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

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

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.

do you have a link to where you got that information from?

The reason I ask is all I can find is that she was told to sign a form which basically removed rights from her Client and she then ignored that document. She didn't concel anything, she was using Privilage as a Lawyer and as for providing material it was a press conference where she relayed her clients statement. She even did a second press release to confirm that the first statement was not a fatwa.

Now you can say she broke the law but the fact of the matter is that there shouldn't be two seperate laws for people in the land.

As for her and cindy, Cindy attended a rally for Lynne and said "she considered Lynne Stewart her Atticus Finch"

LostinBlanch

I've heard this argument that Gypsum is using before. But from the extreme right wing end of the Republican spectrum.

They realised they couldn't be seen to attack Cindy Sheehan becuase she is the mother of a war hero. So instead they start the whispering campaign against her "Poor woman she's deranged with grief etc etc" thus drawing attention away from her embarassing questions. Sad but then again it's the kind of behaviour we have come to expect from them.

Sand

Whilst Cindy Sheehan is well entitled to voice her views, is she entitled to use her son as a battering ram for them?

He was, as pointed out, an adult who volunteered for service twice, the second time as the Iraq invasion was underway so he cannot have been "tricked" into going there. He also volunteered for the mission on which he died. His decision, whether his mother liked it or not, was to serve in the army and in that war. Is it justifiable then to use his memory to campaign against something he had no problem - apparently - serving in? He must have seen some worth in it to volunteer for it.

I dont think Cindy Sheehan sees it that way, the Gold Star Families for Peace organisation she helped found demanded Bush send his daughters to Iraq, as if they were some legal extension of himself. Wouldnt it imply she had signed her son up for the military?

Whilst some people have denounced even questioning that Cindy Sheenhan has been manipulated it is worth noting that her views on Bush and stated remarks on her meeting with him a few months after her sons death have altered drastically, from describing him as"...sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis...I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." to "one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it...... his mouth kept moving, but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all" a year later. Thats two very different recollections of the meeting, the later one contradicting her immediate impressions of the meeting.

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?

Free speech isnt just for what you want to hear. Someone drew an interesting link between the trial of David Irving in Austria and that Turkish writer who mentioned the Armenian genocide. Both were being punished for testing the limits of free speech. Someone who claims to be favour of free speech without limitations must be in favour of both. Seeing as people wouldnt be in favour of *both*, that means we accept there are limits to free speech. Which may or may not include preventing one woman disrupting the speaker with a democratic electoral mandate. Otherwise what would stop the die hard wing of the Reps or the Dems travelling to every political gig of their opponents and disrupting/sabotaging speakers?

Manic Moran

Whilst Cindy Sheehan is well entitled to voice her views, is she entitled to use her son as a battering ram for them?

A fair question. Whilst Cindy is getting all the press, people are forgetting that SPC Sheehan had two parents, not one. You will note that Patrick Sheehan is apparently less approving of Cindy's actions. I don't think I've ever heard him voice an opinion one way or the other but the two facts that he has never stated support for her position, and the divorce filed after she began her activism (And the public press release by other members of the Sheehan Clan disavowing her actions) appear to indicate general disapproval of the conduct.

More controversial is her use of the names of other people's sons to further her views. The names of the fallen are public record, yet other families have specifically requested that their sons/daughters names not be used by Sheehan. (In one case, parents drove to Texas where she was staging her sit-in and demanded that the cross with their son's name on it be removed: They did not want their son's name used for her political goals)

I wonder what SPC Sheehan's opinions on the war were before he was killed?

NTM

Hobbes

All I could find on record was her Husband disapproves of what she does although he does know that the war was started on a lie. As for her in-laws disagreeing, its a fact. So what? As Cindy said people are entitled to thier opinion and she has never villified her in-laws or ex-husband for thier opinions.

I find it funny that all the attacks on Cindys arguments are directed at her rather then what she is saying.

Basically this, Bush started the war in Iraq on a lie that he knew to be a lie and should be impeached for it.

This T-Shirt incident is just another thing. She was arrested and detained over night for wearing a T-Shirt. At no time was she told she couldn't wear it and was treated very roughly by secret service until they realised who they had. She was detained for a crime she didn't commit but people assumed she would in the future.

Which is the whole crux of the argument too. Should you be allowed to detain people on the premise they may commit a crime in the future, yet have no evidence to back this up?

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

it is worth noting that her views on Bush and stated remarks on her meeting with him a few months after her sons death have altered drastically,

Actually they hadn't altered all that much. Another trick I have seen is to quote bits rather then the whole.

For example from the same report you quoted she also said

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled, The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

Doesn't sound like someone who agreed with the president to me.

Manic Moran

Which is the whole crux of the argument too. Should you be allowed to detain people on the premise they may commit a crime in the future, yet have no evidence to back this up?

The management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone?

I don't know what the rules are for the Capitol Building. Might just be as simple as 'Breach of the Peace'

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

The management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone?

I don't know what the rules are for the Capitol Building. Might just be as simple as 'Breach of the Peace'

NTM

Being tossed out is one thing. She went to jail and is being charged with Unlawful conduct is another. Charge carries 1-7 years in prison.

Of course it is unlikely she will see jail time, it would be very hard to make a charge stick on someone who hadn't actually done anything.

solas

apparantly she wasn't the only one kicked out, The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young said she was ejected during President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that said, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/13763761.htm

Sheehan's dailykos diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/1/31944/23746

Manic Moran

They've already been dropped.

What is not so well reported, it seems, is that the wife of Congressman. Bill Young, a Republican, was also ejected from the State of the Union Address for wearing a political T-Shirt. "Support the Troops: Defending Our Freedom." Are the media being as even-handed on the issue as the Capitol Police were?

However, the Capitol Police Chief has said that two ejections might have been an over-reaction by his officers. From the BBC:

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken, effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Mr Gainer said.

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

NTM

GypsumFantastic

ISAW wrote:

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

The speech came at a rally in support of Ms Stewart at San Francisco State University on April 27, 2005. She referred to Ms Stewart, convicted of conspiracy to support terrorist activity, as 'her Atticus Finch', saying 'she did what she knew was right'.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

do you have a link to where you got that information from?

Here is one such site that states her conviction -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4255885.stm

Hobbes wrote:

As for her and cindy, Cindy attended a rally for Lynne and said "she considered Lynne Stewart her Atticus Finch"

That's right, she did.

GypsumFantastic

Sand wrote:

Whilst some people have denounced even questioning that Cindy Sheenhan has been manipulated it is worth noting that her views on Bush and stated remarks on her meeting with him a few months after her sons death have altered drastically,

Quite. Remember when she held the sit-in at the ranch she 'demanded' a meeting with President Bush despite having already met him months earlier - the previous meeting seemingly erased from her memory.

It's incidents like this, and others, that make me question whether she actually understands what she's doing.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

I find it funny that all the attacks on Cindys arguments are directed at her rather then what she is saying.

Because, at least with Ms Sheehan I suspect, any argument would be futile. Arguments about the Iraq war have been done to death and, really, no-one is going to change sides now. I did say I disagreed with her but this doesn't mean I forego the right to point out that her behaviour has been erratic and she has ventured in other 'non-Iraq' areas politically either knowingly or otherwise.

Manic Moran

More food for thought: It appears that back in the Clinton impeachment hearings, a chap named Dave Delp was removed from the gallery for wearing a T-Shirt saying "Clinton doesn't inhale: He just sucks."

So this has been a long-standing policy.

However, it seems that in all three cases (Sheehan, Young, Delp), the Capitol Police were wrong. Here's the relevant part of the code, saying this is prohibited:

"(2) display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement."

However: Capitol Police guidance interprets ’demonstration activity,’ and the guidance specifically provides that it "does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message."

Now, apparently there's more: Any action which draws attention to the T-shirt is disruptive, and barred. I'm hearing that Sheehan actually did have a banner with her. As soon as that banner would have been unrolled, even if the banner itself said nothing particular, it would have attracted attention to her and the T-shirt, and she could have been legally jettisoned.

So, in summary, in all three cases, Capitol Police overstepped the mark. It is a far jump from this to saying that this was an example of Bush's Jack-Booted Thugs suppressing dissent over the war, which is apparently a commonly heard claim.

NTM

ISAW

GypsumFantastic wrote:

The speech came at a rally in support of Ms Stewart at San Francisco State University on April 27, 2005. She referred to Ms Stewart, convicted of conspiracy to support terrorist activity, as 'her Atticus Finch', saying 'she did what she knew was right'.

So she is guilty of what? and she is guilty of it because she is associated with someone convicted of conspiracy or of supporting terrorists? Doesn't Bush have personal associations with the Bin Laden family and the fundamentalist anti woman Saud family who run the autocracy of Saudi Arabia (even the country is named after them!). What does that make Bush by association?

Were the Sons of Liberty conspiring against the authorities in America?

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Here is one such site that states her conviction -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4255885.stm

Which is a scaled down version of what I already mentioned.

GypsumFantastic

ISAW wrote:

So she is guilty of what?

Guilty of supporting a lawyer convicted of aiding terrorist activity.

I'm sorry if this is proving difficult for you.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

Which is a scaled down version of what I already mentioned.

Not really. One was stating she was convicted of supporting terrorists; yours was suggesting something tantamount to a minor administrative error.

Zombrex

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Not really. One was stating she was convicted of supporting terrorists; yours was suggesting something tantamount to a minor administrative error.

She wasn't conviced to supporting terrorist, she was conviced of disobeying an order to not facilitate communication between her client and the outside world because the state department believed her client was a terrorist.

There is a big difference.

Sand

She wasn't conviced to supporting terrorist, she was conviced of disobeying an order to not facilitate communication between her client and the outside world because the state department believed her client was a terrorist.

There is a big difference.

Eh no there isnt.....? You say "believe" to be a terrorist, but he is a *convicted* terrorist on a life sentence. They have very good grounds for considering him to be a terrorist.

Zombrex

Sand wrote:

Eh no there isnt.....? You say "believe" to be a terrorist, but he is a *convicted* terrorist on a life sentence. They have very good grounds for considering him to be a terrorist.

I am not saying he is not a terrorist, I'm saying that you get into a very murky area when you start dictating what a lawyer can or cannot do for her client.

It isn't the case particularly (to me Stewart seems a bit nuts TBH, and does seem to want to dive on her sword) it is the precedence it sets.

In my opinion a laywer passing a message from her client to the outside world is not supporting terrorism, even if that message is used by terrorists.

There is a reason why the attorney-client relationship exists. Guilt by association doesn't hold in such cases. If it did most lawyers would be in jail.

I know that a lawyer is responsible if they learn of an empending crime from his client, but I'm not sure this has happened in this case.

The arguement seems to be that this guy is a terrorist so everything he does is a plan for future terrorism. And if you allow that kind of thinking then what stops the police saying that a criminal is a criminal and is constantly plotting his next crime so all communication with the outside world should be restricted.

Sand

I am not saying he is not a terrorist,

Well, seeing as hes been convicted in a court of law theres not much room for debate on that point.

In my opinion a laywer passing a message from her client to the outside world is not supporting terrorism, even if that message is used by terrorists.
..........................
The arguement seems to be that this guy is a terrorist so everything he does is a plan for future terrorism. And if you allow that kind of thinking then what stops the police saying that a criminal is a criminal and is constantly plotting his next crime so all communication with the outside world should be restricted.

In my opinion, if a message is used by terrorists and someone delivers that message having good grounds to believe it will, then they are assisting terrorism. Sure, she might point to client privledge but thats a defence, not an exoneration - this lawyer clearly either doesnt have the cop on or has some sort of stockholm sydrome/martyrdom complex going on.

Either way, as a convicted terrorist her client is a known and proven threat so youve summarised the basic common sense reason why communications between him and the outside world have to be either stopped, or heavily, heavily monitored. To ignore what has been proven in a court of law would be foolish in the extreme and a failure on the part of the police. There is no one size fits all approach to dealing with organised terrorism and say random street crime.

Zombrex

Sand wrote:

Either way, as a convicted terrorist her client is a known and proven threat so youve summarised the basic common sense reason why communications between him and the outside world have to be either stopped, or heavily, heavily monitored.

But, as I said, you are setting a very dangerous precedence if you follow that idea that communication itself is a crime

I'm not really talking about this case, I agree with you that Steward is a bit of a nut, but more the concerns about how this case effects future cases. And we all know that the US government have been a bit over zelous in their handingly of suspected terrorists.

Victor

GypsumFantastic wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting "the other side" doesn't manipulate? The DoD planting stories in Iraqi newspapers, the whole farce about why they went to war ....

You are probably picking the wrong fight.

Victor

Macros42 wrote:

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:

If K = 11 (11th letter of alphabet)

k x k x k x = 11 x 11 x 11 = 1331

1131 + 911 = 2242

:eek:

ISAW

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Guilty of supporting a lawyer convicted of aiding terrorist activity.

I'm sorry if this is proving difficult for you.

No need to apologise. Is that a crime in the US? I didn't know they had guilt by association. do they lock up people for associating with known criminals and people shunned by the public? I wonder what Bush would have done with the Jesus guy? Didnt he have known associationa with prostitutes and tax collectors ( a hated group who were employed by a foreign occupier to take from semitic resources)?

ISAW

Sand wrote:

Well, seeing as hes been convicted in a court of law theres not much room for debate on that point.



In my opinion, if a message is used by terrorists and someone delivers that message having good grounds to believe it will, then they are assisting terrorism.

Do you apply that to Army officers who assist known fundamentalist Islam supporting countries by selling them weapons? Fundamentalists who are at war with a country the Army officers military are assisting and supporting? How about the people who tell such Military Personel to do such deals and the result is for example the death of US troops? By giving those orders or even instructing them by sending a message but not ordering them are they assisting criminals fundamentalists or terrorists? Are they guilty?

Either way, as a convicted terrorist her client is a known and proven threat so youve summarised the basic common sense reason why communications between him and the outside world have to be either stopped, or heavily, heavily monitored. To ignore what has been proven in a court of law would be foolish in the extreme and a failure on the part of the police.

Why not apply this to ALL convicts and aboilish all privacy rights and monitor all their communication. Hell why stop at convicts?...Oh I forgot you already have the Patriot Act!

There is no one size fits all approach to dealing with organised terrorism and say random street crime.

Which is the same as saying "there is no one law" or "one principle" which covers this. So why are yoiiu claiming the principle and insisting someone is "guilty" by association because she violates your "guilt by accociation" principle?

ISAW

Victor wrote:

Are you suggesting "the other side" doesn't manipulate? The DoD planting stories in Iraqi newspapers, the whole farce about why they went to war ....

You are probably picking the wrong fight.

What about that Private Jessica Lynch? "We are finding them now2 comments on WMD. Saddam certainly linked to AL Khyda - which Chaney STILL insists is true! What about the known torturest the Us used as "sources" for the "proof" of WMD?

Sand

But, as I said, you are setting a very dangerous precedence if you follow that idea that communication itself is a crime

I'm not really talking about this case, I agree with you that Steward is a bit of a nut, but more the concerns about how this case effects future cases. And we all know that the US government have been a bit over zelous in their handingly of suspected terrorists.

Communication isnt a crime? Assisting terrorism is. A court of law seemed satisfied that she had crossed the line between representing her client and assisting him in his crimes. I havent seen the evidence they have, but Ive got no reason to assume it was a corrupt judgement.

Most law courts have taken a position that undercover cops may have to engage with criminals and even involve themselves in the planning of crime. That doesnt mean they wont come down on someone like a ton of bricks if the line is crossed and that undercover cop begins to enrich himself off the procceeds of crime. Theyre not blessing cops with having a carte blanche to engage in crime.

Its related here - I cant see the understanding of the client-lawyer relationship being impacted by this judgement, other than reinforcing the message that it does not allow for assisting a crime.

Do you apply that to Army officers who assist known fundamentalist Islam supporting countries by selling them weapons? Fundamentalists who are at war with a country the Army officers military are assisting and supporting? How about the people who tell such Military Personel to do such deals and the result is for example the death of US troops? By giving those orders or even instructing them by sending a message but not ordering them are they assisting criminals fundamentalists or terrorists? Are they guilty?

Youre not talking about the Iranian arms deals by any chance? Was I not supposed to know that?

As it goes, Id feel its the same issue as with the above - the administration and the intelligence organisations have a great degree of leeway in how they act. There are limits, where they cross the line, like in the Iran-Contra affair. It doesnt imply that US Presidents cant set foreign policy, nor does it mean the CIA must never do anything illegal, but it does mean selling arms to the Iran is a definite no.

Why not apply this to ALL convicts and aboilish all privacy rights and monitor all their communication. Hell why stop at convicts?...Oh I forgot you already have the Patriot Act!

Different crimes and criminals are treated differently. We here in Ireland try suspected terrorists in the Special Criminal Court, and they can be convicted on the word of a Garda alone. Who needs the Patriot Act? The use of the SCC for subversives, where threats to the safety of juries means normal trials cannot be used does not mean that normal trials cannot be used for other criminals. Its the same with convicted terrorists. There has to be a practical assessment of the danger posed by allowing unimpeded communication between the convict and his organisation.

Are you suggesting "the other side" doesn't manipulate? The DoD planting stories in Iraqi newspapers, the whole farce about why they went to war ....

I wouldnt say he is, but some people get very offended if anyone thinks that the other-other side manipulates just as happily.

Which is the same as saying "there is no one law" or "one principle" which covers this. So why are yoiiu claiming the principle and insisting someone is "guilty" by association because she violates your "guilt by accociation" principle?

Theres no guilt by association - more guilt of using a press conference to inform the world that her client was against a terrorist cease fire in eygpt, which has nothing to do with defending her client (indeed it only supports his conviction) and can only serve to encourage acts of terrorism. In doing so she breached an agreement not to do so, that she had already signed and did not challenge in a court. Instead she just broke it. Shes guilty based on her own actions.