Two Women

Once there was a woman who was married to a man. Alongside her husband, this woman protested the injustices which were inflicted upon a segment of American society to which she and her husband belonged. The woman and her husband challenged all other Americans to live up to the ideals on which their shared country was founded. They marched, demonstrated, protested and boycotted—this was always done, however, under the rubric of non-violence and of lawful, peaceful protest: women coiffed their hair and wore their Sunday best and men wore business suits and ties to face down those who would deny them their God-given, inalienable rights. It was important to assert these American rights while behaving as ladies and gentlemen. That tactic served the movement well; it stood in stark contrast to the monstrous behavior of those who beat, shot, bombed, arrested and turned fire hoses onto these demonstrators/protesters--sometimes under the banner of law. Observing these opposing behaviors, how could thinking, loyal and fair-minded Americans—citizens of a nation which claimed to be founded in freedom—condone the abuse those of its citizens who only wanted to enjoy that freedom?

For these noble efforts, the husband was murdered. However, in the many ensuing years, the woman came to stand as a symbol for her husband’s sacrifice. Even as others have attempted to denigrate her husband’s reputation and/or inappropriately co-opt his mission, the woman remained a classy representative for him: never loud or brassy and always choosing to symbolize the moral and very American cause for which her husband gave his life.

Some thirty-five years later, another even younger man is killed by still another set of terrorists. This young man also made a voluntary decision to stand up for the right of others to live in peace and in freedom—this time not of Americans, but the cause was no less worthy. However, in the wake of his death, a member of his family—his mother--chooses to stand in opposition of that young man’s life’s work.

Yesterday, on the same day that the first woman, Coretta Scott King, died peacefully in her sleep, the mother of this young man was also arrested for dissenting. But in this matter, as in nearly all of her other means of protest, the second woman continuously forgets one of the most important lessons that the Civil Rights Movement demonstrated for all other movements: don’t alienate the vast majority of the onlookers. The second woman chose to attend the 2006 State of the Union speech—invited into the Congressional Gallery by US Representative Lynn Woosley (D-CA)—wearing a tee-shirt bearing the number of troops which have been killed as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Any sloganeering is against the rules of attendance in the gallery. This woman was asked to cover her shirt. When she refused to do so and refused to leave the gallery, she was arrested. This might sound like a heavy-handed measure unless one is familiar with the laws which cover the matter. It might also sound as if the woman—Cindy Sheehan--were being persecuted for her well-documented opposition to the Iraq War and virulent antipathy towards President Bush unless one finds out that a congressional spouse was also asked to leave the gallery for the same reason. (Ironically, the congressional spouse’s tee-shirt exhorted observers to ‘Support the Troops.’)

But what can we take from observing the behaviors of Mrs. King and Mrs. Sheehan? What can we learn about what each woman thinks of Martin Luther King and Casey Sheehan by looking at what they have done since the two men were killed? There are many similarities, but all too many differences; three of the latter stand out.

1. One consistently stood by the cause of her deceased loved one; the other asserts that her loved one was duped into joining his cause.
2. One remained proud of the fact that her loved one gave his life for the liberty of a given group; the other seems intent on making meaningless and futile the sacrifice made by her loved one’s mission to liberate still another group.
3. One had always conducted her public self in a manner that gave credit to her loved one, the rest of her family, their cause and to her country. The other uses profanity, vulgarity and epithets to assert her points and cavorts with avowed enemies of her country. Even those who support Mrs. Sheehan and her cause drew the line after she called President Bush a terrorist while in audience with Venezualan President and chronic BDS sufferer Hugo Chavez.

Regardless of what you may think of the cause(s) in which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Specialist Casey Sheehan (USA) enlisted themselves, each of the women in their lives staked out a position in relation to their respective fallen. And, while the contrast between their styles may seem trivial, it’s important for two reasons: the ability to convince others that one’s point of view is correct and one’s internal belief in the justness of one’s cause. From my perspective, those whose cause is most assuredly just have no need to be rude and harsh.

I’m betting that, before she died, Mrs. King was able to take comfort in the fact that she honored her husband’s Dream and saw many aspects of the same become reality.

Perhaps Mrs. Sheehan will be able to say that she lived to ensure that her son’s death had some meaning, but I doubt it. However the Global War on Terror plays out, Mrs. Sheehan has made a mockery of the things in which Specialist Sheehan believed. And for that, I continue to pity her greatly.

Rest in Peace, Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Casey Sheehan.

As for you, Cindy Sheehan, I still wish you Peace in life. You’re going to need it.

(Thanks to Patterico)

Comments

[CGHill]

(applause)

Beautifully done, J.

[Noel]

Rev. King asked us to be more American. Sheehan demands we be less.

[beautifulatrocities]

Cindy is an example of the child-adults that gravitate to the Left: impulsive, incoherent, & of course screaming that everyone else is a 'hater'

[Justin]

Fair enough, but I suspect that Dr. King would agree more with Cindy Sheehan than George Bush if Dr. King's reaction to Vietnam is any guide.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html

Serious question--why all the Cindy Sheehan dislike on the right? I disagree with her position--but to me, she's just a woman who believes the President misled the country into a war, an arguable position at least, and that her son died as a result. I'd be pissed too if I thought that.

Also, it's a little creepy that she was thrown out for wearing a t-shirt. Even Bush supporters should admit that he (OK, I have no idea if the capitol cops are following administration policy, but this is certainly a pattern of the President) will have people thrown out for wearing a t-shirt. I don't think it's a big deal, and it's not an anti-Bush thing, it's just a little weird.

[Silicon valley Jim]

Also, it's a little creepy that she was thrown out for wearing a t-shirt. Even Bush supporters should admit that he (OK, I have no idea if the capitol cops are following administration policy, but this is certainly a pattern of the President) will have people thrown out for wearing a t-shirt.

She was ushered out by the Capitol Police, who report to Congress, not to the President.

[Justin]

Thanks, Jim.

[Tully]

Very well said, Juliet.

40 §5104(f)(2) is the statute that would apply, I think. About displays of political material in other than designated areas on Capitol grounds.

Since Sheehan was in Washington for the express and avowed purpose of "symbolically" disrupting the speech from outside the building, then was given a ticket in (which was announced in the press), I'm sure the Capitol Police were watching her very closely indeed.

Mother Sheehan's personal account of the incident is contradicted by the photo that runs above it. She claims she was dragged out with her hands behind her--the photo clearly shows her hands in front. She says she was handcuffed AFTER being removed from the gallery, at the elevators. The initial accounts say she refused to comply when asked to come along, was handcuffed, and was THEN removed, and the photo seems to show her handcuffed in front while still being removed from the gallery, with her jacket either still on one arm, or draped over it. The photo's only consistent with one account, and it's not Sheehan's.

Both of the ladies removed should be arrested by the Fashion Police. T-Shirts to the SOTU?

[Justin]

Apparently Sheehan did not break the law, and the cops have apologized:

Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.
"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-state-of-union-sheehan,1,6811489.story

Good. As for her fashion sense, I agree with Tully

[Aidan Maconachy]

Interesting comparison between these two women.

Mrs King has always come across in the media as dignified, reserved and measured in the manner in which she spoke. There is no doubt this woman was severely tested. It must have been tough to stand by Martin when rumors were circulating about other women. Who knows what she had to go through on a personal level. But publicly she never let it show. She brought honor to the movement led by her husband and carried on his legacy with quiet dignity. A truly extraordinary human being.

Cindy Sheehan on the other hand, forgot at some point that President Bush was elected by the American people, and that the act of insulting and degrading him in public, amounts to an insult to all the people who elected him. This is not only unpatriotic - it is tacky and opportunistic.

People are entitled to have their disagreements with this administration, but when you move beyond political disagreements within the family and make an effort to shame and humiliate your President in the eyes of the world, you forfeit your dignity and your credibility.

The man she embraced uses thugs to maintain his grip on power; he has connections with Colombian drug running gangs that can loosely be described as Marxist - FARC and ELN. Chavez is also hand-in-glove with Castro and is a fan of Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Somewhere along the line Cindy Sheehan shed her dignity and became a sad spectacle - a mouthpiece for leftist organizations such as MoveOn org.

When she holds forth in the media about American foreign policy she is clearly out of her depth and repeats the party line like a child after a rote learning session. She has no in-depth knowledge of Middle Eastern politics and yet she pronounces on it like some all-knowing pundit out to put everyone straight.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. This woman's son served and died with honor in the service of his flag and country. Irrespective of what his political opinions may have been, his mother has used his death to seize fame by default. She now exploits the "protection" afforded the military mother to travel abroad with the express purpose of dishonoring her democratically elected leader and the military that serves at his government's discretion.

There is really no comparison between these two women. Mrs King dealt with life's slings and arrows with extraordinary grace and discretion. Ms Sheehan went off the deep end and continues to flounder in public, as she exploits her default fame to the max - even if it means orchestrating her own arrest.

When Mrs King passed away, we lost a member of American royalty.

[StinKerr]

Beutifully done, Juliette.

Justin,
As I understand it visitors to the House gallery are not permitted to speak, applaud or wave banners of any kind. The ban on applause is suspended for occasions like the SOTU speech.

Whether or not the interpretation of the rules by the Capitol Police was mistaken it was applied even handedly.

The Congressman's wife complied with the police officer's request/command and left without fuss. Casey Sheehan's mother did not comply and started a ruckus. She was therefore removed and arrested. It's simple and I suspect it's what she wanted. After all, she has deliberately done things in the past to get arrested. Remember that picture and her big grin when the cops were carrying her away from the White House?

Tully,
You know of course, that the picture must be lying. After all Mother Sheehan herself is telling a different story. It brings to mind the Chico Marx line: "Who are you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes?"

[Mike]

J-
Beautifully put, as usual.

Justin-
I have a prob with Ms. Sheehan because I'm in the military (not because I"m on the right, which I'm not...not completely). What creeps me out is that she is using her son's death to her own ends (which are being revealed now...you think she won't use her son in her potential Senate bid?).

If you're a parent, and your son and/or daughter joined the military, you should support them. If you disagree with the administration that sends your son and/or daughter to a sh!t-hole, then you go into the privacy of your own home, yell and scream and cry, but then if/when you are in front of a camera you tell whoever is listening how proud you are that your son and/or daughter has the HONOR (and it is an honor, trust me) to defend his/her country.

If your son and/or daughter dies IN DEFENSE OF THEIR COUNTRY and you think it is the President's fault, then again you go into the privacy of your home, yell and scream and cry. But, when you are in public, you do your family (and nation!) proud (you can show your pride through crying for the death of your soldier/airman/sailor/Marine) and tell whoever the hell asks how proud you are that your son and/or daughter, who by the way VOLUNTEERED, died defending their country, and how you hope that his/her death allows other parents to not have to go through what you just went through.

You do NOT go out there using your dead son and/or daughter's name to slam the current administration (whatever party it is at the time). If we had never known the name Casey Sheehan, then Ms. Sheehan would just be another lefty whacko, giving a bad name to good Democrats out there (SHirley CHisolm comes to mind as does Lieberman).

THAT'S what creeps me out. I just hope that Casey (RIP) is up in heaven enjoying his reward (72 virgins?) and not paying attention to what his nut-job mom is doing.

[Imperator]

I read Cindy's take on her 'arrest' on Michael Moore's site (I took a shot of whiskey before hand and a shower afterward).

In her warped mind she probably thinks she's trying to do the right thing but all she is doing is dishonoring his memory and his sacrifice. If she wants to know what he and the other 2000+ died for, perhaps she should take a trip out there and visit the mass graves.

Casey is leaving behind a better legacy than she can ever hope to do.

[Pacific John]

Will you be updating this with corrections to the following?

"Any sloganeering is against the rules of attendance in the gallery. This woman was asked to cover her shirt. When she refused to do so and refused to leave the gallery, she was arrested."

In all three of the above sentences - the fundamental facts of your post - are false.

BTW, on both style and substance, the post would have been more apt to compare and contrast Sheehan with Beverly Young, who is also not of the Coretta Scott King mold: link.

Funny thing, though, the left is embracing rather than mocking Mrs. Young. She kicks ass. They both do.

[CloseDanger]

You hit a Home Run.
Check out the big brain on baldilocks!

[J Zaner]

Sheehan was arested because she wanted to be, in order to make a statement and claim persecution. Had she follower the cops orders like a rational person would, she could've avoided conflict; but that wasn't her objective.

[Miguel]

Great posting Baldi! And you are sooo right. Mrs King was a dignified discreet woman, who achieved things in her own way, where as the Sheenan woman is a clown, a tragic clown who acomplishes nothing but to be applauded by dictators like Chávez from Venezuela. One tragic clown supporting another of the same kind.Shuks.

[Tully]

It brings to mind the Chico Marx line: "Who are you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes?"

Personally, StinKerr, I think it involves the sanity clause. (And I'll have two beers too.)

[JS]

Even Mrs. King might seem "less dignified" if her husband was killed in obvious governmental action as the head of government continued to reign. Don't underestimate the power of sympathy; when MLK Jr. died, the country mourned largely united. In Ms. Sheehan's case, it's hard to fault a mother's "undignified" grief and anger when the country remains divided on whether her son died in vain.

And to J Zaner above, yes, Sheehan was thrown out for not listening to the cops. If only everyone just listened to the cops, even when the cops are WRONG (see the Baltimore Sun link earlier above). If we as a country could just throw away that silly little Constitution and just trust cops and government to whatever they want, we could all have "less conflict." And how grand that would be. Even more hilarious (or rather, apalling) when this comment is on a post referencing Dr. King's widow. Neither Dr. King nor his widow, you might remember, marched to teach people to quietly sit at the back of the bus when their views weren't appreciated by law enforcement and government leaders.

[Pacific John]

JS:

The "self-correcting" right wing blogosphere reverence for the truth sort of blew this one.

"yes, Sheehan was thrown out for not listening to the cops."

This isn't even the slightest bit true. The Capitol Police later admit they "screwed up."

Hey Baldi,

Where's the correction. I pointed out the text you need to fix, and everything. Need links? Text you can cut and paste? Is this too hard to figure out for you "new media" types?

You could just do a one line update: "The facts upon which I based this piece were not correct, Please refer to this link. Please see the NBC graphic here.

In the future, I will attempt to use higher standards than to waste your time with unsourced rumors."

[Anastasia]

Pacific John - watch what you ask for. Baldi - fabulous post!! One of your very best and so TRUE! I thank you very much!

[Randy]

Y'all don't live in Atlanta.

Whatever Mrs. King did during her husband's life, she stood by afterwards and let the legacy of his works be turned into a culture of victimhood among those whom Dr. King sought to bring *out* of victimization, a crime committed by his own associates in order to keep their positions of influence and wealth. Those who stood next to Dr. King during his life sold out after his death and condemned their community to 40 years of endemic poverty, re-enslaving them to the same Democratic Party that opposed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

All this while Coretta Scott King stood by and said nothing.

[Florida Bill]

What a great post. Fantastic writing Baldy!

Ms. Sheehan is a numbtard of the highest order. She has ruinated her son's service and sacrifice by her behavior. I am certain Casey would not approve.

Hey JS: answer me this: if you were invited to the SOTU adress, would you wear a t-shirt with sloganeering or would you dress appropriately? She deserved to be escorted out. The arrest? Maybe not, but she now lives to be arrested, so it gets a big old "meh" from me.

[Mark]

"Rev. King asked us to be more American. Sheehan demands we be less."

If Rev. King asked us to be more American, were the conservatives who repeatedly opposed the creation of MLK Day un-American?

Jesse Helms' speech before Congress: http://www.vdare.com/francis/050226_helms_speech.htm

Debate is American. If you disagree with Sheehan, please attack the (numerous) logical fallacies in her arguments, and not her "American-ness."

[baldilocks]

Randy: What would have been accomplished by "saying something"? Take into account the historical events since the death of MLK and the characteristics of the actors in question before you answer.

[baldilocks]

Nothing I said in the above post has changed. Sloganeering is indeed against the rules and Mrs. Sheehan was indeed arrest for not following the rules. That the Capitol Police apologized for arresting her--enforcing the rules--(and for ejecting the congressional spouse) doesn't change those facts.

[Pacific John]

Here, let me help those like Baldi who have a hard time with comprehension and/or clicking a mouse:

“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”

“Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts,” Gainer’s statement said.

Apology to the Youngs
Gainer added that he was asking the U.S. attorney’s office to drop the charge against Sheehan. The statement also said he apologized to the Youngs and “share the department’s plans for avoiding this in the future.”

“A similar message has been left with Mrs. Sheehan,” Gainer said.

For his part, Bill Young said he was not necessarily satisfied.

“My wife was humiliated,” he told reporters. He suggested that “sensitivity training” may be in order for Capitol Police.

In fact, Baldi, both women followed the rules, and her arrest was not legal. The Capitol Police did not, if fact, apologize for "enforcing the rules," they apologized because they should not have bothered either woman.

C'mon, come clean. Are you lying? Uninformed? Too proud to issue a proper retraction?

"Self-correcting" blogosphere, my ass. No wonder PJM can't draw business.

[Tully]

I fear the effort of providing facts to PJ is wasted, since he is seemingly impervious to either reason or reality, and insistent upon trolling his own version of reality despite the marvelous posthumous advice of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but...

Displaying a "flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement" on Capitol grounds not legally designated as protest areas is indeed illegal under 40 §5104(f)(2). The Observer's Galleryis NOT a designated protest area. See also (same statute) section (e) for numerous other ways to piss off the Capitol police, all of which you can be arrested for and charged with a misdemeanor. Please note that this includes disorderly conduct, as well as any attempt to "parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings."

Failure to cooperate with a law enforcement officer is disorderly conduct. That includes ignoring them when they speak to you. In fact, the readings of "disorderly conduct" are so broad that simply annoying an officer can be DC. To the best of my knowledge, no disorderly conduct statute has ever been struck down as unconstitutional.

Both women ejected were violating not just Congressional tradition, but the letter of the law. Sheehan's account is not consistent with the available evidence. In fact, parts of it are demonstrably false to fact. That doesn't mean that the reports that she was asked to cover up and refused are true, or that the report that she refused to respond when confronted is true, but it does show that her account is thoroughly unreliable, utterly impeachable, and not offerable as factual evidence.

In short, PJ, you're wrong in all known particulars, and have no reliable evidence but the word of a demonstrable liar to back up the rest. Better tune up the old tin foil beanie, son, it's leakin'.

[Tully]

For those who would savage Coretta Scott King for her perceived failings, I have this to say. Walk a mile in those shoes. Then quit dissing her for what she didn't do to your satisfaction, and blame those who DID do such things for what THEY did.

I think she had her failings myself, but I also think she took more hits from life than any person should ever have to, and managed to retain her dignity and humanity throughout, despite a burden that would weigh most folks to the ground. If I'm ever so challenged, I hope to do half as well.

And if you think you could do better, then get off your ass and start hoppin'. Talk is cheap. Whining and finger-pointing even cheaper.

[Richard Albury]

Bollocks, Baldilocks. Sheehan was arrested, the wife was asked to leave: there *is* a difference. Having your child killed in a war your barely elected president and most of his administration *lied* to justify would tend to make someone upset. Cap that off with the cavalier, glib manner the draft evader in chief paid his "respects" and I can understand why she's pissed.

[Pacific John]

Tully, you can dig up common law back to the Magna Carta, and cite law so well that you act like a Montana Freeman, but in the end, you're still stuck with the final word from the Capitol Police chief.

[Tully]

RA & PJ,

Yes, there is a difference, though you seem unable to grasp it. One was asked to leave the gallery, and immediately complied, and was not arrested. One was asked to leave the gallery, and did not immediately comply, ignored or perhaps even attempted to argue with the officer, and was removed in cuffs.

"Sloganeering" is indeed against the rules of the Gallery, and against the law. As are disorderly conduct and protesting on Capitol grounds, either by commission or intent. The only account which alleges that Sheehan was proper in action and response is Sheehan's, which is suspect for reasons of clearly demonstrable falsehoods in other particulars.

It's not "common law," PJ. It's US Code. Law of the land. Has been for quite a long time. The Chief's word is immaterial to allegations of fact, as the Chief was not present to witness the initial events. The relevant witnesses are the primary officer, any other officers present, anyone seated nearby who was paying attention, and Sheehan, who has already soundly impeached herself as a witness. Primary evidence would be verified recordings of the actual event. The burden of proof is on the claimant, and there is no available and verifiable evidence to support your contentions. None. You're already wrong on the law, you appear to be wrong on the facts, and you have no evidence to support your assertions.

[Pacific John]

Nice wall of noice, Tully. Can you Fisk yourself on this for me, please:

"One was asked to leave the gallery, and did not immediately comply, ignored or perhaps even attempted to argue with the officer...."

I can't find a verifiable fact there if I squint.

[larry]

Really nice, Baldi. You go gurl!! R I P, Mrs. King. Your country is grateful for your and your husband's great sacrifice. Today, most of us are judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin, just as Martin dreamed.

Richard Albury, 6:15 pm: "...barely elected president..." By only three million votes.

"...draft evader in chief..." Honorably discharged, as opposed to his (WARNING: The following facts are all documented.) opponent who: 1) Lied to congress about war crimes being committed routinely by his comrades-in-arms. 2) While a commissioned officer, USN, met not once, but twice with representatives of the enemy. 3) Attended Winter Soldier meetings where assassination of elected officials was discussed. 4) Still refuses to release his military records, in spite of repeated promises to do so.

The reality-based community strikes again!

[Justin]

Tully, as much as I hate to jump into to this debate, which is rapidy detiorating into a schoolyard shouting match, I have to repectfully disagree with your analysis of the statute here. Here's why:

The statute reads:

(f) Parades, Assemblages, and Display of Flags.— Except as provided in section 5106 of this title, a person may not—
(1) parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Grounds; or
(2) display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

Presumably she would fall under "display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement."

So, you would have to argue that a t-shirt falls within "a device or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement" Clearly, there is a LOT of room for interpretation, and a t-shirt seems to be a stretch. Under that reading of the statute, a T-shirt that said "I Support G.W. Bush" would be a "device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement". What about an American flag pin? Or standing up and clapping for the President? Booing? I think many of these would have to be illegal under your interpretation.

But none of that matters, because the Capital police have said that the t-shirt was not a correct interpretation of whatever law the officer thought she was violating. So what law did she violate when the people charged with making that determination have said no law was violated?

Next, if she was not in violation of the law, she had no duty or obligation to comply with the officer's orders. As an example, say I was standing on a street corner waiting for a friend wearing an "I hate John Kerry t-shirt" and a John Kerry supporting police officer told me that I had to take the shirt off or leave because I was violating a law against public disorderly conduct. I, of course, refuse, as is my right. The officer tells me to leave, but I tell him no, it's my right to be here and wear this t-shirt. Is it really fair to say that I deserved to be arrested because I ignored or "perhaps even argued" with the officer?

Wow, I can't believe that I'm commenting on something I don't really even care about, but no one has ever accused me of shying away from a pointless debat ;-) Especially when I'm stuck late working on a Friday night.

As for Cindy Sheehan--I disagree with her on a lot of issues, including her wierd appearance with Hugo. But, she fits well within the tradition of American muckrakers (is that a word?) demanding answers from people in power, which I consider to be a patriotic act.

[scott]

For all you people who think Cindy Sheehan is such a piece of trash, why don't you call up your local recruiter and join up? How about putting your keypads where your mouths are?

I've been there and done that and Cindy Sheehan has lost a child and has all the right in the world to do what she is doing. What has any of your sacrificing been? Slapping a magnetic YELLOW ribbon on your SUV I bet.

And I just love it when you rightwingers use civil rights to make your points, when it is clear how you really feel by your actions.

[StinKerr]

Wanna see my DD-214, scott?

Also, I have neither an SUV nor a yellow ribbon.

Do you always demand that people with whom you disagree shut up?

My guess is that you do.

Oh, yeah, and name calling is probably not the best way to state your position.

[Tully]

That's the interpretation the Capitol Police have used during SOTU's for quite a while now, Justin. If the "device" is large enough to be noticeable and read by members on the floor or from the podium, it's large enough to be considered "protesting." It's generally only enforced when it's a nationally-telecast event (if the visitor does not otherwise misbehave and no member complains) but the tradition is real, the laws are real, and that's how they've consistently been interpreted by the Capitol police.

Next, if she was not in violation of the law, she had no duty or obligation to comply with the officer's orders.

Dead wrong. The problem with your hypothetical is that it assumes a public space, Justin. The observer's gallery is NOT a public space. You have NO inherent "right" to be there. It is an "invitation only" space, and guests can be disinvited at will by the "host" and their delegated representatives. (The "host" is the Speaker of the House, BTW.) By entering it you implicitly agree to whatever rules they wish to make, and your only recourse if you don't like 'em is to leave, or not enter in the first place.

You'll find that in practice, yes, you do have a duty to comply with the lawful orders of a police officer, even in a public space, and what those orders can be in a private space is very broad indeed. Failure to do so is disorderly conduct. (Feel free to try your theory out in practice. Arrange your bail beforehand to reduce processing time.) Not being in a public space, you have an added burden to comply with all non-illegal requests of the officer, or leave. Even if that request is simply "look at me." Your "appeal" is not to a court, but to the "host" who directs the officers.

No, she won't be prosecuted. But the post-event mea culpa mambo is just political noise. You can be removed from the Gallery for pretty much anything they want to remove you for (chewing gum!), at will, and if you resist removal in any way you can be arrested. If you ignore the requests of the Capitol police while in the Gallery, you can likewise be arrested.

PJ, you made the claims. The burden is on you. You've not met it. Not even close.

[phlegmfatale]

I have to throw my hat into the ring and applaud this blogger's brilliant illustration of the contrast between Coretta Scott King and Cindy Sheehan. Mrs. King will ever be revered as a non-divisive, dignified lady, whereas Sheehan is a spiky, divisive and pathetic character. Perhaps this debate is so pitiful because the woman who inspired it is just that. Further, Sheehan has been victimized by media who have used her as a lapdog to people who have a political axe to grind, and that is just as ugly as any other kind of war. It's the very definition ofmean-spirited.

[Justin]

Tully, the capitol police said they made a mistake, so what law did she violate? They did not say "we decided not to press charges". How much clearer could that be?

That's the interpretation the Capitol Police have used during SOTU's for quite a while now, Justin

If so, can you give another example of someone being removed for wearing a t-shirt?

Also, I think your interpretation is a stretch. As I said before, an "I love G.W. Bush t-shirt" would also be a violation.

And, I think my anology holds. The capitol police are not security guards, but agents of the government capable of arresting you. She had no duty to comply with them, ESCPECIALLY since she was being asked to leave because of a message on her t-shirt.

Come one, seriously, she was arrested for wearing a t-shirt. The police admit they screwed up and that no law was broken. Do you really hate this woman that much that you can't at least give that in this one instance she was correct? I'm not trying to be a smart#**, but really can't understand where you are coming from here.

I find the dislike of Cindy Sheehan quite amazing, but we appear to be living in a climate where political dissent is considered unpatriotic (that's not addressed to anyone here, just the general disdain of dissent I've noticed over the past couple of years).

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

Dr. King, April 4, 1967.

[Tully]

Justin, to pound the bloody obvious, that she was released doesn't mean she did not violate a law, and that the Capitol police said they made a mistake does not mean their mistake was one of law.

If so, can you give another example of someone being removed for wearing a t-shirt?

Beverly Young, same SOTU. Don't you read the papers? ;-) Also, David Delp of Pennsylvania was removed from the Senate Gallery in February 1999 for wearing an anti-Clinton T-shirt.

As I said before, an "I love G.W. Bush t-shirt" would also be a violation.

Yep, if they so deemed it. I'm an "agent of the government" myself, and in many (even most) circumstances you do indeed have a legal duty to comply with LEO's, especially in non-public places where you are a guest, and that if you fail to comply you can indeed be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted regardless of whether or not you were committing any crime when you were originally asked to comply. As I said, feel free to test your theory in the real world. It's a good way to observe actual legal process up close and personal.

Do you really hate this woman that much that you can't at least give that in this one instance she was correct?

I don't hate her at all. I think she's a disturbed person with complex "issues" who should probably seek treatment, but that's her own problem as long as she's non-violent. But she's a legal adult and responsible for her own actions, and I don't buy the poor-innocent-me routine for a second. Nor do I see any reason to give her the benefit of the doubt in this case, when she has demonstrably lied about the incident. What, I should cheerlead that? Uh uh.

There's a simple test to determine whether or not the arresting officer was out of line. If he isn't disciplined for his actions, then the mea culpa is purely political.

[baldilocks]

Scott:

For all you people who think Cindy Sheehan is such a piece of trash, why don't you call up your local recruiter and join up? How about putting your keypads where your mouths are?

It would serve you well to read the "about" page of a blogger before you make yourself look like an idiot. You may also view my DD Form 214, but only if you ask nicely.

Justin:

If so, can you give another example of someone being removed for wearing a t-shirt?

Tully suggests that you read the "papers." I only suggest that you read this post a bit more carefully. :-)

[Richard Albury]

> "...barely elected president..." > By only three million votes.

Like I said: barely.

> "...draft evader in chief..."
> Honorably discharged, as opposed
> to his (WARNING: The following
> facts are all documented.)
> opponent who: 1) Lied to
> congress about war crimes being
> committed routinely by his
> comrades-in-arms. 2) While a
> commissioned officer, USN, met
> not once, but twice with
> representatives of the enemy.
> 3) Attended Winter Soldier
> meetings where assassination of
> elected officials was discussed.
> 4) Still refuses to release his
> military records, in spite of
> repeated promises to do so.

Silly neocon: who ever said I voted for Kerry? :-}

Although Kerry at least *saw combat* unlike Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, etc. He could have taken the National Guard dodge like Junior, but he didn't.

No, sorry, I'm far to the left of Kerry. Kerry would have sucked less and he wouldn't have been as dangerously messianic as Dubya - ditto for Gore - but all this is just proof of how broken the system is.

[baldilocks]

Richard: You're in the wrong place to sell your wares. Allow me to point you here merely to start your educational process (also linked in the sidebar of this blog). Other matters mentioned have also been addressed here. Your comments should be interesting and I look forward to them.

If you would *really* like to make yourself useful--instead of going on about "neocons" and your own far left leanings--you could find me a search engine other than Google, to put on this page to make it easier for sojourners like yourself to search this blog for these matters *before* commenting on them--if they are so inclined.

Thanks in advance.

[Richard Albury]

Ah, so you want to breathe your own exhaust: got it. Au revoir...

[baldilocks]

Richard, Dear Heart, you're pushing your luck and boarding on trollage. Here's a tip for you: don't insult the hostess.

I can feature you in a post as I did for scott. I guarantee that you won't like it. But then again, you may be an odd sort.

[baldilocks]

Ah, I see that you can't take the heat. Well, via con Dios to you as well. Doorknobs, natural splittage and whatnot.

[babylonandon]

You know what really kills me about this "oh poor cindy" crap is that she was traitorous, obnoxious, (rhymes with!!) witch before her soon ever joined the military. She has a long record of having been involved with the commie moonbat crowd.

She even threatened to have her own son run down so he would be too crippled to serve after he joined the military.

There is nothing noble about this woman. The only shame is that she didn't die in childbirth because her son was the last decent thing that came out of her.

[babylonandon]

Oh, by the way Scott,

9 years 9 months and 14 days in the US Navy, E-5, Honorable Discharge, CIWS/Phalanx NEC, 4 years 6 months in Yokosuka, Japan (2 shipboard tours). Deployed 4 times (6 months each) for "cruises" in the Persian Gulf (including Desert Storm *#3).