Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Capitol police admit mistake as protester mulls legal battle

Sarek

Sarek

Vuhlkansu Wihs
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/01/sheehan.arrest/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Call it the tale of two different shirts worn by two very different women: a well-known peace activist who has agitated the White House and a lawmaker's wife who has staunchly supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan wore a shirt with the message "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- a reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.

Beverly Young, the wife of 18-term Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Young of Florida, wore a shirt that read "Support the Troops."

Both shirts resulted in their owners being ejected from the House chamber before President Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday night. (Full story)

Sheehan, an invited guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat, was arrested around 8:30 p.m. ET on charges of unlawful conduct. Young was asked to leave but not arrested.

On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said neither woman should have been removed from the chamber. "We made a mistake," he told CNN.

This part is especially note worthy:

"Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful," Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.
 
Frankly, anyone who wears a t-shirt to the State of the Union address deserves to be arrested, text or no.
 
They should have beat the shit out of both of them, then apologize for it.

Gads, people just can't comprehend how to get the most fun out of something.
 
Number_6 said:
Frankly, anyone who wears a t-shirt to the State of the Union address deserves to be arrested, text or no.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to add "And we'll just ignore the disparity in treatment because hey, Cindy Sheehan opposes the policies of the Bush administration. That alone justifies treating her like a criminal."
 
No, I was making a fashion statement.

As for the disparity between the treatment of Sheehan and Young, there was little reason to suspect that Young would return to the House Chamber and create a scene. Sheehan, on the other hand, has provided plenty of reason to suspect that she would do something to make a mockery of the State of the Union address.
 
Number_6 said:
...make a mockery of the State of the Union address.
Click to expand...
How can you mock something so obviously a mockery in itself? NCLB a success?

C'mon, Number_6. No, I don't mean to rehash old territory, but it was a talking point last night.

And, yeah, there was a definite disparity in the way the two women were treated. The partisan bias isn't surprising, actually.

Yeah, I'm in a mood...
 
Friday said:
How can you mock something so obviously a mockery in itself? NCLB a success?

C'mon, Number_6. No, I don't mean to rehash old territory, but it was a talking point last night.

And, yeah, there was a definite disparity in the way the two women were treated. The partisan bias isn't surprising, actually.

Yeah, I'm in a mood...
Click to expand...

It's still the President's State of the Union address, whether you agree with him or not. And NCLB would work so much better were the teachers and the unions not actively working against it. Note that the Connecticut chapter of the NAACP has joined a lawsuit against those trying to overturn provisions in the act, saying that educators are eschewing their duty to educate children and fighting against NCLB behind it might actually hold them accountable for their piss-poor performance.

And why is the bias partisan? Which person would you expect more trouble from, politics aside? Cindy Sheehan has been grandstanding for a long time. I suspect that she was under detention for as long as she was to prevent her from returning to the House Chambers. But not because of bias. Because she was a known troublemaker.
 
Number_6 said:
It's still the President's State of the Union address, whether you agree with him or not. And NCLB would work so much better were the teachers and the unions not actively working against it. Note that the Connecticut chapter of the NAACP has joined a lawsuit against those trying to overturn provisions in the act, saying that educators are eschewing their duty to educate children and fighting against NCLB behind it might actually hold them accountable for their piss-poor performance.
Click to expand...
I won't hijack Sarek's thread to address this because it's rude. And because you're wrong.

And why is the bias partisan? Which person would you expect more trouble from, politics aside? Cindy Sheehan has been grandstanding for a long time. I suspect that she was under detention for as long as she was to prevent her from returning to the House Chambers. But not because of bias. Because she was a known troublemaker.
Click to expand...
Not buying it. They both should have been dealt with equally. Justice is supposed to be blind, remember?
 
I don't know shit about NCLB, so I won't speak on that.

On the second point, though, I have to agree with Friday -- they should both have been asked to leave. Same offense, same response. Now, on the other hand, 6 is right, too -- Sheehan has given every impression of being the kind of person who would not take that cue gracefully. But is at the point where she initiates a disturbance, not before, that stricter measures should have been taken. As it is, all they did was provide her a mountain of new fuel for her martyr's pyre.
 
I heard that the crack posession charge that Okrah's been facing has been reduced, recently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top