[Article] Cindy Sheehan arrested for wearing a t-shirt

Orion

What possible justification could there be for this? Isn't free speech enshrined in the US constitution? I'll be interested to see if she's actually prosecuted for having an opinion.

Reuters wrote:

Anti-war activist Sheehan arrested on Capitol Hill
Anti-Iraq war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested in the House of Representatives chamber shortly before President George W. Bush gave his State of the Union address because she refused to cover up an anti-war slogan on her shirt.

Ms Sheehan, who was attending the speech as the guest of US Democratic Congressman Lynn Woolsey of California, was taken from the Capitol in handcuffs and charged with unlawful conduct, said Capitol Police Sergeant Kimberly Schneider.

A photographer said Ms Sheehan entered the House gallery a few minutes before Mr Bush was to speak and was directed to her seat.

She had been seated for less than a minute when a plainclothes Capitol Police officer took her by the arm, said, "You've got to leave," and rushed her from the gallery.

Ms Sheehan did not resist and left with a smile.

Rather than hearing Mr Bush say in his speech that there would be no sudden US withdrawal from Iraq, Sheehan was being processed at the US Capitol Police headquarters near the Capitol.

Sergeant Schneider said Ms Sheehan was arrested because she was wearing a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan and refused to cover it up.

She said the unlawful conduct charge carries a maximum sentence of one year in jail.

Ms Sheehan, who became a central figure for the US anti-war movement after her son Casey was killed in the Iraq war, won wide attention with an anti-war vigil outside Bush's Texas ranch.

Sheehan and other activists were arrested in September for protesting outside the White House without a permit, a misdemeanor that carriers a $50 fine.

GypsumFantastic

Macros42 wrote:

What possible justification could there be for this? Isn't free speech enshrined in the US constitution? I'll be interested to see if she's actually prosecuted for having an opinion.

It might be against House rules - displaying of a political slogan or somesuch.

Orion

hehehe - no displaying of a political slogan in the home of politicians

GypsumFantastic

Macros42 wrote:

hehehe - no displaying of a political slogan in the home of politicians

Well, it might be. It's to avoid the debate descending into cheap sloganeering. Hell, they could all wear T-shirts and just not bother saying anything.

I have to say she's always struck me as a bit unwell. I feel sorry for her, to be honest.

A Dub in Glasgo

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I have to say she's always struck me as a bit unwell. .

In what way?

GypsumFantastic

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

In what way?

I think she's mentally unwell. Losing a son might do that, I imagine. But then attributing child-like innocence to him in death won't help her mental state either. I'm a bit uneasy with the way Democrats have exploited her grief when she is, in my view, vulnerable and easily manipulated - for example, giving a speech in support of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists. Either her state of shock has allowed her to be manipulated into situations and comments she would not ordinarily have made or her own personal political agenda is in agreement with those situations and comments, and predates her son's death, and she is simply using the public platform available to her since her son's death to push that agenda. Either scenario leaves me feeling uncomfortable.

Zombrex

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Either her state of shock has allowed her to be manipulated into situations and comments she would not ordinarily have made or her own personal political agenda is in agreement with those situations and comments, and predates her son's death, and she is simply using the public platform available to her since her son's death to push that agenda. Either scenario leaves me feeling uncomfortable.

That is a very cinical position.

I would imagine she is one of the few people in American who can truely know the cost of the war. To suggest she is pushing a predetermined "agenda" on top of her sons death is a far more uncomfortable statement imho

The idea that once some has been personally effected by a war they should no longer express an opinion on if the war because they are using their loss for their "agenda", is nonsense. This woman knows better than most the effect of the Iraq war. The American public should be allowed to listen to her, not shut her up because she is an embarrasment for the administration.

A Dub in Glasgo

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I think she's mentally unwell. Losing a son might do that, I imagine. But then attributing child-like innocence to him in death won't help her mental state either. I'm a bit uneasy with the way Democrats have exploited her grief when she is, in my view, vulnerable and easily manipulated - for example, giving a speech in support of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists. Either her state of shock has allowed her to be manipulated into situations and comments she would not ordinarily have made or her own personal political agenda is in agreement with those situations and comments, and predates her son's death, and she is simply using the public platform available to her since her son's death to push that agenda. Either scenario leaves me feeling uncomfortable.

What I find uncomfortable is you trying to undermine someone who has been directly affected by the invasion of Iraq with stories of her being mentally unwell .

GypsumFantastic

Wicknight wrote:

That is a very cinical position.

I would imagine she is one of the few people in American who can truely know the cost of the war. To suggest she is pushing a predetermined "agenda" on top of her sons death is a far more uncomfortable statement imho

As I said, she is either doing that or is being pushed into situations and comments she would not ordinarily have made - in which case, she is being manipulated.

Wicknight wrote:

The idea that once some has been personally effected by a war they should no longer express an opinion on if the war because they are using their loss for their "agenda", is nonsense. This woman knows better than most the effect of the Iraq war. The American public should be allowed to listen to her, not shut her up because she is an embarrasment for the administration.

I never stated that she shouldn't be allowed to state her opinion - though she can hardly claim to be silenced given the extensive media coverage she receives - nor did I say she should be shut up. I merely gave my opinion of her.

GypsumFantastic

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What I find uncomfortable is you trying to undermine someone who has been directly affected by the invasion of Iraq with stories of her being mentally unwell .

That's up to you but I've posted a couple of reasons why I think so.

The reality that she is unable to face is that her son was an adult who volunteered to join the army, volunteered for a second tour and even volunteered for the mission that eventually killed him - and it was insurgents that killed him, not George Bush as Sheehan vainly repeats. Until she faces up to that reality then I fear she will continue to veer off into the extreme elements of the Left agenda (either of her own choice or others) - which are unrelated to Casey Sheehan's death - and continue to be viewed as a slightly unstable, grief-stricken parent.

Zombrex

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I merely gave my opinion of her.

A negative opinion, that you didn't really explain.

Whats wrong with her saying that she lost a son in Iraq when she is demonstrating against the war? Should she pretend she didn't?

sovtek

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I'm a bit uneasy with the way Democrats have exploited her grief when she is, in my view, vulnerable and easily manipulated - for example, giving a speech in support of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists.

Cindy Sheehan has shown herself to be quite strong and to be very clear on what she supports and doesn't. Hillary Clinton should be very afraid!
Lynne Stewarts essentially was convicted of doing her job which was to defend her client.

http://www.counterpunch.org/bergen02112005.html

Macros42

Macros42 wrote:

Isn't free speech enshrined in the US constitution?

Would you back a Klan march through Harlem?

Should a child be allowed to rent hardcore porn?

While she may have a point, the law is the law. And the right to freedom of expression is not absolute.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Would you back a Klan march through Harlem?

Should a child be allowed to rent hardcore porn?

While she may have a point, the law is the law. And the right to freedom of expression is not absolute.

Well technically the KKK can march through Harlem and a you can produce a hardcore porn movie (in America). The chlid viewing it is a completely seperate issue.

And all Sheehan did was wear an anti-War T-Shirt in a public place, a place where she was invited. I am still not clear on what law she broke by doing this?

Ag marbh

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I have to say she's always struck me as a bit unwell. I feel sorry for her, to be honest.

Well or unwell her message is good!

GypsumFantastic

Wicknight wrote:

A negative opinion, that you didn't really explain.

I did explain it.

Wicknight wrote:

Whats wrong with her saying that she lost a son in Iraq when she is demonstrating against the war? Should she pretend she didn't?

I never said there was anything wrong with it. I merely said I disagreed with her opinion. As for her arrest, I suggested that she may have broken some rules in the House with regards to the display of political banners or statements.

GypsumFantastic

sovtek wrote:

Cindy Sheehan has shown herself to be quite strong and to be very clear on what she supports and doesn't.

Yes, she wants 'Israel out of Palestine', for a start. Embdy know what that's got to to do with Casey Sheehan's murder at the hands of insurgents in Iraq?

sovtek wrote:

Lynne Stewarts essentially was convicted of doing her job which was to defend her client.

No, she was convicted on five counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity, and making false statements to the Department of Justice.

Not the kind of person Sheehan should support, in my view. Perhaps you disagree.

Zombrex

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I merely said I disagreed with her opinion.

No, you said you thought she was mentally unstable and that her actions make you uncomfortable, even if she is completely behind the anti-war movement she is a part of and is not being manipulated by the movement.

I don;t understand that position. Why does a woman strongly campaigning against the war, a war in which her son was killed, make you uncomfortable?

GypsumFantastic

Wicknight wrote:

No, you said you thought she was mentally unstable and that her actions make you uncomfortable, even if she is completely behind the anti-war movement she is a part of and is not being manipulated by the movement.

I don;t understand that position. Why does a woman strongly campaigning against the war, a war in which her son was killed, make you uncomfortable?

I never said her actions made me uncomfortable. I said it was the motivation behind her various 'activities' (as her divorced husband put it) that left me uncomfortable. You don't believe she is being manipulated. That's fine that you have that confidence. I don't share it.

Hobbes

She is not liked, and as such she has been asked a large number of questions on a range of issues in the attempt to discredit her. Its quite intresting to watch to be honest on how character assasination works.

She was removed probably because if you were wearing anti-war t-shirt odds on your going to be a disturbance. Although Bush is well known for vetting the audience to ensure that everyone loves him (quite sad).

On the bright side at least she only got removed. Could of been worse, she could of been held down by secret service while an onlooker got free kicks in.

constitutionus

methinks i sense a lawsuit the yanks take freedom of speach VERY seriously and the t-shirt COULD fall under that description. at the very least its againts freedom of expression. could be more to see here, particularly seeing as she was smiling as she was led away. looks like she might have got what she wants.
ya gotta admit from a PR point of view it looks BAAAAAAD.

can you imagine what joe soap is saying

person A :" whos your woman who got arrested?"

person b:" shes the one whos kid got killed in bush's war"

ShayHT

The KKK spread racial hatred.

Hardcore porn is rated for a reason and has nothing to do with freedom of speech/expression.

Deleted User wrote:

Would you back a Klan march through Harlem?

Should a child be allowed to rent hardcore porn?

Hobbes

Here is the T-Shirt she was wearing.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/images/sotu/pages/IMGP2618_JPG.htm

She left when she was told to leave.

Hardly worth being put into prison with a possible 1 years prison time (the charge carries).

Here is Cindys full details of the incident.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/1/31944/23746#51

murphaph

Does anybody remember that mother of that submariner who perished on board Kursk being dragged out of that hall where (I think) Putin was addressing the crowd? That just popped into my mind reading this thread :eek:

lostexpectation

http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/18586.php

Manic Moran

The State of the Union address has tended to be something of a formalised affair, with various attendant 'rules.' One of which is quite probably a dress code that an imflammatory T-shirt would violate. That, and the security chaps probably figured that if she's wearing such an adventurous T-shirt, she might well cause a vocal disturbance later, which would be just not cricket.

Even the recognised elected opposition don't get to speak at the State of the Union, the response is usually sent over the airwaves from a studio.

NTM

ISAW

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I think she's mentally unwell. Losing a son might do that, I imagine. But then attributing child-like innocence to him in death won't help her mental state either. I'm a bit uneasy with the way Democrats have exploited her grief when she is, in my view, vulnerable and easily manipulated - for example, giving a speech in support of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists. Either her state of shock has allowed her to be manipulated into situations and comments she would not ordinarily have made or her own personal political agenda is in agreement with those situations and comments, and predates her son's death, and she is simply using the public platform available to her since her son's death to push that agenda. Either scenario leaves me feeling uncomfortable.

Tell me more about this Lynne Stewart thing. How and where did this speech in support of her happen?

As regards soldiers being manipulated into positions did you ever hear of Private Jessica Lynch? do you know her real story about her NOT being kidnapped NOT being active in combat. Being HELPED by Iraquis and NOT being imprisioned by them? This was clearly a manipulation story? Did Fox carry it? See the other thread about Fox news for that.

Army Sgt. Cassaundra Grant lost her left leg, and eventually her right, when she was pinned under a tank that her transportation unit was moving in Kuwait on March 14. She was treated at Walter Reed Hospital, and eventually transferred to the Brooke Medical Center in Texas on April 3 -- the same day that the sensationalized Jessica Lynch story headlined the Washington Post. Her story conflicts with the glamorized women-in-combat agenda. Were efforts made to suppress or eclipse the story of Sgt. Casaundra Grant, especially on the day that she left Walter Reed? Are there stories about other female soldiers that so far have been considered too sensitive to reveal? You bet there are! do Fox News carry them?

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

The State of the Union address has tended to be something of a formalised affair, with various attendant 'rules.' One of which is quite probably a dress code that an imflammatory T-shirt would violate.

Are you defending the arrest of someone for violating a dress code? She wasn't escorted out by security...she was arrested.

sovtek

ISAW wrote:

Tell me more about this Lynne Stewart thing.

I posted an article on it.

ISAW

sovtek wrote:

I posted an article on it.

Where did you post the article? where did cindy sheehan support Lynne Stewart? And what speech was given [by sheehan] in defence of her [stewart] as you claim and when was it given?

Orion

Deleted User wrote:

Would you back a Klan march through Harlem?

oh ffs.

We're talking about an anti-war protester wearing an anti-war t-shirt which had the number 2242 on it - the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq. How can you possible equate that with the Klan? :rolleyes: