they can encompass). The inside of a lawmaking chamber is analogous to a polling station, and I cannot find any caselaw that concludes that is it unconstitutional to limit protests inside them.

    I’m not an especial fan of Bush (though I don’t despise him as some here so obviously do, to the detriment of the reasoning capabilities), so it rather amuses me to see my comments – which were always quote explcitly about the Capitol Police (career officers who likely as not worked there well before Bush came to town) construed as support for him.

  185. 185
    MI says:

    DougJ, you’re outdoing yourself tonight, my sides are hurting.

    “You wouldn’t know freedom if it grabbed you, flew you to Egypt, and waterboarded you.”

  186. 186

    I was just over there, Disenfranchised–I wanted a look at the offending comments. They didn’t just ban you, they erased you, since I can’t find a mention of you, John or Balloon Juice anywhere, unless I was looking in the wrong thread.

    There was one cryptic comment about “Cole’s blog” that looked like it referred to something that wasn’t there anymore.

  187. 187
    srv says:

    You wouldn’t know freedom if it grabbed you, flew you to Egypt, and waterboarded you

    I don’t intentionally try to bring out his best.

    Suggestion to future Cindy protests: set up a waterboarding tent. Maybe we could get Oprah or someone to try it out. Now that would be must-see TV.

    And then they could goad republicans to come and try it out…

  188. 188
    Pb says:

    Dodd,

    If the T-shirt is not the political protest it is clearly intended to be, what purpose does it serve?

    Oh, I don’t know, perhaps it serves to call attention to the fate of, say, *Cindy Sheehan’s son*, and 2,244 others like him. Anyhow, I’d be much closer to buying your argument if it had something on there that actually linked it to a bona-fide organization. As it stands, at best it’s linked to an issue, and last I checked, those haven’t been purged from Congress yet.

    I’m not an especial fan of Bush (though I don’t despise him as some here so obviously do, to the detriment of the reasoning capabilities)

    Make no mistake, I have many reasons for despising Bush, or more specifically, his actions and their consequences over past six years. The fact that we are even having this discussion is a pretty blatant indication of how far we have fallen.

    Cheers.

  189. 189
    joshua says:

    Steve Says:

    Thank God we’re spreading freedom over there, so we don’t have to spread it over here.

    Ed McMahon Says:

    HEY-OH! You are correct, sir.

  190. 190
    Dodd says:

    And calling attention to those men in the fashion she and her fellows choose to is apolitical? Hardly. Cindy is about as clearly a leader in a movement as one can be. A case such as this tends to underscore the fact that Congress felt it necessary to include the word “movement” in addition to “party” and “organization” – either of which would be better suited to your insistence on “something on there that actually linked it to a bona-fide organization.” That the manner in which they use that number comes without a URL or logo does not change that.

    But suit yourself. As this has now become a pointless semantic argument, I see no purpose in continuing it.

  191. 191
    Perry Como says:

    Thanks for the extra effort Dodd. My objections are not Sheehan specific. The objections aren’t even aimed at the Republicans, they just happen to be the power grabbers in charge. Bad law is bad law and should be called out, especially if selective enforcement is taking place.

    Justin Slotman – I was looking too, just ’cause it would be fun to stir things up. Did they really scrub the comments?

  192. 192
    Pb says:

    Dodd,

    Cindy is about as clearly a leader in a movement as one can be.

    Great. Now all you have to do is show me where it said that *on her shirt*.

    As this has now become a pointless semantic argument

    What was it before? :)

  193. 193
    Pooh says:

    Dodd, thanks for the extra effort, something tells me The Senator would never do that, nor admit error (in fact error led to him becoming The Senator, but I digress)

    I am disinclined to think the Capitol Police would let a political message determine how they enforce the law. Nevertheless, Ms. Sheehan’s arrest is a less obviously correct decision than I thought, given the caselaw newer than my own experience with them.

    I think the bolded quote is incredibly naive. I might go even farther than Steve and say not only is this a content-based restriction, but, as applied, is a viewpoint-based restriction. Further, there is a strong element of prior restraint here, and that bugs me.

    That being said, I agree that it is inappropriate to show up for SOTU wearing a t-shirt, full stop. But we are free to make ourselves look like idiots, very publicly if we desire.

    Aside from the legal issue, I wonder if, tactically this makes sense – obviously, you get bad press if she’s there, but don’t you think you get worse press for duck-walking her out like a Vegas card-counter and “backrooming” her?

  194. 194

    There was one cryptic comment about “Cole’s blog” that looked like it referred to something that wasn’t there anymore.

    YES, Justin!

    See that was a reply to my oringial comment: John just erased the original comment.

    I will never fucking visit there again.

    And I hope none of you will either…

  195. 195
    BadTux says:

    Just out of curiousity, how many people have been tortured and killed in Iran recently for practicing free speech? I checked out Human Rights Watch and they noted numerous instances of people being handcuffed, tried, and jailed for practicing free speech, but what the hey, that happens here in America too — just ask all the protesters who were locked up in warehouse jails during the 2004 Republican convention, or, for that matter, during the 2004 Democratic convention. Or ask Cindy Sheehan, for that matter. I didn’t see any instances after 1988 (the last full year of Ayatollah Khomeini’s rule) of people being killed for practicing free speech in Iran.

    One reason why the Shia in Iraq aren’t upset over Iraq becoming Iran West is because the Iranian government has mellowed out considerably since Ayatollah Khomeini’s day. Oh sure, it’s still basically rule by the ayatollahs, only one step removed from being a dictatorshp. But it’s a kinder, gentler dictatorship, one that gives a considerable amount of freedom to its people compared to the traditional type of oppressive dictatorship.

    In fact, you could consider it the mirror image of Christian Reconstructionism Land, the land that Judge Roy Moore of Alabama and his fellow travelers want(remember, he said that the 10 Commandments should be the fundamental law of the land). In Christ Land you would have considerable economic freedoms and political freedoms, as long as you gave up your religious freedoms and abided by Biblical law. In Christ Land politicians would be vetted by the clergy to make sure they were good Christians (i.e. had the same beliefs as the clergy), but they’d still be selected via the ballot, rather than appointed by the clergy. Same deal in Iran, except there it’s the Koran and Islam, not the Bible and Christianity.

    Luckily we’re not Christ Land — yet. But the point is that using Iran as your epitomy of evil is rather ludicrous, because they are well on the way to being a democracy, and indeed probably will get there sooner than later if Bush doesn’t bomb them back to the stone age first. You might say that we’re on opposite trajectories, and will be crossing paths soon — them on the route to more freedoms, us on the route to fewer.

    – Badtux the Research Penguin (yep, I actually researched the reality of Iran, rather than listen to talking points about it… it’s not 1988 anymore, dudes!).

  196. 196

    I honestly cnnot believe they banned me.

    Fuck them and Fuck John A.

    I’m through with them…

  197. 197
    Richard Bottoms says:

    What the hell is going on? Someone fill me in on why an anti-war t-shirt is a criminal offense.

    I am starting to believe you really are surprised at this new low by the administration.

    One of MoveOn.org’s very first “events” was a contest to produce a 30 second spot about just this kind of abuse going on at Bush rallies during the 2004 campaign.

    Unfortunately they were naive enough not to scrutinize every single ad that made it to the web and you know the rest.

    But then, they’re just Moonbats and not out for doing anything like protecting your right to protest.

    Whoever is in the White House.

  198. 198
    Krusher King says:

    “…shmoozing with every odious scumbag and dictator…”

    My attention to world events over the past year has been spotty at times. Could you elaborate on the identities of the odious scumbag(s) and dictator(s)? See what happens when you miss the evening news for a couple of days? You’re completely out of the loop on this stuff.

  199. 199
    Perry Como says:

    BadTux – you crack me up. And any reference to Christian Reconstructionism makes you good in my book.

    TDV – alot of things to say, but yeah, fuck ’em

  200. 200

    “Look, Anderson, we’re at war. It’s war time rules. George Bush is a war president.”

    Ah yes, the Bush White House’s equivalent of the Swiss Army knife. It’s an all-purpose justification for whatever, an excuse, a bludgeon, corkscrew and security blanket, all rolled into one. What would he ever do without it?

    “These lefties don’t understand that freedom isn’t free. They’re still stuck in a pre-911 mindset.

    Passing out gratuitous, baseless insults is bad enough. When you can’t even think up your own, you’re pathetic.

  201. 201
    Perry Como says:

    SheehanPr0n

    Don’t get too excited.

  202. 202

    LOL!

    I lost my Trusted User Status…

    Probably because I said “Fuck You” to Markos…

    Hahahahahahahh.

  203. 203

    Just to clarify:

    I only said Fuck You to him because he accused me of lying…

  204. 204
  205. 205
    Perry Como says:

    Cindy Sheehan’s side of the story is up at Daily Kos now.

    Like we’d ever believe an America-hater like Sheehan.

  206. 206
    just says:

    The State of the Union?

    You can get arrested for wearing a t-shirt.

    A pretty sorry state of affairs.

  207. 207

    Why hasn’t that woman been executed yet? Bush is losing his nerve.

  208. 208
    Steve J. says:

    Wearing an anti-war tee-shirt to the State of the Union address is a slap in the face to our leaders and to our nation.

    About 60% think the Iraq war is a bad mistake and that Fredo is running it poorly.

  209. 209
    OCSteve says:

    I just knew this thread would be here waiting this morning, even could have guessed at half the posts, certainly the overall tone and content.

    Thanks for not disappointing!

  210. 210

    I’d be willing to bet that you wouldn’t have guessed that Cole would side with Sheehan, OC…

  211. 211
    PMOB says:

    DougJ says; “I’m glad someone here understands what’s going on here. The people who are criticizing the police here are the very same people who supported Saddam and who now support the mud mullahs of Iran.”

    “Freedom isn’t free. You’re all stuck in a pre-911 mindset. No wonder you losers can’t win elections.”

    “And, John, you’re a fucking RINO. Why don’t you move to Rhode Island and get a gay marriage to Lincoln Chafee already?”

    DougJ has perfected the repugs talking points. His anger and fear towards his fellow Americans is palpable. But this is what this President has done to many, many Americans. It’s sad really to know so many Americans live in fear not from any terroists, but from their own fellow countrymen. Bush and his cabal have tapped into the psyche of the DougJ’s and pulled everything bad to fuel them. It’s a total brainwash on these poor individuals. Forgive them for they do not have their own thoughts. They know not what they say or do because they have bought into the propaganda and adopted the mantra of hate.

  212. 212
    Mr. Moderate says:

    a. Cindy is a media attention whore, so no big shock.
    b. They have been kicking out people Bush gatherings for having the wrong bumper sticker on your car, again no big shock.
    c. Bush apologists on this board set our expected level of rights to be Iran and terrorist states by bringing up an Iranian decapitation method of dealing with a Sheehan, again no big shock.
    d. Bush apologists on this board also state that Islamofascists are much more dangerous than Nazi Germany, completely ignoring the historical threat to the world economy and stability that the Axis powers posed, again no big shock.

    Nothing shocking, but really sad. Our state of mind has devolved to the point that we hold up the actions of former totalitarian regimes and modern fundamentalist theocracies as the threshold for which our actions should be judged. Call me crazy, I’d like to think we are better than these medieval throwbacks are. Us throwing people out of public events for peacefully wearing the wrong t-shirt or having the wrong bumper sticker isn’t making us any safer from the Islamofascists.

  213. 213
    chef says:

    A member of Congress could rape a nun on the Capitol steps and the CHill cops wouldn’t move a digit, but decorom for the President by all means!

    Gore Vidal’s grandfather, a Senator from Oklahoma, used to walk into the Rotunda barefoot, but the boy Emperor cannot be allowed to behold a T-shirt.

    The Pope should be persuaded to make Bush a Cardinal. That way Frist and Hastert would only need to kiss his ring.

  214. 214
    Mr. Moderate says:

    By the way, according to her own story, “I wore the shirt to make a statement.” How about this? How about you go to the speech in the proper attire (have you ever seen a T-Shirt at the State of the Union) and blend with the crowd like the other hundreds of people you are sitting around. While I don’t think she should have been arrested, I do think it was appropriate for her to be escorted out of the room.

  215. 215

    […] From the comments: […]

  216. 216
    bvac says:

    I honestly don’t mean to be “disruptive” here, so take this down at will.

  217. 217
    skip says:

    “BULLSHIT you MORONS. I’m FUCKING sorry, but the Capitol rotunda during the State of the FUCKING Union Address is absolutely NOT the place for some FUCKING protest. Have some GODDAMN courtesy. Yeah, she ought to be dragged out of there. Some of you people are out of your FUCKING minds.”

    Oh by all means let’s have more of the kind of “courtesy” manifest in the tone of your post.

  218. 218
    neil says:

    The fact is, Cindy knew perfectly well she was violating the law – why cover the shirt until she was seated otherwise?

    Only in the Bush years could it be sinister for left-wing activists to WEAR A COAT DURING THE WINTER. Sheesh.

    Why didn’t they have her cover it up rather than escorting her out?

  219. 219
    neil says:

    Also… if she had wanted to get arrested, don’t you think she would’ve waited until after the cameras were rolling to do it? Surely that would have gotten a lot more attention.

  220. 220
    bvac says:

    Ok, so here’s a direct link instead

    http://img99.imageshack.us/img.....ad27ru.jpg

  221. 221
    DougJ says:

    DougJ has perfected the repugs talking points. His anger and fear towards his fellow Americans is palpable. But this is what this President has done to many, many Americans. It’s sad really to know so many Americans live in fear not from any terroists, but from their own fellow countrymen. Bush and his cabal have tapped into the psyche of the DougJ’s and pulled everything bad to fuel them. It’s a total brainwash on these poor individuals. Forgive them for they do not have their own thoughts. They know not what they say or do because they have bought into the propaganda and adopted the mantra of hate.

    This never gets old.

  222. 222
    Pb says:

    skip,

    One last time: wearing a t-shirt is not a FUCKING protest. But even if it were a FUCKING protest, it’d be FUCKING protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT. Moron.

  223. 223
    Kirk Spencer says:

    Dodd, (Yes, I’m late to the party, sorry),

    I see you’ve become less certain of the applicability of the law you cited in Sheehan’s case. Good, because I think they’d be stretching that one for her (even though it specifically applied to you) due to the lead of the section:
    “(f) Parades, Assemblages, and Display of Flags.”

    However, there is a section which probably does specifically apply (again, I’m not an attorney and cannot claim certain knowledge either way): 40 USC 5104 (e) (2) ( C)

    (e) Capitol Grounds and Buildings Security. –

    (2) Violent entry and disorderly conduct. – An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly –

    ( C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either House of Congress or a Member, committee, officer, or employee of Congress or either House of Congress;

    The hard part (to my understanding) is proving “with intent to disrupt”. “She’s done it in the past” isn’t sufficient, else any bank robber who came near a bank could be arrested. Still, this seems the most applicable to the situation.

  224. 224

    […] Many others have expressed opinions on this subject including the eminently sensible, the partisan left, and the partisan right. […]

  225. 225
    yet another jeff says:

    Bush and his cabal have tapped into the psyche of the DougJ’s and pulled everything bad to fuel them. It’s a total brainwash on these poor individuals. Forgive them for they do not have their own thoughts. They know not what they say or do because they have bought into the propaganda and adopted the mantra of hate.

    That was excellent. Bush is operating from the psyche of DougJ? We should be so lucky.

  226. 226
    Merely wearing a T-shirt says:

    http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/97-1337c.pdf
    http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/dc/015157.html%20
    Unlike the grounds surrounding the Capitol, which historically have been the site of numerous demonstrations, there has been a ban on demonstrations inside the Capitol since 1946 when Congress decreed: “It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons willfully and knowingly — .
    . . to parade, demonstrate, or picket within any of the Capitol Buildings.” 40 U.S.C. § 193f(b)(7). The United States Capitol Police are responsible for enforcing this ban. 40 U.S.C. § 212a. Believing that the Capitol Police needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a “demonstration,” the United States Capitol Police Board issued a regulation that interprets “demonstration activity” to include:
    parading, picketing, speechmaking, holding vigils, sit-ins, or other expressive conduct that convey[s] a message supporting or opposing a point of view or has the intent, effect or propensity to attract a crowd of onlookers, but does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message.
    Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds § 158; see Declaration of Inspector Christopher M. McGaffin (“McGaffin Decl.”) ¶ 3.1

  227. 227
    steve davis says:

    Reminds me of an old story about Nimzovitch. He complained during a chess game that his opponent was smoking. His opponent was asked to stop. Half-an-hour later, Nimzovitch approached the arbiter again. “But Aron, your opponent is no longer smoking!” the arbiter said. “I know,” Nimzovitch replied, “but he looks like he wants to!”

    So let’s give three cheers to the president, a man so powerful, and who so thoroughly fills the dignity of the office, that he now has people arrested for looking like they might protest.

  228. 228
    neil says:

    Here’s Cindy’s site of the story: on dailykos, where else

  229. 229
    skip says:

    “One last time: wearing a t-shirt is not a FUCKING protest. But even if it were a FUCKING protest, it’d be FUCKING protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT. Moron.”

    Tip: Salt Peter was once said to help in cases like this.

    But then my mother says that— when I was four— I used to smile a lot every time I said “poo.”

  230. 230
    skip says:

    “One last time: wearing a t-shirt is not a FUCKING protest. But even if it were a FUCKING protest, it’d be FUCKING protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT. Moron.”

    Tip: Salt Peter was once said to help in cases like this.

    But then my mother says that— when I was four— I used to smile a lot every time I said “poo.”

  231. 231
    Buddy says:

    Seems like it was equally applied, and not only to Sheehan, as the wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores (Florida) was also asked to leave for a T-Shirt which read “Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom.”

    http://www.local6.com/news/6647094/detail.html

  232. 232
    S Katz says:

    ‘Equally applied’, gotta love that.
    That’s the defense, eh?

    Beautiful.

    ——

    As posted above, why stop with T-shirts?
    How about those little yellow and blue ribbons that some in Congress wear, that say “Support our troops” – do those count, too?

    What a disgusting display of supression of our Constitutional Rights in the House of the People of the United States.

    For shame.
    Americans – all of us – need to hang our heads in shame over the supression of free speech.

  233. 233
    Buddy says:

    Congress is exempt from those rules, is why. It’s their house they can do whatever they like, I suppose.

  234. 234
    Buddy says:

    Exemption of government officials. – This subsection does not prohibit any act performed in the lawful discharge of official duties by –
    A) a Member of Congress;
    B) an employee of a Member of Congress;
    C) an officer or employee of Congress or a committee of Congress; or
    D) an officer or employee of either House of Congress or a committee of that House.

  235. 235
    neil says:

    Buddy, there is a big, big difference between being asked to leave and being hauled off, handcuffed and arrested. If Sheehan was just asked to leave, there would be no controversy at all. Instead, all the evidence shows that she was being unduly persecuted for her politics.

    Although she would probably still have a recommended diary on DailyKos about it.

  236. 236
    Buddy says:

    Well we have differing stories going on both sides, so we don’t really know yet.

    But, honestly, I don’t think it matters. She hid the shirt, she got caught while unhiding it, she got removed, as she should have (and anyone else caught doing it no matter what Party). I suspect the congresscritters wife got a little more ‘respect’ because of who she was, not that it’s ‘right’. Plus evidently she walked in like that, she didn’t conceal it. Don’t wanna get arrested? Don’t try and pull a stupid PR stunt like this at SOTU.

  237. 237
    willers says:

    Boy, does DougJ have some issues or what? I thought he was snarking, but wow… talk about koolaid.

    I am proud that this country has such an honorable history of free speech and the ability to express dissent.

    I am ashamed that this current regime has decided to play fast and loose with the law, enforcing them only when it suits their purposes, and lying to America when it gets their “missions accomplished”.

    We are not at war. Congress (remember them?) never declared war, and they are the only ones who can legally do so. Bush is not only lying about things like domestic spying and torture, he is lying about being a commander-in-chief during a war, his justification for breaking the laws of this great land. We are not at war — war-time powers are invalid. Period.

    Thank you so much for posting this information, especially the quote about how shirts are specifically ALLOWED. I appreciate having the source material posted.

  238. 238
    neil says:

    Case in point.

    [Beverly Young] tells the St. Petersburg Times she was sitting about six rows from Laura Bush when she was asked to leave, and that she then argued with police in the hallway. She says they told her they considered her shirt a “protest,” and that she responded, “Then you are an idiot.” And she says they told her she was being treated the same as Sheehan.

    AP

    Sheehan was arrested around 8:30 p.m. on charges of unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail.

    She was handcuffed and held in the Capitol building until she was driven to the Capitol Police headquarters for booking. According to her blog, she was released about four hours after being arrested.

    CNN

  239. 239
    Pooh says:

    Doug, I have someone from Fish&Game on the line for you. Something about bag limits?

  240. 240
    DougJ says:

    Boy, does DougJ have some issues or what? I thought he was snarking

    I did too, but after I read some of my recent comments I realized that I’m being serious.

  241. 241
    jreed says:

    Sheehan’s arrest was planned and calculated as soon as the neocons new she was going to attend the speech. They are dying to test their new supreme court guy and their new majority. They want a civil suit to go all the way up so they can see if Bush is gonna be protected when articles of impeachment are filed against him next November when the republicans lose one or both of the houses. That’s why he’s also crying for the line-item veto, of all things.

  242. 242
    LyndaW says:

    I have read different opinions here as to why it was inappropriate (or illegal) for Sheehan to wear the t-shirt in the House gallery and taking all comments into consideration, I conclude that we Americans have become “too” politically correct. No politician should ever be isolated from his detractors. I say “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” I have very little respect for President Bush. Instead of facing his detractors head-on, he has isolated himself and failed to stand up and take responsibility for his and his administration’s actions in many cases. He acts like a little boy who got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, hiding behind his mother’s apron strings. I will never understand what the majority of people in this country were thinking when they re-elected him for a second term. I will be glad when I no longer have to look at him or hear his voice. And I have never said that about any politician in the 55 years that I have been on this planet. Every American has a right to be heard and to express themselves at any forum where a politician is present. If we no longer have this right, then I say let’s have another “tea party”.

  243. 243
    Phil says:

    My more-than-a-little-cynical self can’t help but believe that Sheehan got exactly what she was out for, but doesn’t deserve–attention. No doubt that if she hadn’t been ejected for her t-shirt, her behavior would have escalated until she made a spectacle of herself. That’s what she’s there for. To sit quietly (and therefore unnoticed) would do nothing to further her cause, which is, at this point, to tack a few more minutes onto her long-expired 15. Next week, we’ll hear about her knickers being in a bunch because she tried to wear hotpants into the Vatican, and she’ll be defended by the same people who are defending her now. Not everything is a matter of free speech, kids. Sometime it’s just someone’s judgement of proper protocol. The other woman, wearing a pro-troop t-shirt was just as wrong, and is just as silly for being outraged.

  244. 244
    Vickie says:

    I agree that there has to be some decorum in conducting government business but I do believe officials were looking for any excuse to expel the likes of Cindy Sheehan.

    Keep in mind that every day on both floors of Congress, members wear little flag pins in their lapels. Why? Do they fear that the voters will think they are not loyal Americans and there pins will prove their loyalty? Or is the wearing of a flag pin a very real political statement that is code for ” Love it or leave it scumbag.” I would have to say the latter, and in my opinion, this breaks the rule that states no messages of support for or against will be allowed in the chambers. I mean if we want to be truly honest here, freedom of speech appears to be OK who for those who have the “right” speech.

  245. 245
    Buddy says:

    Vickie, did you miss that a US senator’s wife was also ejected for wearing a T-Shirt?

  246. 246
    mark says:

    To HH, In Iraq they do not kill nor torture you for political for protesting, they may arrest you and give you a trial but death is not one of the options for punishment. You must be one of thoser right wingers who followes what ever anyone tells you without research. And yes some of these post here are pretty far flung on the left also, Bush ordering arrests , LOL!! But to dissiminate false info like that is shameless as the Bush bashers comments.

  247. 247
    david brown says:

    to the so called presdient you stole the election in2000 with your bros help then your friend bob THE THEIF taft helped you out in 2004.mr pres. i served our cournty for 6 years how long did you serve? there is a thing cakked the constitution but i guess it does not apply to you.well Cindy should be able to wear whatever she wants when she wants and say what she wants that is why i served to give her those rights i might not agree with her 100% but it is her right.i forget you are the man who likes BLOOD for OILgood trade right mr bush.

  248. 248
    Linda says:

    Gee, sounds like we aren’t reading and commenting on the whole story as usual. A woman was also removed for wearing a t-shirt that says “I support our troops” Cindy got what she was after, ATTENTION. She is a sick woman using her son for her own gains. She could have simply conformed to the rules that have existed for a long time and have NOTHING to do with Bush! Instead, she wanted to get noticed, again….. I sincerely hopes she follows thru with her statement and finds some other country to live in.

  249. 249
    TamM says:

    Cindy is doing nothing but standing up for what she believes in. That is her right for living in this Country. My son leaves for Iraq on February 16 and I support him and every man and woman over there……but our reasoning for being there has changed since the beginning of this war and so have peoples views. I too hold hold Bush totally responsible should ANYTHING happen to my son while in Iraq. I already hold him responsible for our fallen soldiers. Its total murder, the lives lost over there. WHAT don’t people understand…..there were NO weapons of mass distruction. In our Country the invasion from one Country to another Country for no reason would be considered war crimes. The man we were after was never caught and won’t be because we aren’t even looking for him. So unless he walks right into the troops hands…..the evil and threat will still be there.

  250. 250
    david brown says:

    any one who thinks bush and chaney are doing a fine job is retarded hell in5 years he has destroed our ecomny where i live there are no jobs gm is going out delphi is shutting down so bush can out sorce job to some fucking towel head they like him because he well make sure they get a loan for there gas ststion or mini martwe have 3 dollar a gallon gas bush dont give a shit he can pay it he has money i mean dirty bin laden family money.we were supposed to be looking for bin laden and end up in iraq we have 150,ooo troops in irqa and15,000 in afganistain what the fuck is wrong with that picture. then the dumb ass does not give the tropps proper body armor and put them in fucking hum vees in stead of tanks the deaths and mamming of our young men and women are sensless bush sure has fucked our COUNTRY upso i say GEORGE W BUSH sucks dicks and CHENY does to

  251. 251
    Rob says:

    There is a time and a place for everything. It seems some don’t know when or where . . .

    There have been many who have died for our country as well as those who have died fighting for other countries. There are only a few surviving family who need public acclaim. I’d bet her son would be emberrassed.

  252. 252
    Bill Foster says:

    Rules are Rules Respect is respect.

    Both ladies new or should have known the rules, but beyond that it is an issue of respect. Respect for the office of the President,the chamber in which the event took place and to the person who invited them. These two showed neither.

    Part of the problem with this country today is that everyone wants to relax the need of respect, unless I’m the one who wants it.

  253. 253
    Garry says:

    I defend everyones right to protest, as a matter of fact I spent 23 years in the US Army defending that right. But your out of line on this one. If there is a law saying you can’t do it then you can’t do it. I notice you didn’t say or note in your article that Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops – Defending Our Freedom.” Had only one been removed and not the other I would be in full support of your article but since both were removed I don’t have a problem with what they did.

  254. 254
    ABOTT says:

    BUSH # 1!!! GO U S A !!!

  255. 255

    “Bush and his cabal have tapped into the psyche of the DougJ’s and pulled everything bad to fuel them. It’s a total brainwash on these poor individuals.”

    One really important measure of a candidate for public office, especially high office, too often overlooked by most folks is the nature of his or her appeal to others.

    Some appeal to the better angels of our nature — our strengths, wisdom, ideals and aspirations.

    Others seek to play on darker motives — our fears, resentments, prejudices, greed and desire to to show the world we’re great where, deep inside, we feel we’re puny.

    I don’t see Bush brainwashing people so much as I see Karl Rove’s remarkable understanding of who among Americans has a dark side politically useful to his ends, and his ability to bring that out, manipulate it, energize it and turn it into opinions, money and votes.

  256. 256
    Dani says:

    Everyone complains about Bush, but he is not a one-man-army. There are alot of people who make decisions along with him, get off his back. Would you dress inappropriately to go to dinner, the theater or a wedding? Then why wear a T-shirt to a State of the Union address at our Nation’s capitol? Shame on Cindy, not only for her T-shirt but for her immaturity of wanting constant reconigtion. Her son should be praised, NOT her.

  257. 257
    scott says:

    did I see george dubya standing just across the canadian border during viet nam while i was getting my ass shot off fighting for democracy and rights of freedom for everyone?
    How can a draft dodger send men to war or expect to know what it is all about? how can he change constitutional rights at will to fit his needs. i say cindy still had a right of free speech whether in or out of a congressional meeting.

  258. 258
    rilkefan says:

    TDV, got a link to the Kos dustup?

  259. 259
    Geoff says:

    Cindy Sheehan has simply followed the old saying..”Any publicity is good publicity”…I admire her courage and tenacity and highly respect her opinion, as well as her right to express her belief as any other United States Citizen…especially considering the sacrifice she has endured.

  260. 260
    Fabrizio says:

    STOP BEING SHEEP!

    I am neither a supporter nor detractor of Cindy Sheehan. I have, as most of the country has, watched her saga unfurl before me on TV. But… I think what is going on here, and what is the most inescapable thing, is that Bush and the Machine that is the GOP, has done it again. How many of you are talking about the issues? How many of you are UPSET, as I AM, (John Cole-Mr. WTF?) that Exxon-Mobile, has reported 36.4 BILLION Dollars PROFIT! And NOBODY DOES ANYTHING ABOUT IT. You Pay anywhere from 2.00 to 4.00 Dollars per Gallon of gasoline wherever it is you live, and like cows to slaughter, we just moo and move-along.
    AYFKM!
    36 BILLION DOLLARS PROFFIT?
    Man, stand up America, tell these money grubbing SOB’s that we want our MONEY BACK! We want .75 Cents per gallon prices for the next 3 years (NO POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE) to make up for the thievery that has gone on this past year.
    Stand up AMERICA!
    For Pete-sake!
    STOP BEING SHEEP!
    STOP BEING LAMBS TO THE SLAUGHTER!
    I remember a segment Tom Brokaw used to do, called the Fleecing of America. Well folks, how do you like 2.50 per gallon.
    ‘A little revolution, every now and then, is a good thing.’
    Revolt against your local gas company that inexplicably has 3 different types of charges to get the gas to you, the Electric company that copied that notion, YOUR COMCAST CABLE COMPANY that has been steeling from you for years!

    Stop bending over.
    Forget Cindy Sheehan, she’s making her voice heard. Start remembering that you too have a voice. You too need to be heard about the ridiculous prices you pay JUST TO HEAT YOUR HOME! Remeber that the only people the ECONOMY truly affects are the FILTHY RICH. It affects them in the sense of how much MORE MONEY they can take. And guess who’s they’re taking it from?
    YOU!

    Ba-ba black sheep.

  261. 261
    Jon Sabon says:

    I think that the arrest was TOTALLY unexecptable and that she had a right to do this. The people who threw her out should be ARRESTED, especially after assaulting her without letting her have the oppurtunity to leave on her own will, and she was NOT a security threat, was the caught with any weapons? NO. She had the right to be there, and to wear what ever she wanted. Shame on the President as well.

  262. 262
    Dutchman79 says:

    Well, I must say that Ms. Sheehan has the right to protest and the right to say what is on her mind. She also has the right to an attorney. The law enforcement officials at the State of the Union Speech had the duty to enforce the rules and in their interpretation of the rules, they found Ms Sheehan to be in violation. They didn’t single her out for any reason other than she was in violation of the rules. It is interesting to note that they also escorted a person out for wearing a “Support Out Troops” shirt. I spent over 20 years serving in the military and I have seen the horrors of war first hand. Nobody wants war, particularly soldiers, but sometimes it is the only course of action. Where would the world be today if we hadn’t faught the likes of Hitler and Tojo? We have the rights we enjoy today because there are people willing to fight and die for them. I fully support Ms. Sheehan’s right to free speech, however, free speech doesn’t mean that one can say whatever one wants. There comes a point were protest and dissent becomes sedition and/or treason. Once this point is reached, the authorities must enforce laws in order to protect the nation. Has Ms Sheehan crossed the line? She’s come close, but some of her supporters have clearly crossed over. Bottomline is that Ms. Sheehan has the right to say what she wants, but she shouldn’t scream foul when she suffers the consequences of her actions when those actions are against the law. To promote uncontrolled freedom is to promote anarchism.

  263. 263
    E. Coombes says:

    Why are the American People of this country becoming so blind to the freedoms we are rapidly loosing daily?
    Everyone placed our freeedoms in the hands of our leader after 911 begging him to protect us. We gave him the smoking gun he has been so eager to weild. Never giving thought to the price it would cost us, and a dear price it has been. We went to war with Afghanistan over “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Where are those Weapons? They are our leaders dream of a pie in the sky. The one question everyone fails to ask about this war is… How did Iraq get tangled up into this WMD SCAM? Our war was with Afghanistan Not Iraq. Government politics twisted to fit their own desires. I gree with someones earlier statement “Blood for Oil” How can he change our constitutional rights to fit his own needs Scott? Easy its called political POWER.
    For all the morons who are so ready to point out that a powerful politicians wife was also arrested. Lets look at the Big picture not just the small picture! Don’t patronize those of us who see the conspiracy behind the whole picture. Lets give benefit of the doubt, after all, isn’t this how our justice system works in this country? We are to be considered innocent until proven guilty? Maybe Cindy went there for attention maybe she did not? That isn’t the issue at hand. What is at hand is the constant errosian of our freedoms, our constitution, by the powers that be.Our freedoms of speach are no longer a freedom unless the majority agrees with whatis being said,or it is considred to be said in a politicaly correct manner which doesnt offend those of the powers that be. Our media is sensored, our freedoms are well on their way to becoming sensored to a degree beyond most people’s wildest conception. And the american public just sits there watching it pass us by into oblivion. Doing nothing, Just watching. Isn’t there something wrong with that picture? Why are we at war if it isnt to protect our freedoms? That is the question the powers of this country need to answer for us the people. Have any of you given thought to the reason the powerful politicians wife may have been arrested also? Could it have been to justify Cindy’s arrest? Food for thought. After all if Cindy goes to court to say look Ive been wrongly accuse I’ve been singled out because of my politics. Their rebuttle will be look we also arrested a powerful politicians wife so that isn’t true. Come on lets get realistic or have we all reverted back to our second childhood. Those of you who believe anything less must seriously belive anything you are told without giving thought to what you have been told. In that case you are the ones who need your freedoms taken away because you don’t give a damn about your freedoms in the first place.
    You are bound by your own velvet handcuffs.

  264. 264
    E. Coombes says:

    Those of us who are the most responsible for the infringements of our freedosm are those of us who who sit in idle watching. Everyone is ready to point a finger but no one is willing to put their own a** on the firing line. Saddest thing… are those who are willing to put their a** on the firing line are the ones we enjoy persecuting the most. The ones fighting are the ones paying our price. For those who complain and persecute those fighting for our rights and theirs. You remind me of a childs story book “The Little Red Hen” No one was willing to help her plant her wheat, tend her wheat, harvest her wheat, or bake her wheat but once all the hard work was done. EVERYONE was willing to help her eat her Wheat! We americans as a whole, have become lazy, and comfortable in our velevet handcuffs. If it isn’t at our front door knocking… we dont know, we dont care, and the last thing we want to do is be bothered with answering that door. Now that is truly sad……… Cindy has the right to her freedom of speach as well as all of us. Just because she was wearing a t-shirt doesnt mean she was protesting any more then the politician’s wife… But hey if you arrest them both, then you take the attention away from the situation and you justify your actions by doing what they did. Do you honestly think the S.S. didnt know what they were doing? If Not then you seriously need a reality check…. Go out side and stand in the middle of an intersection during rush hour… Besides… I’m sure the politician’s wife will get a slap on the wrist EVERYONE knows the politicians wife will get the better end of the deal. Cindy is the one who is expendable, she will be the one persecuted the most.

  265. 265
    Rationalist says:

    Next week, we’ll hear about her knickers being in a bunch because she tried to wear hotpants into the Vatican, and she’ll be defended by the same people who are defending her now. Not everything is a matter of free speech, kids.

    The Vatican is a dictatorship, America is a democracy.

  266. 266
    Rationalist says:

    Had only one been removed and not the other I would be in full support of your article but since both were removed I don’t have a problem with what they did.

    I question your logic. If *everyone’s* rights are taken away by authority, it is okay?

    It is news to me that we fought the American Revolution *not* to guarantee the freedom of all, but just to make sure that everyone’s right of expression was equally repressed. Very odd perspective.

    Truly, “Conservative American” doesn’t mean squat anymore.

  267. 267
    Podium says:

    That’s one heckuva parlour game talent tbroz has – reading people’s minds and guessing their intent.

    tbrosz Says:
    Does anyone honestly think that Sheehan was just going to sit there quietly in her chair with her anti-war shirt through the whole speech?

    Yeah, they should have left her there. Then when she pulled off whatever crackpot thing she had in mind, stand up screaming, throw herself off the balcony, whatever, everyone would see the new face of the Democratic Party.

    By this reckoning, every time that one of the “Brooks Brothers Rioters” opens his mouth in a government building, he should be arrested for being “disruptive.”

    But to let tbroz’ libel of Cindy Sheehan, as a “screaming crackpot” who would “throw herself off the balcony” stand unchallenged, marginalizes all Americans who demand that this President and our government obey the law.

    What separates separated America from totalitarian fascist regimes was that in America, people were arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison for acts that they actually committed, not for what acts that others believe they might commit. We have come a long way from the founders’ America to BushAmerica.

    It’s real easy to police the country if you remove all constitutional rights from the people, set up cameras and listening posts everywhere, monitor and control their movement. It’s easier still if you put the people in prison before they even think about thinking about commiting a crime. Don’t think that probably hasn’t occurred to the architects behind “The Lazy Presidency of George W. Bush.” The Constitutional restraints led them to invent gated communities with privatized police forces, using public resources.

    The challenge of America has always been balancing the individual’s rights of freedom (of thought, speech, expression, movement) with the overall collective individuals’ rights to practice their freedoms in a safe and stable democracy.

    George W. Bush is saying that he can’t do it. He is saying that the only way that he can try to keep the people and the country safe from terrorist attacks (no guarantees) is to remove Americans’ rights as granted in the Constitution.

    Wow.

    So when they say “Everything changed on 9/11,” and “pre-9/11 versus post-9/11 world,” what they really mean is that on September 11, 2001 the American Constitution was destroyed.

  268. 268
    Lindus says:

    Well it is obvious to me that DougJ wants a dictatorship that priviliges the man who eats all the dung served from the higher places. I thought such thoughts died out with the reformation… But then again, if he want to brown nose Alito and Gonzales in coprophilic joy all the power to him.

    With hopes for a country where the constitition means something again,
    /Lindus

  269. 269

    […] I swear, this is the last. At any rate, it appears my instincts last night were right (although some of you later tried to lead me astray), as well as Glenn Greenwald’s legal analysis today- Cindy Sheehan didn’t do anything wrong: […]

  270. 270
    HH says:

    “In Iraq they do not kill nor torture you for political for protesting, they may arrest you and give you a trial but death is not one of the options for punishment.”

    Yes and they had “flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles!”

  271. 271
    HH says:

    “The law was passed in 1946.”

    Of course as we all know, Karl Rove has the ability to transcend time and space. That ruthless bastard!

  272. 272
    can says:

    CAN says fire the king clean out the house and start over with some honest americans

  273. 273
    T Cos says:

    This is not about whether you are for or against the war.

    This is about decorum. Proper attire should be required at the State of the Union address.

  274. 274
    Jan says:

    Perhaps the Capitol police were told to remove Cindy Sheehan and use any pretext…

    Perhaps they then decided to apply the same standard to a person on the other side of the political fence to make a subtle point…

    The aim of the Capitol police may have been to say ‘Hey what is good for the goose, is good for the gander” .. If that is true then hats off to the Police Chief – at least the punishment was meted out to both pro-war and anti-war alike.

    Can Cindy Sheehan and the Republican lady sue the cops? Can they claim police harassment?

  275. 275
    Mark says:

    These women got what they deserved. Then, in typical fashion, the Police caved in, dropped the charges and with thier tails between thier legs apoligized. What whimps! Politically Incorrect! The offenders violated the law by demostrating in the Capitol Building. That should be the end of the story, but again our left wing, whining media twisted this into something of what they think is of vital importance to the country. What fools! They took the bait, hook, line and sinker! Both women wore the slogans as a demonstration and hoped they would get media attention. Great strategy that worked! This has nothing to do with proper dress (T-shirt) at a special event which just naturally demands respect of the event. The focus was on the President’s speech not on these women who overstepped their invitation to participate by attending this important event. Respect. Responsibility. Two words which seem to have disappeared from our society. They should have been spanked and sent to bed with no TV! (joke) Next time, who ever is President, invite me. I’d be honored and cherish the fact that someone thought enough of me to request my presence at such a prestigous part of our country’s history. I promise to mind my manners and will undoubtedly stretch my budget past the limit for a nice suit made in the USA!

  276. 276
    Jim Shelley says:

    It’s not the T shirt dummy. It’s the attempt to insert one person’s political views into a event that requres a little more respect than was her intention.

  277. 277
    larry says:

    Doesn’t ANYONE understand that one of the main purposes of the U.S. Constitution was to keep the ENTIRE GOVERNMENNT in check and to freely allow citizens to confront and challenge the political leaders??? Confiscating property without trial or charges??? ARRESTING citizens for wearing a t-shirt with a statement that offends the President?? Jailing citizens for political protest??? Removing cars from a parking lot because of a BUMPER STICKER??? Jailing journalists??? The Supreme Court said that the rich can give tons of cash to politicians because money is a form of speech…even a blind man KNOWS its bribery, but a middle class citizen who is actually doing what Jefferson, Adams, Paine, etc. intended (and wanted) by exercising free political speech gets JAILED???? WHO IS DEFENDING THIS NAZI CRAP???? It cannot be defended and those who try will find the stick used agianst them one day…and it will be too late to say “we have our rights!!”….you LET THEM BE TAKEN FROM YOU!!! If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would start another revolution.

  278. 278
    Mike says:

    Thanks John for being spontaneous and honest about the T- Shirt affair…I agree WTF? is this country coming to when we can’t wear a simple T-shirt to say something we feel.If people don’t like it or are of a different opinion isn’t that what makes a Democracy. I say good for Cindy Sheehan keep up the good work!

    Thank you too John, say it like it is, we need more guys like you who speak up and take care of us against the petty stuff and ridiculous dictator iron boot repression of thought…I am a conservative by nature but also middle of the road so again thank you for saying it the way it should be said WTF?

  279. 279

    Well so much for free speech. Be careful people you and I will be next. Unless we agree with Bush and his Daddy,and his freinds and his business partners and there Daddies.

  280. 280
    Jim Cole says:

    John, I’m not a Lib by any stretch of the imagination but this crap has this right of center conservative asking WTF?? My freedoms and liberty are the closest thing to my heart. I served 24 years so that my kids would have them and this just pisses me off. Thrown out and put into cuffs for a T-shirt? There weren’t any obscenities written on either one of those shirts so what was the problem? Let’s face it, in today’s ridiculously PC America, no matter what you say or do or WEAR you are going to offend someone. Good Grief!

  281. 281
    Russ says:

    Well,…the capitol police and various other security forces other than not beeing particularly bright, well, having actually lived in DC for several years, my experience, is that they just plain like to trod on anyone, any excuse to be repressive (especially if it doesn’t get them into trouble, which means that you’re safe only if you’re an elected official or member of Government or a homeless person who is also a member of a designated protected class), rumour has it that it is good brownie points come promotion time. As to this stuff, about Mr. Bush’s leanings, well, you know some folks says “the War against Terror was just an excuse to take the country under tighter control”, if you really believe that then you probably have just come back from visiting OBL in his top security digs in Northern VA…Um, but I didn’t say that….and don’t quote me, cause I’ll deny that I was ever here…. , honestly, is it REALLY a problem with Mr. Bushes “team” wanting to keep his head securly up his own Butt???, how else are they gonna keep their jobs, it’s not as if he picked the best and the brightest, he picked “yes people” not Yesmen he seems to prefer women, but he can’t seem to find enough of them, I just think that the way the DC security forces treat people has perhaps not even changed since I was there in the 1980s, you’re just changing your perspective, so it looks different to you

  282. 282
    Podium says:

    Jan Says:
    Perhaps the Capitol police were told to remove Cindy Sheehan and use any pretext…

    Interesting that the first phone call Congressman Bill Young made (the husband of the other ousted t-shirted protester) after his wife was escorted out (but not handcuffed, taken to jail, fingerprinted and booked as Cindy Sheehan was) was to Karl Rove.

    Jan says…
    Perhaps they then decided to apply the same standard to a person on the other side of the political fence to make a subtle point…

    Ya think?

    Forty minutes later, forty minutes after Sheehan was arrested, well into into Bush’s speech, was when the Capitol police approached Mrs. Young and asked her to leave. Mrs. Young had done nothing to hide the fact of her t-shirt. She and it were as noticeable forty minutes earlier as they were when the police decided to remove her, too.

    Jan says…
    The aim of the Capitol police may have been to say ‘Hey what is good for the goose, is good for the gander” .. If that is true then hats off to the Police Chief – at least the punishment was meted out to both pro-war and anti-war alike.

    Hmmm…more likely it was a CYA gambit.

    The arrest of Cindy Sheehan had hit the news before Bush had even begun speaking. It took them 40 minutes to move against another t-shirt wearer, same subject, just sitting there not creating any ruckus, and DURING BUSH’S SPEECH??

    Those police were desperate to have another bust to point to, because they needed to be able to say that they weren’t gunning for Cindy Sheehan.

  283. 283

    Do we really need another Web Awards?

    Why, yes. Yes, we do.

    I humbly propose, as a corollary to the Koufax* awards (and …

  284. 284

    It’s not the T shirt dummy. It’s the attempt to insert one person’s political views into a event that requres a little more respect than was her intention. Thank you

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Do we really need another Web Awards?

    Why, yes. Yes, we do.

    I humbly propose, as a corollary to the Koufax* awards (and …

  2. […] I swear, this is the last. At any rate, it appears my instincts last night were right (although some of you later tried to lead me astray), as well as Glenn Greenwald’s legal analysis today- Cindy Sheehan didn’t do anything wrong: […]

  3. […] Many others have expressed opinions on this subject including the eminently sensible, the partisan left, and the partisan right. […]

  4. […] From the comments: […]

Comments are closed.