Sheehan Arrested

[Ixolib]

I wonder if her host (Rep. Woolsey) still feels "proud to have her as a guest"???

Capitol Police arrest antiwar activist Sheehan
Invited to State of the Union address, she was removed from gallery

NBC News and news services
Updated: 10:15 p.m. ET Jan. 31, 2006


Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the antiwar movement, was arrested and removed from the House gallery Tuesday night just before President Bush’s State of the Union address, a police spokeswoman said.

Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, Capitol Police told NBC News. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.

Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an antiwar slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.

The T-shirt bore the words “2,245 Dead — How Many More??” in reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, protesters told NBC News.

Police handcuffed Sheehan and removed her from the gallery before Bush arrived. Sheehan was to be released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.

“I’m proud that Cindy’s my guest tonight,” Woolsey said in an interview before the speech. “She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq.”

Woolsey offered Sheehan a ticket to the speech — Gallery 5, seat 7, row A — earlier Tuesday while Sheehan was attending an “alternative state of the union” press conference by CODEPINK, a group pushing for an end to the Iraq war.

Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.

The Associated Press and NBC News’ Sarah Blackwill contributed to this report.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

[gtalum]

It's odd that they arrested her for wearing a t-shirt.

[Brent]

This is going to get political QUICKLY.

[vbhoutex]

It's odd that they arrested her for wearing a t-shirt.

Why is it odd? She was told that displays such as that were not allowed and she chose not to cover it or respond. They were just doing their job. She needs to have respect for others!!!!

[Terrell]

Sorry, but I think arresting her for wearing a t-shirt is wrong. Last I heard we still have a first amendment in this country and the right to petition the government for a redress of greviances. Simply wearing the t-shirt should not result in arrest. Nor should people be arrested for what they might do or say.

[alicia-w]

Sorry, but I think arresting her for wearing a t-shirt is wrong. Last I heard we still have a first amendment in this country and the right to petition the government for a redress of greviances. Simply wearing the t-shirt should not result in arrest. Nor should people be arrested for what they might do or say.

I agree!

[Extremeweatherguy]

I heard on CBS that she was never arrested just detained and asked to leave. Also, I heard that she was also holding a banner (don't know if it is true...just what I heard). You are not allowed to hold any kind of demonstration in the house gallery according to CBS last night (so anyone would have been detained, not just her).

[alicia-w]

there are worse things to be arrested (or detained)for than civil disobedience.

[Ixolib]

I agree that America is the Land of the Free, and with it comes the right to free speech. However, in this case, the individual broke the rules of the House and refused to comply before she was arrested.

I guess in my viewpoint, it is akin to going into a restaurant that says "shirt and shoes" required, but then defy their rule. Or, going into a public place that prohibits smoking, but then deciding to smoke anyway, and refuse to put it out.

I say I'd be quite embarrassed if I was Representative Woolsey and had one of my "guests" behave in a manner that is contrary to House rules and traditions... There's a time and place for everything. But not everyplace....

[TexasStooge]

Cindy Sheehan should know by now that protesting against the war isn't gonna bring her son back. I know that he died, but the mother is not doing her son's honor.

[Terrell]

A restaurant is a privately owned business, the house chamber is not.

If all she did was sit quietly with a shirt with anti-war message I don't think she should have been removed for that. Had she been shouting or had her shirt been obscene then I could see her being asked to leave, but I didn't hear anything to the effect of either of those. The rules should be amended for this.

[Terrell]

Cindy Sheehan should know by now that protesting against the war isn't gonna bring her son back. I know that he died, but the mother is not doing her son's honor.

Given that military members take an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and one of the rights granted by the constitution is freedom of speech, how exactly is she dishonoring her son?

Just because some people don't want to hear what she has to say doesn't make protesting the war in Iraq dishonorable.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of greviences.
1st Amendment US Constitution.

[alicia-w]

while the comparison is a loose one, no one gets arrested for not wearing shoes or a shirt in a restaurant.

the bottom line is that she got her message across by making the news. if they were really trying to keep her quiet, they'd have removed her and disallowed the press from reporting it.

[gtalum]

I am extremely uncomfortable abotu the fact that wearing a t-shirt that says “2,245 Dead — How Many More??” is considered "demonstration" in the house chamber. I support freedom of speech. I understand that disruptive demonstration cannot be allowed in the legislative chambers, but wearing a t-shirt is highly disruptive.

Please note I do not blame Bush for this, as it's apparently a long-standing gallery rule. I just think that it's a rule that doesn't belong in America.

If she weren't such a nutjob traitor I would wish she'd make some noise and help get the rule changed.

[gtalum]

...and disallowed the press from reporting it.

"They" don't have the power to do that.

[j]

'zzzzzzzz..... Just another extremist on the loose.

[Ixolib]

while the comparison is a loose one, no one gets arrested for not wearing shoes or a shirt in a restaurant.

the bottom line is that she got her message across by making the news. if they were really trying to keep her quiet, they'd have removed her and disallowed the press from reporting it.

If they refuse to comply with the rules of the restaurant, and then won't leave either, I would imagine the police could be called and an arrest may be in order. But I'll agree that her arrest was a bit extreme, my main point being that her host most probably did not expect her to become the attention of the press (or members of S2K - self included )

I just believe that the rules of anyone's house should be observed by an "invited guest", no matter where or who they are. If I invite someone into my house, the general expectation would be that they'd conduct themselves in a manner that is not contrary to the typical norms of the household. Then, if they do - and I ask them to stop and they don't - I too might call the police to have the offending "guest" removed and/or possibly arrested for whatever the offending behavior was i.e., disrupting the peace, drunk and disorderly, etc...

You are right, though, she certainly DID get her message across!!

[LSU2001]

If I am not mistaken there was a protester arrested for a similar display during one of President Clinton's speeches. This is not a new thing and Ms. Sheehan was told prior to the event that it would not be allowed. She chose to hide the shirt and then display it after she entered the chamber. What really gets me is that by "protesting" she is now a media celebrity and even gets invited to the State Of the Union Address. I do not agree with her views but I do believe that she has her right to those views, but her wishing to make a spectacle of herself on national TV to garner more support for her cause is in my opinion improper.
I support her removal from the house chamber because the right to Free Speech does not give a person carte Blanche permission to say or do anything they wish. It simply gives them the right to state their views without threat of govt. censorship or undue persecution. She did not wish to follow house decorum and was removed period.
Tim

[Ixolib]

If I am not mistaken there was a protester arrested for a similar display during one of President Clinton's speeches. This is not a new thing and Ms. Sheehan was told prior to the event that it would not be allowed. She chose to hide the shirt and then display it after she entered the chamber. What really gets me is that by "protesting" she is now a media celebrity and even gets invited to the State Of the Union Address. I do not agree with her views but I do believe that she has her right to those views, but her wishing to make a spectacle of herself on national TV to garner more support for her cause is in my opinion improper.
I support her removal from the house chamber because the right to Free Speech does not give a person carte Blanche permission to say or do anything they wish. It simply gives them the right to state their views without threat of govt. censorship or undue persecution. She did not wish to follow house decorum and was removed period.
Tim

Here, here!!

Decorum - yes, THAT'S the word I was looking for!!

[vbhoutex]

That is what respect for others and the laws set forth in this nation is all about!!!! I fully support free speech, however, even that must be done within the laws of the land.