Terrorists arrested in Washington DC

[Atlanteax]

It's such a relief to have these individuals behind bars instead on our streets! :D

.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050922201109990009&ncid=NWS000100 00000001

Sheehan Arrested During Anti-War Protest
By JENNIFER C. KERR, AP

WASHINGTON (Sept. 26) - Cindy Sheehan , the California woman who became a leader of the anti-war movement following her son's death in Iraq, was arrested Monday along with dozens of others protesting outside the White House.

Sheehan , carrying a photo of her son in his Army uniform, was among hundreds of protesters who marched around the White House and then down the two-block pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. When they reached the front of the White House, dozens sat down - knowing they would be arrested - and began singing and chanting "Stop the war now!"

Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests. One man climbed over the White House fence and was quickly subdued by Secret Service agents.

Sheehan , 48, was the first taken into custody. She smiled as she was carried to the curb, then stood up and walked to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."

About 50 people were arrested in the first hour, with dozens of others waiting to be taken away. All cooperated with police.

Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor.

Park Police Sgt. L.J. McNally said Sheehan and the others would be taken to a processing center where they would be fingerprinted and photographed, then given a ticket and released. The process would take several hours, he said.

Sheehan 's 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in an ambush in Sadr City, Iraq, last year. She attracted worldwide attention last month with her 26-day vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch.

The demonstration is part of a broader anti-war effort on Capitol Hill organized by United for Peace and Justice, an umbrella group. Representatives from anti-war groups were meeting Monday with members of Congress to urge them to work to end the war and bring home the troops.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush is "very much aware" of the protesters and "recognizes that there are differences of opinion" on Iraq.

"It's the right of the American people to peacefully express their views. And that's what you're seeing here in Washington, D.C.," McClellan said. "They're well-intentioned, but the president strongly believes that withdrawing ... would make us less safe and make the world more dangerous."

The protest Monday followed a massive demonstration Saturday on the National Mall that drew a crowd of 100,000 or more, the largest such gathering in the capital since the war began in March 2003.

On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants. Speakers included veterans of World War II and the war in Iraq, as well as family members of soldiers killed in Iraq.

"I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan and her supporters: Don't be a group of unthinking lemmings," said Mitzy Kenny of Ridgeley, W.Va., whose husband died in Iraq last year. She said the anti-war demonstrations "can affect the war in a really negative way. It gives the enemy hope."

[Warriorbird]

Definitely shows the respect you have for other people's beliefs.

[Sean of the Thread]

They brought onto themselves.

[Warriorbird]

Oh, the arrests? Certainly. Being called terrorists by Atlanteax? Ehhh...

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Oh, the arrests? Certainly. Being called terrorists by Atlanteax? Ehhh...

Sorry that's what I meant. /agree

[Back]

Like Jesus and the Romans.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Like Jesus and the Romans.

LOL. Best post ever.

Cindy Sheehan is just like Jesus Christ.

Could someone printshop a picture of her on Jesus' body for Backlash's desk please?

Thanks.

[Parkbandit]

Cindy's 15 minutes of fame is just about up. Even Hillary, the ultra lib, is distancing herself from this wacko.

[Hulkein]

Backlash is going to spin off the Earth any day now.

[Back]

On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants. Speakers included veterans of World War II and the war in Iraq, as well as family members of soldiers killed in Iraq.

Wow, thats the best the war supporters can do? Pathetic.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants. Speakers included veterans of World War II and the war in Iraq, as well as family members of soldiers killed in Iraq.

Wow, thats the best the war supporters can do? Pathetic.

Most of the supporters are Republican.. and probably either working or with their families. It's not a surprise that the biggest demonstrators are the liberals. It's always been like that.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Backlash is going to spin off the Earth any day now.

LOL.. we can only hope.

[4a6c1]

I was wrong to defend her. That woman is an idiot.

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by JihnasSpirit]

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Someone should put this shit in the politics folder so unsuspecting free thinkers don't have to be subjected to the consipracy theories Backlash continues to have.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Like Jesus and the Romans.

LOL. Best post ever.

Cindy Sheehan is just like Jesus Christ.

Could someone printshop a picture of her on Jesus' body for Backlash's desk please?

Thanks.

Ask and ye shall receive. And yes, move to Politcs folder plz.

[Jonty]

And yes, move to Politcs folder plz.


It already is.

[Ilvane]

Personally, she has a right to say what she has to say.

She's not against the troops. I wish the idiots who say things about anti-war people being anti-troops. That just plain isn't the case.

Those people want the troops to come home, idiots..being as safe as can be here...not in a war that was for what?? Why can't Bush just answer that?

-A

She has every right to protest, but she needs to do it legally. No one is attacking her right to do it.

- Arkans

[Ravenstorm]

Peaceful civil disobedience is a time honored tradition. So long as they know what they can expect and it stays peaceful, more power to her and those who also want to protest.

Raven

[Terminator X]

I have family who have been protesting on the march for quite a while now.

Knowing the liberalness (word?) of the surrounding campuses to the DC area, especially the ability for those to begin pouring out of college park and other MD areas, I can only wait in amusement at the backlash from this recent bout of autism by our administration ... that will procreate ten-thousand fold in its reciprocity.

P.S. Targetting one individual specifically to bust on the account of lacking the possessing of protesting permit(s) is probably one of, if not, the last sequence of events an ass-fucked administration would do in order to quiet down any naysayers.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Terminator X]

[Snapp]

I don't know if I agree with purposely getting arrested protesting, but hey, she got the attention she wanted. I really can't judge her actions too harshly, as I don't know what I would do if I were in her shoes and my son was killed over there.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Snapp]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Terminator X

P.S. Targetting one individual specifically to bust on the account of lacking the possessing of protesting permit(s) is probably one of, if not, the last sequence of events an ass-fucked administration would do in order to quiet down any naysayers.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Terminator X]

She stopped walking in front of the White House. You're not allowed to do that; the law is you have to keep moving.

Got it, chief? They didn't have a chopper tailing her and arrest her for no reason.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Those people want the troops to come home, idiots..being as safe as can be here...not in a war that was for what?? Why can't Bush just answer that?
-A

I would probably like to hear what someone who's been abroad feels about the protests and how they interpret it. Instead of someone armcharing opinions of 'idiots' who have a differing opinion.

I have heard, and its been said by those who are in the know, that protests at home against the war are perceived by the troops as protests against them. Viet Nam was a good example of protests and the intent of the protestors and low and behold no ticker tape parade when they came home either - just youngsters spitting and throwing fruit.

Based on precedence, I would say with some degree of confidence that the troops over there fighting dont share your same opinion. They are following ordres from their commanders and doing their job as soldiers. But I could be wrong, so I ask someone who's been over there to add their 2 cents.

As far as Sheehan is concerned, well, it was only a matter of time when she took the plunge and got arrested. It seems she could not do it at the Bush ranch as originally planned or encouraged. While she has her right to protest, she does not have the right to break the law and thus she was treated accordingly. I hope she enjoys her assimilation into the movement and has a good time while her 15 minutes lasts. Eventually we'll find her at home when the movement finds someone else with a fresh face and a fresh reason for protesting. Hope she gets lots of photographs for her scrapbook.

[Artha]

being as safe as can be here
What kind of fucking retard signs up for the army expecting safety?

[Warriorbird]

I see nothing wrong with arresting them for protesting improperly. Calling them terrorists bespeaks McCarthyism as much as comparing Cindy Sheehan to Jesus bespeaks insanity.

This is still theoretically a free country.

[Rowi]

People that want a little help paying for a Education then bitch because ohh SHIT a war broke out!! Then again if I woulda died over in Kuwait and my mom bitched Id be pissed!! like I died for nothing, hey thanks mom!!

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Peaceful civil disobedience is a time honored tradition. So long as they know what they can expect and it stays peaceful, more power to her and those who also want to protest.

Raven

What Ravenstorm said.

She and the others went knowing they would be arrested.

They were prepared to pay the price of such actions. They were arrested, recieved the publicity they desired.

End of story.

I don't quite see the big deal.

[DeV]

Damn, and I thought they arrested some actual terrorists in Washington D.C.

Way to be a Cindy Sheehan, Atlanteax.

[Terminator X]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Terminator X

P.S. Targetting one individual specifically to bust on the account of lacking the possessing of protesting permit(s) is probably one of, if not, the last sequence of events an ass-fucked administration would do in order to quiet down any naysayers.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Terminator X]

She stopped walking in front of the White House. You're not allowed to do that; the law is you have to keep moving.

Got it, chief? They didn't have a chopper tailing her and arrest her for no reason.

^

LMFAO for several reasons at this statement :lol:

This would have zero to negative barings on whether she possessed a protesting permit if it was actually a written law.

You can be as idle as a quadrapalegic with terminal gout, it doesn't matter.

P.S. Choppers following here around aren't, nor are they ever any kind of even barely reliable indicator of "HOLY SHIT, UB3R L33T ILLEGAL ACTS ARE BEING PERPETRATED AT 1400! PUSH DEFCOM TO 1."

If this administration wants to show its missing nuts by trying to make a scene out of these burdensome acts of fellonious stature, maybe they should start a few blocks off from the capitol or monument where the homeless and crackheads very possibly perpetrate illegal acts that are probably a bit more burdensome than a few protestors excercising their first ammendment rights. I'm pretty sure King George II can see them (actual criminals) when he isn't busy staring in the mirror putting neosporin on his latest bicycle-injury.

P.S. There are so many fucking snipers lurking around the march (I'll see if I can post up a few pictures in a week or two) and other attempting-to-be intimidating factors, that it's really ashame our administration had to call in a helicopter when they have enough fire-power on the scene to pull off a few Kent States, I'm sure :rolleyes:

- The Termite

[Gan]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
She and the others went knowing they would be arrested.

And knowing that they were going to break the law. Can I use the same excuse and get the same publicity the next time I get a speeding ticket?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Skirmisher
She and the others went knowing they would be arrested.

And knowing that they were going to break the law. Can I use the same excuse and get the same publicity the next time I get a speeding ticket? I don't think she is saying that it was an excuse. It just is what it is. She knew what was coming. Unless I'm missing something here.

[Warriorbird]

And knowing that they were going to break the law. Can I use the same excuse and get the same publicity the next time I get a speeding ticket?

-Ganalon

I'm guessing no. I'm behind you all the way though, buddy. That way the purpousefuly obtuse shtick might actually be funny.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Skirmisher
She and the others went knowing they would be arrested.

And knowing that they were going to break the law. Can I use the same excuse and get the same publicity the next time I get a speeding ticket?

Give it a shot and let us know how it turns out.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by DeV
Damn, and I thought they arrested some actual terrorists in Washington D.C.

Way to be a Cindy Sheehan, Atlanteax.

I'll admit, I pulled a bit of yellow journalism there. :saint:

[ElanthianSiren]

Shame on whomever equated a basic American right to terrorism. Learn what your country is about.

On topic: I disagree with the protestors for the following reasons:

It's important that the troops stay in Iraq, now that Al-quaida has a strong base there IMO. Pulling them out immediately would be a mistake and only degenerate an already bad situation in the middle east. Instead of protesting the war, these people should be protesting what got us INTO the war if they really oppose it.

A little story: In 1985 when Bruce Springsteen led a concert in Ashburry Garden, he says
"If you grew up in the 60s, you grew up with war on TV every night. -A war that your friends were involved in. I want to do this song for the young people out there because ... the next time, they're gonna be looking at you, and you're gonna need a lot of information to know what you're gonna wanna do because in 1985 blind faith in your leaders or in anything will get you killed." He then goes into the song War, albeit almost 20 years too early.

At least those of us who were against the invasion from the beginning, those who did not have blind faith, can be resolute in the fact that we were correct. Protesting the war now however IMO isn't going to: 1. positively change anything because we NEED to be there now Just To Stabilize Iraq. 2. change the past to make it a justified war based on the reasons for its waging (WMDs), no matter how much the current administration flip flops or spins their various reasonings.

What I want to see are people pushing for systems that prohibit an unjust war like this from taking place again, not a lament for a war we shouldn't be in. We are in it. Without systems in place to check this kind of "oversight", the next jackass can just come in and blame a scapegoat for his/her personal crusades. Those who cannot or will not aknowledge past mistakes are doomed to repeat them: that saying is true for all.

-M
Edited to consolidate 2 posts

[Edited on Tue, September th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Ilvane]

I tend to think protest alerts those people who started a war on false pretenses that we know they did it. I think that's part of the problem. Sadly, things won't change unless they get voted out, or they have the mothers of dead soldiers asking questions about what their sons or daughters died for.


-A

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't think things will change until people stop following the party lines and think for themselves. Then, they need to address their various representatives, and those people will either 1. consider what's being said or 2. be so overwhelmed by incoming opinion that they can't get ANYTHING done.

Anyway, I doubt Bush is paying much attention to the protestors, as the only individuals allowed in his rallys/speeches are those who sign contracts affirming their support. I think I read that somewhere anyway. It shows he is not fond of addressing or considering dissenting opinions.

-M

[Edited on Tue, September th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I see nothing wrong with arresting them for protesting improperly. Calling them terrorists bespeaks McCarthyism as much as comparing Cindy Sheehan to Jesus bespeaks insanity.

This is still theoretically a free country.

I was right with you up until your "Rovian" placed word.. "theoretically".. then you ruined it.

So sad.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV
Damn, and I thought they arrested some actual terrorists in Washington D.C.

Way to be a Cindy Sheehan, Atlanteax.

:lol:

Agreed as well. Mother fuck.. that's two of "them" that I agreed with. I hope I'm not coming down with some illness.

:(:sniffle::(

[Parkbandit]

The thing I dislike about Cindy is the way she is a complete attention whore.. throwing away all that her son believed in, fought for and died for.. so she could seek her 15 minutes of fame.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
The thing I dislike about Cindy is the way she is a complete attention whore.. throwing away all that her son believed in, fought for and died for.. so she could seek her 15 minutes of fame.

I think you are making a rather large assumpton though in saying that she is not only doing what she feels is right.

Of course it is possible that you are correct but I would tend to err on the side of caution when dealing with a grieving mother.

You could still make the argument that what she feels is right is still wrong, but to make the leap that she is in this only for self promotion is I think an iffy thing at best and one that is near impossible to prove.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Skirmisher]

[Tsa`ah]

She was the first arrested. She was right up against the gates and the police waded through a mass of protesters in order to get her first.

If I'm a cop and I'm arresting demonstrators, I'm not wading into them in order to be selective, I'm starting in the front and working my way back. She was targeted specifically.

Second, not knowing her son and her son's beliefs ... you'll be hard pressed to gain sympathy from me using the "died in vain" and "attention whore" arguments. Not everyone in the military signs up to be invaders.

Third, the charges are of the misdemeanor variety. People that drive and break the law by their habits pose more of a threat than sitting on a sidewalk.

Fourth, it doesn't surprise me in the least that a GOP hard on would compare a civilly disobedient protest to an act of terrorism.

[Sean of the Thread]

I believe that she is no longer rational and the poor women needs some time down at the VA on a couch and less time whoring out to the left wing fruits.

Pull our troops out of occupied NO? wtf.

"George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power"

While at first I respected her right to disgrace her son's memory with her protesting she has now lost alot of cred with her incoherent gibberish as of late.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Xyelin
While at first I respected her right to disgrace her son's memory with her protesting she has now lost alot of cred with her incoherent gibberish as of late.

Again, you paint her actions as discgraceful to her son, yet you don't know her or her son.

Using the very same "patriotic" arguments about "fighting for our freedom" ... she is doing nothing but honoring her son by doing the very thing he died to "protect".

These shame and disgrace bullshit comments are really showing a lack of intelligent thought.

[Sean of the Thread]

Like I said it is her right to disgrace her son's (an adult) rational decision to join a volunteer military knowing full well the ramifications of that decision. What he didn't know is how his mother was going to whore his death out to the nutcakes.

Nice to lay a red herring by repeating yourself rather than make a counter point about the ignorant occupied Orleans quote.




[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Xyelin]

[Back]

I couldn’t make the protest because of family obligations. Not worried about it though. I would have gone for the spectacle, but thats about it. So call me a terrorist (or an apostle) for my intent.

It was clear to me the OP was attempting tongue-in-cheekiness with his choice of titles for this topic. My Jesus post was the same thing. It just popped into my head for a couple of parallels... but they didn’t hammer nails into her hands and plant her crucifix on the front lawn.

A couple of hours processing her ticket and letting her loose is no hardship on her, but she is portrayed as the grieving mother of a dead son who was thrown in jail for speaking out against death, destruction and war, speaking out for peace.

Not a bad martyr image... IF she hadn’t knowingly allowed herself to be arrested. I’m sure it was all pretty dramatic and emotional for everyone present. On second thought, I’m glad I skipped the protest.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
She was the first arrested. She was right up against the gates and the police waded through a mass of protesters in order to get her first.

I hadn't heard that.

Got a link or something for me to read about that?

[DeV]

I don't view her actions as being disgraceful to her son. I do however think she is running on empty. Most intelligent liberals understand at this point as ES so elegantly put it that it would be a travesty to call for a pullout at this point in the invasion. Beyond impossible; inhumane is a better word for it.

[Skirmisher]

As Siren and DeV said I also agree that just wrapping things up and pulling out would be simply fueling a fire we already started.

Unfortunately we are stuck with a bad situation for now and though I hope we can scale back some things, we have a duty not only to the people of Iraq who have paid a far higher price than we have, but to those US soldiers who have been wounded or killed over there to try to leave a govt with at least a chance of success.

I understand Ms Sheehan's pain and anger though and I also think her protests help serve a purpose, if only to remind Bush that although he can surround himself with all the yes men he can find in the world, that does not mean the world or even the country as a whole thinks he is doing a bang up job.

The day that we are not allowed to protest or worse, afraid to protest is the day that we will have become a totalitarian state like Iraq was before. So all those who say she is besmirching her sons sacrifice might take a moment and think that maybe she is instead honoring it by using that freedom that he and so many others have lost their lives in the service of defending.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

So all those who say she is besmirching her sons sacrifice might take a moment and think that maybe she is instead honoring it by using that freedom that he and so many others have lost their lives in the service of defending.

That's pretty and sweet.. but it's a load of crap in my opinion.

Her son joined the armed forces. Granted, I do not know the personal opinion of her son and this war, but a vast majority of the fighting men and women are over there fighting for the Iraqii freedom and agree with the policy of the current administration. Until I see something credible that says that he didn't want to be in Iraq, that he was forced to join the Army and that he thought this war was unjust, then she is doing nothing but besmirching the ideals that he believed in.

While I agree that we all have the right to peacefully demonstrating our dislike of a policy or war, I look down on the mothers, wives, fathers that use the death of their son or daughter to promote their own ideals and opinions. I think it lessens the sacrifice that their relative gave for something they signed up to do and believed in.

[Gan]

As someone who does not agree nor support Ms. Sheehan's actions, I feel that my right to speak out against what she's doing is as much of a right as hers is to protest.

Its just up to the public to discern those who are engaged in free speech versus those who seek to inhibit said speech from either side.

Note: Her arrest in no way can be construed as a violation of her free speech, as she clearly broke the law. A law that she knew existed beforehand and was premeditated in breaking in order to make a statement.

[Warriorbird]

I look down on the mothers, wives, fathers that use the death of their son or daughter to promote their own ideals and opinions. I think it lessens the sacrifice that their relative gave for something they signed up to do and believed in.
-Parkbandit

So you wouldn't have approved of some parent using their child's death on 9/11 to justify going after Bin Laden?

I'm gonna have to call bullshit on your whole statement.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Ganalon
As someone who does not agree nor support Ms. Sheehan's actions, I feel that my right to speak out against what she's doing is as much of a right as hers is to protest.

Its just up to the public to discern those who are engaged in free speech versus those who seek to inhibit said speech from either side.

Note: Her arrest in no way can be construed as a violation of her free speech, as she clearly broke the law. A law that she knew existed beforehand and was premeditated in breaking in order to make a statement.

I hope you did not somehow end up with the perception that I thought or siad that she should not be arrested.

I think she should have. She set out to do so and was.

My only point was that those that call her terrorist or try to shout her down or ridicule her and would love it if she were to let those who say cruel and hurtfull things to her bully her into shutting up because they think she is being un patriotic are only making it easier for themselves to be shut up when something happens that they themselves do not like.

Yes, she should have been arrested.

Hopefully that clears that up.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

I look down on the mothers, wives, fathers that use the death of their son or daughter to promote their own ideals and opinions. I think it lessens the sacrifice that their relative gave for something they signed up to do and believed in.
-Parkbandit

So you wouldn't have approved of some parent using their child's death on 9/11 to justify going after Bin Laden?

I'm gonna have to call bullshit on your whole statement.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Warriorbird]

That's not even a relative statement.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

I look down on the mothers, wives, fathers that use the death of their son or daughter to promote their own ideals and opinions. I think it lessens the sacrifice that their relative gave for something they signed up to do and believed in.
-Parkbandit

So you wouldn't have approved of some parent using their child's death on 9/11 to justify going after Bin Laden?

I'm gonna have to call bullshit on your whole statement.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Warriorbird]

IF that "child" knew about the attacks and went into that building beforehand as a demonstration against terrorism.. you would have a point. Since that was not the case, I can only believe that your point was to not have a real point.

Congrats if that is the case I guess.

[Warriorbird]

:shrugs: I suppose it doesn't correspond exactly. Plain and simply if it was someone using a child's death for something you agreed with I doubt you would've had a problem with it at all.

Your views are clearly colored.

[Skirmisher]

See these last several posts only go to show the totally different ways of looking at the situation.

Those who are against her are seeing her as "using" her sons death while myself and others instead see her sons death as the impetus that drives her forward.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I hadn't heard that.

Got a link or something for me to read about that?

It was in the original article posted and in all the footage shown on every major news network.


Sheehan , 48, was the first taken into custody. She smiled as she was carried to the curb, then stood up and walked to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."

This wasn't a case of arresting protesters, this was a case of "arrest that bitch and anyone with her."

[Sean of the Thread]

No actually it was a case of people breaking the law and thus they were arrested.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. Getting arrested was pretty clearly a goal. I guess it's kind've the ACLU/NRA member in me that may not agree with what you're saying or what you're doing with what you have but will agree with your right to have it.

I don't think Cindy Sheehan's all that rational. I don't agree with her goals. I thought her "occupied New Orleans" line was ridiculous. I do think that she has every right to protest. I do think calling her a terrorist or saying she's "getting people killed" is ridiculous.

She's doing what people with a cause do. If you had a kid die and had a cause you'd do similar, Parkbandit et al.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
See these last several posts only go to show the totally different ways of looking at the situation.

Those who are against her are seeing her as "using" her sons death while myself and others instead see her sons death as the impetus that drives her forward.

I would completely agree if say her son was killed in an automobile accident and she then becomes the outspoken voice for vehicle safety.. or if her child was abducted and killed, she champions children rights. Those I would agree with because it's not against something the child believed in.

In this case, we have someone who joined the armed forces and went over to Iraq. I will assume that he went over willingly and that he believed in the cause for this war. He dies and now his mother is protesting the very thing he gave his life for.

I see a big difference is all.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Xyelin
No actually it was a case of people breaking the law and thus they were arrested.

Were that the case, she would have been on the tail end of the arrests, instead they waded through every demonstrater around her and grabbed her first.

The logic in that tactic is non-existant if they were "just arresting" people in an "illegal" demonstration. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that if they were granted a permit, they would only be allowed to demonstrate their constitutional right in some out of the way park miles from where the demonstration would have impact.

People break the law every second of every day, it's just in the name of "security" that this administration has set up zones for people to demonstrate against said administration ... miles away from everyone else.

In my opinion the arrest was bullshit and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that. Set aside your political hang ups and opinions of the woman's actions and you should come to that conclussion.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
She's doing what people with a cause do. If you had a kid die and had a cause you'd do similar, Parkbandit et al.


Incorrect. If my child died doing something they believed in and gave their life for.. I wouldn't be seeking my 15 minutes of fame by commercializing their death.

If my 18 year old daughter (in 7 years) went and joined Greenpeace and was killed by a whale, I wouldn't be on the TV telling everyone that Greenpeace is responsible for my kid's death and that they are nothing more than a terrorist group. I might THINK it, but you wouldn't see me on CBS telling everyone about it. I would never dishonor my child's beliefs and life with self promotion.

Never.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Xyelin
No actually it was a case of people breaking the law and thus they were arrested.

Were that the case, she would have been on the tail end of the arrests, instead they waded through every demonstrater around her and grabbed her first.

The logic in that tactic is non-existant if they were "just arresting" people in an "illegal" demonstration. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that if they were granted a permit, they would only be allowed to demonstrate their constitutional right in some out of the way park miles from where the demonstration would have impact.

People break the law every second of every day, it's just in the name of "security" that this administration has set up zones for people to demonstrate against said administration ... miles away from everyone else.

In my opinion the arrest was bullshit and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that. Set aside your political hang ups and opinions of the woman's actions and you should come to that conclussion.


She went there for the express purpose of getting arrested. It got her name out in the headlines again. She did what she did because she knew it was against the law and she would be arrested. It was a calculated move on her part.

[Warriorbird]

He didn't understand why America was in Iraq at first, but felt loyalty to the people of the armed services. In essence, he believed in the troops but not the cause in particular. Later on she says he rationalized it because of a belief in the presence of WMDs.

You can't exactly take her as non biased, but it's not as clear cut a case of a mother "going against her son's wishes" as you make it out to be, Parkbandit.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
She went there for the express purpose of getting arrested. It got her name out in the headlines again. She did what she did because she knew it was against the law and she would be arrested. It was a calculated move on her part.

And I don't deny this, however claiming that she was just arrested for breaking the law is total bull and you know it.

[Skirmisher]

But Tsa`ah, it is pretty much a given that she intended to be arrested and from the arrest reap a harvest of news coverage.

I like her and feel very badly for her, but even I am a bit mystified by the New Orleans comment.

I think she does believe in what she is doing, but do worry that she may be losing focus on what started all this.

I wish she would just go back to holding a vigil in wait of obtaining a meeting with Bush so he can have the chance to meet a mother who has lost her son who has not been screened in advance so he has to look her in the eye and see the pain she is going through instead of just hearing yet again how much everyone appreciates all he is doing for them and such.

Don't forget, this is a man who has said he doesn't watch the news. Maybe he is so well insulated he really does not understand how many people disagree with his policies and a face to face meeting with a mother who has made just about the largest sacrifice she can might be one of the few things to bring such opinions to his attention through his protective haze.

But the New Orleans comment does worry me and make me hope she is not perhaps losing her clarity of purpose.

I hope not.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Parkbandit
She went there for the express purpose of getting arrested. It got her name out in the headlines again. She did what she did because she knew it was against the law and she would be arrested. It was a calculated move on her part.

And I don't deny this, however claiming that she was just arrested for breaking the law is total bull and you know it.

I think anyone that did what she did would be arrested in the same fashion that she was, so I wouldn't call it total bull. She knew the consequences and she knew what she had to do to break the law.

I compare it to someone purposely driving a corvette past an officer with a radar gun, going 100 mph. There's not much of a chance they aren't going to be arrested.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Parkbandit
She went there for the express purpose of getting arrested. It got her name out in the headlines again. She did what she did because she knew it was against the law and she would be arrested. It was a calculated move on her part.

And I don't deny this, however claiming that she was just arrested for breaking the law is total bull and you know it.

If she had had protested in a legal area she would not have been arrested....... what is your point?

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Xyelin]

[Warriorbird]

If my 18 year old daughter (in 7 years) went and joined Greenpeace and was killed by a whale, I wouldn't be on the TV telling everyone that Greenpeace is responsible for my kid's death and that they are nothing more than a terrorist group. I might THINK it, but you wouldn't see me on CBS telling everyone about it. I would never dishonor my child's beliefs and life with self promotion.
-Parkbandit

If you felt that Greenpeace had taken her there under false pretenses and lied to her about safety and their reasons for acting you might feel a bit differently. If you uncovered a corporate conspiracy behind Greenpeace you might feel a bit differently.

I'm not saying that I feel any of those things, just your view of her situation is a little simplistic. She's protesting because she felt her son and others were lied to.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Warriorbird]

[CrystalTears]

Eh, they went straight for her because not only is she known, but known for starting these rallies. They went for the leader who instigated some, if not most, of this anti-war hostility. She just fucked up and got arrested for.

Had our rallies gotten out of hand and not moved when we were asked to move for these eminent domain protests, you can bet that they would be arresting Kelo first because she was the one who brought the group together.

The leader is always the one who gets screwed.

[Tsa`ah]

The ignored point that everyone taking the "she broke the law" stance is that she was singled out and arrested first.

The police weren't ordered to arrest protesters, they were ordered to arrest her. Everyone else was arrested in stride.

No, I don't agree with her statements, but I do agree with her intent. I also see the smearing of constitutional rights in all of this.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
And I don't deny this, however claiming that she was just arrested for breaking the law is total bull and you know it.

The law stated that you have to keep moving. She sat down. She was arrested for protesting without a licesense or certificate or something like that. She did not have one.

Your claim that its total BS is whats total BS.

Additionally, I'd like to see the film footage or a description of the events and the arrest to see what order the protestors were arrested in and where she was sitting. Claiming that she was arrested first or last is just grossly guessing without that evidence.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Ganalon
The law stated that you have to keep moving. She sat down. She was arrested for protesting without a licesense or certificate or something like that. She did not have one.

She was arrested for excercising her constitutional right. She was singled out.


Your claim that its total BS is whats total BS.

No Gan, it's bullshit that everyone is skipping over her constitutional rights and the point that she was targetted.


Additionally, I'd like to see the film footage or a description of the events and the arrest to see what order the protestors were arrested in and where she was sitting. Claiming that she was arrested first or last is just grossly guessing without that evidence.

Check out CNN and re-read the article posted. Read almost every article on the subject .. She was arrested first.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

I also see the smearing of constitutional rights in all of this.

You need to brush up on your Constitutional Rights then.

[Skirmisher]

I'm just not sure what difference it makes if she was arrested first, middle or last.

It wouldnt have been the news it was if they had not arrested her. She got exactly what she wanted.

I don't see any horrible thing in how the police acted in this situation from what I have read.

[Warriorbird]

Me either.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
You need to brush up on your Constitutional Rights then.

The right to peaceful assembly is a given with the first amendment.

[Warriorbird]

But not the right to protest in restricted areas.

[CrystalTears]

Yes, protesting is an American right. But there are still laws and rules you have to follow for it to be considered a legal one. Stopping and sitting on the property is a big no-no. You have to keep moving.

[Gan]

Allright, I re-read the CNN article. Yes she was arrested first. Where was she in proximity of the police? Was she in the back of the group? The front of the group?

Here's an interesting point of note in the article I found:

"Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests. One man climbed over the White House fence and was quickly subdued by Secret Service agents.

Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She smiled as she was carried to the curb, then stood up and walked to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."

About 50 people were arrested in the first hour, with dozens of others waiting to be taken away. All cooperated with police."

She was arrested for breaking the law, plain and simple. The police exercised their discretionary authority and removed the protestors from the area as required. What would you have done if you were the police? Let them sit there, knowing its in violation of a law put there for a reason, just because she's been on TV? Drag them out of the way and risk injuring them? Turn a firehose on them? Run over them with Tanks like Tinenman Square?

If you leave them there you're infringing on the rights of others who wish to be in that area for whatever reasons they have a right to be there for.

I think the police exercised the appropriate response to the protest. Even if that was the end goal of the group.


SOURCE-CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/wardemonstrations.ap/index.html)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Parkbandit
You need to brush up on your Constitutional Rights then.

The right to peaceful assembly is a given with the first amendment.

Fine.. so you want to read the constitution literally then. Great.

I hope you don't mind if I get 1000 people to stand in the street in front of your house then. We will bring chairs and tents and stay there for a month. I am certain you would have no problem with it at all since we are assembling and being peaceful about it. I won't even bring my gun.

Washington DC has it's laws regarding peaceful demonstrations. Break the laws regarding them and you run the risk of arrest. She WENT to DC TO GET ARRESTED. She knew what she was doing and knew how to break the law TO GET ARRESTED.

No one trampled on her constitutional rights. She broke the law. Plain and simple.

One man climbed over the White House fence and was quickly subdued by Secret Service agents.


Man, what was that guy thinking!? Protesting is one thing, but that just seems to be risking your life for no apparent reason. Was he going to dare Secret Service to shoot him while he did a one man charge on the White House?

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
I'm just not sure what difference it makes if she was arrested first, middle or last.

It wouldnt have been the news it was if they had not arrested her. She got exactly what she wanted.

I don't see any horrible thing in how the police acted in this situation from what I have read.

Now Skirm, put yourself in the shoes of the police. You are told to arrest these protestors.

Do you:

A) Pull up in the wagon, get out, and then start reading protestors their rights.

Or

B) Pull up in the wagon, get out, wade through a few hundred people (thereby ignoring them) to pick out the one woman who started the protest in Texas some time back.

The point is simply that the order was given to arrest her and then anyone else participating. It was a message.

To the point of constitutionality, at what point do we draw the line? Just because you don't agree with the protest does not mean that we should ignore the constitution ... or trample on it just so the view of the white house is uncluttered.

You'll be arrested if you sit down on the sidewalk? Get a permit to perform a constitutionally protected act?

It's a load of bullshit.

[Warriorbird]

B) Pull up in the wagon, get out, wade through a few hundred people (thereby ignoring them) to pick out the one woman who started the protest in Texas some time back.

Pretty much standard procedure to go after leaders in that sort of situation.

[Warriorbird]

Man, what was that guy thinking!? Protesting is one thing, but that just seems to be risking your life for no apparent reason. Was he going to dare Secret Service to shoot him while he did a one man charge on the White House?

Protestors do some crazy stuff. I had to save a crazed guy protesting on NCAA tournament day in Madison a few years ago who charged into the midst of a bunch of drunk University of Texas basketball (scuse me) fans.

People get so fired up on their cause they totally ignore personal safety.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Allright, I re-read the CNN article. Yes she was arrested first. Where was she in proximity of the police? Was she in the back of the group? The front of the group?


Ever been to the Whitehouse?

She was at the fense, not in the outer edges of the protest. From the footage I saw, and I'm sure it's still up if you care to look, she was carried from the fence to the edge of the demonstration. The police had to wade through to identify her, then they picked her up and carried her out of the demonstration.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
The point is simply that the order was given to arrest her and then anyone else participating. It was a message.


I don't see it the same way. I'm taking it that you are viewing this as the govt making an example out of her or something of the sort...

I view it like this:

1. She went there to get arrested.
2. She's the focal point/hero of the people protesting.
3. She's breaking the law for the sole purpose of getting arrested.
4. She's not leaving until she gets arrested.

The quickest way to stop people from breaking the law is obviously to remove the leader...

I'd guess that throughout our country's history, that the police ALWAYS would attempt to arrest the leader of the illegal protest first, because that's the quickest way to end the lawbreaking. I think it's just common sense, not some nefarious plot.

[Warriorbird]

Just clarified that with a cop... a liberal cop no less.

[Terminator X]

If I had done some of the more highlighted things that King George II has been directly and indirectly responsible for, I would cream myself knowing that a few hundred thousand demonstrators was the worst backlash I had incurred so far.

I still don't recall if and when it has ever actually been illegal to stay idling whilst donning your 10x sign of greater protesting... :?:

With dictionary.com's definition, the right to assemble, similar to speech, has had many lines of invisible text add to it, only legible to certain affiliations apparently.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assemble

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Terminator X]

[Back]

Damn right she was arrested first. Serves her right! Godam bitch discracing her son like that. Leaving her husband for those protester hippies in Texas with their drugs, orgies, and abortions. The woman is a discrace to Americans and good christions everywhere. All she wants is to get on TV.

[DeV]

She should have just gotten drunk in public and then while being arrested for public intoxication, resisted arrest. It would have been a non-story and we would not be having this friendly little debate because no one would have really given a damn. :shrug:

She went about this all wrong.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. They'd vehemently defend her right to get drunk in public. She'd just be dealing with the stresses of her life. It wouldn't say anything bad about her or her family at all.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Tea & Strumpets
I'd guess that throughout our country's history, that the police ALWAYS would attempt to arrest the leader of the illegal protest first, because that's the quickest way to end the lawbreaking. I think it's just common sense, not some nefarious plot.

Well we can rest easy now with the knowledge that DC's sidewalks are safe from the ass' of anyone wishing to demonstrate.

Originally posted by DeV
She should have just gotten drunk in public and then while being arrested for public intoxication, resisted arrest. It would have been a non-story and we would not be having this friendly little debate because no one would have really given a damn. :shrug:

She went about this all wrong.

Heh, that's funny but it's obviously a different situation. I'm sure she could be drunk and disorderly and her actions would be defended.

Similarly, a governor's son could get drunk and disorderly, and some folks would point out that the governor wasn't the one that actually committed the crime. :D

[Terminator X]

:yeahthat:

...And as an aside, from having been in the close proximities of protests myself, a more than ample police presence prior to the main demonstration itself highly suggests that, at least, the scheduling portion of the protest had been done in a lawful fashion.

[Terminator X]

My :yeahthat: emoticon was for Tsa'ah and DeV :oops:

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yeah. They'd vehemently defend her right to get drunk in public. She'd just be dealing with the stresses of her life. It wouldn't say anything bad about her or her family at all.

You're right, we would, and she would, and it wouldnt. Whats your point??? :rolleyes:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Tea & Strumpets
Similarly, a governor's son could get drunk and disorderly, and some folks would point out that the governor wasn't the one that actually committed the crime. :D No doubt since the governor wasn't the one that actually committed the crime. :!:

The fact that you graced my attempt at sarcasm with a well written reply = :thumbsup: and :no: all at once. Darn you.

[peam]

I don't know what's more retarded...

Protesting where arrest is guaranteed or Atlanteax's general appearance.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by emperor peam
I don't know what's more retarded...

Protesting where arrest is guaranteed or Atlanteax's general appearance.

It wasn't retarded on Cindy's part at all, since that was her plan.

Atlanteax ftw!

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by emperor peam
I don't know what's more retarded...

Protesting where arrest is guaranteed or Atlanteax's general appearance.

It wasn't retarded on Cindy's part at all, since that was her plan.

Atlanteax ftw!

Glad to entertain! :shrug:

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Atlanteax

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by emperor peam
I don't know what's more retarded...

Protesting where arrest is guaranteed or Atlanteax's general appearance.

It wasn't retarded on Cindy's part at all, since that was her plan.

Atlanteax ftw!

Glad to entertain! :shrug:

Nice tie.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Cindy's 15 minutes of fame is just about up. Even Hillary, the ultra lib, is distancing herself from this wacko.

Hillary won't take a stance on an issue until she polls it.

[xtc]

Only a dyed in the wool hardcore Republican could call Cindy Sheehan a terrorist.

Ironically the cost of the War in Iraq is the cost of rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Another $200 Billion in debt, shame we didn't have that money. Bush will have to cut programs, raise taxes or increase the deficit to pay for it.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by xtc
Only a dyed in the wool hardcore Republican could call Cindy Sheehan a terrorist.

Ironically the cost of the War in Iraq is the cost of rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Another $200 Billion in debt, shame we didn't have that money. Bush will have to cut programs, raise taxes or increase the deficit to pay for it.

It's a shame you are stupid.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by xtc
Only a dyed in the wool hardcore Republican could call Cindy Sheehan a terrorist.

Ironically the cost of the War in Iraq is the cost of rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Another $200 Billion in debt, shame we didn't have that money. Bush will have to cut programs, raise taxes or increase the deficit to pay for it.

It's a shame you are stupid.

How do you figure that?

Cost of Rebuilding after Hurricanes:

"reconstruction costs are estimated to be at least $200 billion."

ARTICLE (http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/16/news/economy/katrinarebuild/?cnn=yes)

COST OF WAR IN IRAQ as of this post:

197 Billion

LINK (http://costofwar.com/)

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by xtc]

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by xtc
Only a dyed in the wool hardcore Republican could call Cindy Sheehan a terrorist.

Ironically the cost of the War in Iraq is the cost of rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Another $200 Billion in debt, shame we didn't have that money. Bush will have to cut programs, raise taxes or increase the deficit to pay for it.

It's a shame you are stupid.

How do you figure that?

Cost of Rebuilding after Hurricanes:

"reconstruction costs are estimated to be at least $200 billion."

ARTICLE (http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/16/news/economy/katrinarebuild/?cnn=yes)

COST OF WAR IN IRAQ as of this post:

197 Billion

LINK (http://costofwar.com/)

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by xtc]

I'm sorry I'll rephrase. The fact that you find it ironic is stupid.

AND I was going to save this for another thread manana but the 200 being requested for the rebuild is CHOCKED FULL OF PORK barrelling bullshit to the point it is disgusting from BOTH sides of the fence.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Xyelin]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by xtc
Only a dyed in the wool hardcore Republican could call Cindy Sheehan a terrorist.

Ironically the cost of the War in Iraq is the cost of rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Another $200 Billion in debt, shame we didn't have that money. Bush will have to cut programs, raise taxes or increase the deficit to pay for it.

It's a shame you are stupid.

How do you figure that?

Cost of Rebuilding after Hurricanes:

"reconstruction costs are estimated to be at least $200 billion."

ARTICLE (http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/16/news/economy/katrinarebuild/?cnn=yes)

COST OF WAR IN IRAQ as of this post:

197 Billion

LINK (http://costofwar.com/)

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by xtc]

I'm sorry I'll rephrase. The fact that you find it ironic is stupid.

I don't see why. If we didn't invade Iraq we would have $200 Billion more. As it is Bush will have to raise taxes, cut programs or increase the deficit to pay for the clean up of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. The fact the amounts are almost the same I find ironic. I know I am not the only one who thinks this.

[Back]

Lets start a pool.

$1,000 says deficit.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Backlash
Lets start a pool.

$1,000 says deficit.

I saw John McCain on TV and he is calling some programs to be cut back and delays implementing others. Personally I think it will be a mix of cuts and deficit.



[Edited on 9-27-2005 by xtc]