Sheehan Vindicated
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Law, MediaWell, this is certainly surprising. When I was watching the SOTU on the Fox affiliate here in town, they said that Sheehan had been detained (not arrested) because she had unfurled something and was trying to bring it into the speech. That proved to be false, on both accounts.
But yes, this is good to see. Not just for Cindy Sheehan, but much more for freedom of speech…
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.
“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.
Get ready for the SOTU next year. It’ll be a protestor’s dream.
And by the way, I apologize for being wrong in the comments section of the original Sheehan post. Yes, she actually was arrested so Meredith you were right and I was wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 2nd, 2006 and is filed under Law, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:41 am
Oh, that’s OK. No need to apologize. I was just wondering about the legality of the arrest. The stuff you quoted is interesting because I bet you these gals are going to sue for false arrest and anything else they can – or at least CS will.
Of course it was a good faith belief. I’m sure that capitol police are confused about the laws pertaining to demonstrating at the capitol since that rarely ever happens. So, it was an “old unwritten interpretation”? Translation: They made it up.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Free speech aside, before the news that the arrests were mistaken, they both struck me as really odd. First, you’d think President Bush would welcome this sort of thing from Sheehan. The more she makes a fool of herself, the more it helps Bush. And why on earth would they have the Capitol Police eject someone else for wearing a shirt supporting the troops? I would have been surprised if it all hadn’t turned out to be a misunderstanding.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:57 pm
I don’t care *what* happens to Cindy Sheehan at this point, and I’ll explain why because I don’t feel as though this was ever portrayed accurately or fairly through media outlets.
Personally, I would never make the choice to enter the military. However, many thousands of individuals have voluntarily chosen to serve our country in this capacity, and based on my own experiences, they all share a powerful commonality. The thread that binds these people is that they feel very strongly about the stated goals of the military as well as the actions required to accomplish these goals. On more than one occasion, I’ve heard members speak with a certain tone of honor in their voice regarding time they spent in Iraq or on other military initiatives. While I personally may sit back and disagree with the operation as a whole, I cannot disagree with or question the conviction of these individuals.
Why do I mention all this? Cindy Sheehan’s son was one of these individuals. Based on the history and socio-economic status of the Sheehan family (as well as Cindy’s subsequent actions), I feel as though I can get a pretty good bead on Cindy’s character and her emotions regarding her son’s enrollment in the military. First, I think that she *absolutely* disagreed with her son’s decision from the onset. Further, I think that her disagreement manifested itself in the form of fear – she feared (and obviously rightly so) that harm may come to her son as a result of his military involvement. Second, I believe that after her son’s death, she adopted this attitude of “I *knew* it!” The resulting anti-Bush, anti-Iraq rampage was merely the result of her feeling both jilted and shortchanged thanks to her son’s decision to join a cause that she simply did not support.
Frankly, I think it’s embarrassingly selfish of Mrs. Sheehan to react in this way, and I am dismayed that the media ate it up like they did. Then again, that type of thing is to be expected when these outlets are so predominantly leftist by nature. Regardless, I encourage those of you who would rush to support Cindy Sheehan simply because you disagree with Bush, Iraq, or likely both, to rethink your position. I, for one, feel confident that Cindy’s son would be embarrassed and angered at his mother’s actions. Simply put, I think it’s sad that she refused to support her son in life, and it’s just that much worse that she refused to support him in death. I appreciate her son’s commitment to this country, and I also appreciate the work that our military does – regardless of whether or not I agree with the specific initiatives.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Chris, while I agree with some of what you stated about Sheehan (I don’t really like her either, even though I’m a flaming liberal – surprise!), I am always concerned about constitutional issues, and an if the arrest was illegal, I don’t care who it is, it needs to be remedied. We have to follow these rules that our criminal justice system is based on, or it won’t work.
March 30th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Introducing – Beading for Beginners an eBook that teaches you the
Quick & Easy Steps to begin beading Like a veteran!
At Last, there’s a fast, easy and convenient way for you to learn to bead!