Cindy Sheehan Arrested at White House Protest

[Manchot]

The news networks are reporting that Cindy Sheehan has just been arrested while protesting outside of the White House. I haven't found any sites reporting it yet, but I'm sure that there will be soon.

 

[2CentsWorth]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9493139/

Iraq war protester Sheehan arrested
Protest near White House aimed at refocusing attention on conflict
Associated Press
Sept. 26, 2005

WASHINGTON - Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who has used her son’s death in Iraq to spur the anti-war movement, was arrested Monday while protesting outside the White House.

Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.

Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She stood up and was led to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, “The whole world is watching.”

 

[Informal Logic]

From the link to the Associated Press report:

Others who were arrested also 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.

If a citizen has to obtain a permit to demonstrate, what does this say about freedom of speech? What if the permit is denied?

...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.’ It’s not pretty,” said Mitzy Kenny of Ridgeley, W.Va., whose husband died in Iraq last year. The anti-war demonstrations “can affect the war in a really negative way. It gives the enemy hope.”

I would like to say to Mitzy, the unthinking lemming that she is, that ending the war would give Americans hope and take away a reason for the enemy to exist.

 

[Pengwuino]

...and would allow a brutal dictator to massacre Iraqi civilians by the 100,000s. But of course, as long as America is happy right IL?

I find it odd that all of a sudden, just because this zombie got arrested for not doing the simple task of getting a permit, you are saying that getting a permit is unconstitutional...

 

[Moonbear]

If a citizen has to obtain a permit to demonstrate, what does this say about freedom of speech? What if the permit is denied?

That's the part that really disturbed me. As best I can tell from the news stories, it was a peaceful protest, so no reason to arrest anyone. To require a permit to protest on public property, in front of the White House no less, sounds like a clear first amendment violation to me!

 

[Smurf]

I find it odd that all of a sudden, just because this zombie got arrested for not doing the simple task of getting a permit, you are saying that getting a permit is unconstitutional...

I don't know about the US but this would have been unconstitutional in Canada.

Not that it actually matters what the legalities are, arresting her was wrong plain and simple, she was protesting peacefully.

 

[Moonbear]

I find it odd that all of a sudden, just because this zombie got arrested for not doing the simple task of getting a permit, you are saying that getting a permit is unconstitutional...

She had a permit, it's called the first amendment! As long as they were protesting in a peaceable manner and not putting anyone in harm's way (no rioting going on), then she shouldn't require a permit on public property. If they were on private property, that would be a different story, but then the charge would be trespassing, not protesting without a permit.

 

[MaxS]

This is exactly what I was talking about when I brought up the rave being raided by SWAT because they didn't have the right permit.

No where in the constitution does it say you need a permit to assemble for anything. What a prepostorous idea, and one that absolutely tramples over civil liberties.

 

[Evo]

Of course you have to have a permit. This is nothing new folks.

 

[Pengwuino]

No where in the constitution does it say you need a permit to assemble for anything. What a prepostorous idea, and one that absolutely tramples over civil liberties.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have to have a permit for my firearm... but hey, i still get to have my gun.

 

[Pengwuino]

She had a permit, it's called the first amendment! As long as they were protesting in a peaceable manner and not putting anyone in harm's way (no rioting going on), then she shouldn't require a permit on public property. If they were on private property, that would be a different story, but then the charge would be trespassing, not protesting without a permit.

You can't just start protesting wherever you want to. What If i started a protest out infront of your driveway where you live. Public property... but I'm sure you'd get a little pissed. Thus, permits.

 

[MaxS]

You can't just start protesting wherever you want to. What If i started a protest out infront of your driveway where you live. Public property... but I'm sure you'd get a little pissed. Thus, permits.

BULL..

There is NO justification for requiring a permit, NO justification for impeding my 1st ammendment rights.

 

[Pengwuino]

BULL..

There is NO justification for requiring a permit, NO justification for impeding my 1st ammendment rights.

So you wouldn't mind me and a few of my friends putting up a protest infront of your driveway? Maybe on a major highway that you need to use to get to work?

 

[Smurf]

In Canada

You can't just start protesting wherever you want to. What If i started a protest out infront of your driveway where you live. Public property... but I'm sure you'd get a little pissed. Thus, permits.

I'm no legal expert, buy my understanding is that in Canada as long as you're not on private property, you're protesting peacefully and your not obstructing someone's movement you have every right to protest there. You only need a permit for special instances.

 

[Smurf]

So you wouldn't mind me and a few of my friends putting up a protest infront of your driveway? Maybe on a major highway that you need to use to get to work?

Yeah.. that's obstructing movement, if Cindy Sheehan was obstructing movement where she sat down and refused to move I would say that she was justifiably arrested... provided she was informed of this beforehand...

 

[Smurf]

There's also a difference between protesting and just disturbing the peace.

 

[MaxS]

Yeah.. that's obstructing movement, if Cindy Sheehan was obstructing movement where she sat down and refused to move I would say that she was justifiably arrested... provided she was informed of this beforehand...

she sat down on a sidewalk in DC so that probably qualifies. And she WAS warned.

Anyhow it sounds like she was trying to get arrested to draw attention.

What I'm miffed about is the charge that she was arrested because she was protesting without a warrant.

What trash!

 

[Pengwuino]

Yeah.. that's obstructing movement, if Cindy Sheehan was obstructing movement where she sat down and refused to move I would say that she was justifiably arrested... provided she was informed of this beforehand...

Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.

Yes, obstructing movement.

And protesting is disturbing hte peace if you haven't realized that. Thus you give out permits so that the "peace" can be given a little detour so no problems arise.

 

[Pengwuino]

What trash!

So i guess when your against President Bush, laws mean nothing. Figures.

 

[MaxS]

So i guess when your against President Bush, laws mean nothing. Figures.

Uh no? Where did I mention president bush? I was talking about the fact that a permit is required to protest...

When a law is unjust you should fight it, regardless of politics...

 

[Smurf]

Yes, obstructing movement.

And protesting is disturbing hte peace if you haven't realized that. Thus you give out permits so that the "peace" can be given a little detour so no problems arise.

Yes pengwuino I read the article. However (and correct me if I'm wrong - I'm no sidewalk expert like you) sitting down on a sidewalk does not mean you are necessarily obstructing movement. Sitting down on a side walk is not an arrestable offence. That's stupid.

Also, I know she was warned, but was she informed. You have to actually inform her of the details, not just tell her she's breaking the law. When you arrest someone you read them all their rights, not just mention that they might have a few.

 

[Pengwuino]

Uh no? Where did I mention president bush? I was talking about the fact that a permit is required to protest...

When a law is unjust you should fight it, regardless of politics...

It has been that way for yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeears and everyone, every political activist organization, the KKK, abortion this abortion that groups, everyone has understood that they need to take a few hours out of their day to get a simple permit that is almost never denied. We all must make small insignificant sacrifices to make a society of almost 300,000,000 work correctly and this is one of them.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes pengwuino I read the article. However (and correct me if I'm wrong - I'm no sidewalk expert like you) sitting down on a sidewalk does not mean you are necessarily obstructing movement. Sitting down on a side walk is not an arrestable offence. That's stupid.

Well what I'm imagining here is that there all sitting on the sidewalk while people are trying to walk by the White House. How are you going to get by? Theres a gate on 1 side, the road with cars traveling on the other side. You don't want people to be walking into traffic just to get around them. If that gate isn't there, then it does make sense for people to just wlak around the non-road side. But as far as i can tell, it was infront of the whitehouse which means there was a gate on the other side of the sidewalk making it dangerous to walk around.

Hail to the sidewalk god!

Also, I know she was warned, but was she informed. You have to actually inform her of the details, not just tell her she's breaking the law. When you arrest someone you read them all their rights, not just mention that they might have a few.

I'm pretty sure journalists arent tasked with writing down the exact conversation that takes place when someone is arrested. Kinda hard... humans can only write so fast.

 

[MaxS]

It has been that way for yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeears and everyone, every political activist organization, the KKK, abortion this abortion that groups, everyone has understood that they need to take a few hours out of their day to get a simple permit that is almost never denied. We all must make small insignificant sacrifices to make a society of almost 300,000,000 work correctly and this is one of them.

Pengwuino, the first ammendment GUARANTEES ME FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

THE FACT THAT THERE IS EVEN A POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A REQUEST FOR A PERMIT DENIED IMPEDES THIS FREEDOM.

Comprende??!??

 

[Smurf]

Well what I'm imagining here is that there all sitting on the sidewalk while people are trying to walk by the White House. How are you going to get by? Theres a gate on 1 side, the road with cars traveling on the other side. You don't want people to be walking into traffic just to get around them. If that gate isn't there, then it does make sense for people to just wlak around the non-road side. But as far as i can tell, it was infront of the whitehouse which means there was a gate on the other side of the sidewalk making it dangerous to walk around.

How small are sidewalks in Washington DC, anyways? The main road in my area has a sidewalk big enough for two fully grown humans to lay down across.

 

[MaxS]

I've been to the white house there is plenty of room to step around people (there was a protest going on while i was there - and no I wasn't part of it, I don't even know what it was for).

 

[Smurf]

Pengwuino, the first ammendment GUARANTEES ME FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

THE FACT THAT THERE IS EVEN A POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A REQUEST FOR A PERMIT DENIED IMPEDES THIS FREEDOM.

Comprende??!??

I don't disagree that at times demonstrations should be denied (otherwise people could just use it as an excuse to disturb the peace). What I dislike is that you have to take a couple hours out of your day to do it. You shouldn't need a permit, but cops should be able to (with a warrant) arrest you if they think the demonstration is just silly.

 

[Smurf]

I've been to the white house there is plenty of room to step around people (there was a protest going on while i was there - and no I wasn't part of it, I don't even know what it was for).

Okay then, there we go then. It wasn't obstructing movement unless they were going out of their way to take up a lot of space. IN THAT CASE it would have been justified PROVIDED she was informed that she had to stop (not because she probably didn't know, but because it's her right).

Having said that, I think it's quite possible that it was a publicity stunt and she was justifiably arrested.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pengwuino, the first ammendment GUARANTEES ME FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

THE FACT THAT THERE IS EVEN A POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A REQUEST FOR A PERMIT DENIED IMPEDES THIS FREEDOM.

Comprende??!??

Incorrect. The courts have already decided that you are wrong.

 

[MaxS]

Incorrect. The courts have already decided that you are wrong.

Ok genious the courts have NO right to take away my rights as defined in the bill of rights.

They, as part of the federal government, share a responsibility in DEFENDING those rights.

 

[Pengwuino]

You shouldn't need a permit, but cops should be able to (with a warrant) arrest you if they think the demonstration is just silly.

Sounds like a violation of freedom of speech. Don't you Canadians have any rights?

And how in gods name would they need a warrent? Those need to be signed by judges. By the time you get one, the protest would probably be gone.

But at least we have firmly established here that she was breaking the law and that getting a permit does not infringe on your freedom of speech.

And what kinda sidewalk can handle 2 full grown people laying down? Man the world must be supersized outside of my city.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ok genious the courts have NO right to take away my rights as defined in the bill of rights.

I think you need to take a few minutes to study up on american legal history.

 

[MaxS]

I am not talking about precedent. I am talking about having my civil liberties, as defined in the bill of rights, impeded upon.

By your reasoning the Patriot Act is perfectly justifiable in impeding on my civil liberties.

THAT reasoning by the way is treasonous.

 

[MaxS]

Sounds like a violation of freedom of speech. Don't you Canadians have any rights?

And how in gods name would they need a warrent? Those need to be signed by judges. By the time you get one, the protest would probably be gone.

But at least we have firmly established here that she was breaking the law and that getting a permit does not infringe on your freedom of speech.

And what kinda sidewalk can handle 2 full grown people laying down? Man the world must be supersized outside of my city.

Two points:

1. We certainly have NOT established that it does not infringe on our freedom of speech.

2. In DC it is QUITE EASY TO WALK AROUND THE SIDEWALK BY USING THE GIGANTIC GRASS LAWN RIGHT NEXT TO IT!

 

[Pengwuino]

I am not talking about precedent. I am talking about having my civil liberties, as defined in the bill of rights, impeded upon.

By your reasoning the Patriot Act is perfectly justifiable in impeding on my civil liberties.

THAT reasoning by the way is treasonous.

The Patriot Act was legislation. Courts rule upon legislation once a case is brought up. Jesus, did you ever take any high school government classes? Do you even realize the countless other things that, at face value, are infringements, but everyone has realized is ok since the governing of 300,000,000 people is not easy when you take everything at absolute face value?