Sheehan FINALLY gets her reward....

Status
Not open for further replies.
How does this suspend her right to free speech or her right to petition her government or her right to assemble?
Click to expand...

I never said anything about her not having 1st ammendment rights. She had every right to open her pie hole right up until she laid down for her as Rich put it "protest nap". Next time she wants to stage a protest nap I suggest she try it on I-10 so the police won't have to arrest her for being an idiot. She has shamed the memory of her son and many other sons and daughters by being the poster child for stupidity. Her son was an adult, at 24 he was on his second enlistment. He knew what he signed up for and if she wasn't happy about it that was between her and him. He took responsibility for his actions, how about she let him rest in peace.

Here is an exerpt from an article that briefly tells his military career. As you can see he volunteered. He was not tricked, he had choices and made his choice to stay in the army. She has no complaint except with him. Let him rest in peace.

Wickpedia
"In May 2000 Sheehan enlisted in the United States Army as a light-wheeled vehicle mechanic, MOS 63B. It has been reported that he had originally considered enlisting as a Chaplain's assistant[2] MOS 56M. (Sheehan, an altar server since age 8, had acted as an altar server during the Palm Sunday mass on the morning of his death.). Near the end of his first tour of duty with the First Cavalry Division, the 2003 invasion of Iraq began. Sheehan re-enlisted, knowing that his unit would be sent to Iraq. On March 19, 2004 Sheehan's company, Charlie Battery, arrived at FOB War Eagle in Sadr City as part of the post-invasion Iraq occupation. A few weeks later, on April 4, 2004 Sheehan was killed in action, along with several other soldiers, after volunteering as part of a Quick Reaction Force to rescue American troops. [3] [4] Sheehan was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star Medal with V for Valor and the Purple Heart [5]."
 
At one point, witnesses said they sat down in front of the doors and interlocked their legs.
Click to expand...
"We invited her in to discuss her concerns with a U.S. Mission employee. She chose not to come in but to lay down in front of the building and block the entrance. It was clearly designed to be a media stunt, not aimed at rational discussion," Grenell said.
Click to expand...

It was a First Amendment issue up until Ms. Sheehan and her little buddies decided to block the entrance to the US Mission.

She should count herself lucky that I didn't have business at the US mission when she pulled this stunt, because I would have walked right over her silly self ... with ropers.

The only interest Cindy Sheehan has in the First Amendment is seeing how far she can stretch it to cover her activities. I seriously think the woman is addicted to protesting.

I don't think she cares what she's protesting about, as long as she can get her face on TV, and raise a little hell.

LawDog
 
Freedom of Speech works both ways. I have a problem with her blocking doorways and agree she should have been arrested.

The Capitol police did not exactly deflate the situation by handcuffing her. That was a stupid thing to do on thier part as they had to end up aplogizing to her and dropping the charges. The media is going to go where the hot news is. This administration has distanced itself from the media by its shroud of percieved secrecy.

I am convinced we need to stay in Iraq. This administrations seems to feel that it is exempt form informing Joe Sixpack. You can feel however you want to about Ms. Sheehan, she is getting the press coverage while Bush and Co keep zipped and look like a bunch of disgruntled guys because they feel we dont have to tell anybody squat.
 
US Code Title 40 Chapter 51 Section 5104
(2) Violent entry and disorderly conduct.— An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly—
(A) enter or remain on the floor of either House of Congress or in any cloakroom or lobby adjacent to that floor, in the Rayburn Room of the House of Representatives, or in the Marble Room of the Senate, unless authorized to do so pursuant to rules adopted, or an authorization given, by that House;
(B) enter or remain in the gallery of either House of Congress in violation of rules governing admission to the gallery adopted by that House or pursuant to an authorization given by that House;
(C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either House of Congress or a Member, committee, officer, or employee of Congress or either House of Congress;
(D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress;
(E) obstruct, or impede passage through or within, the Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings;
(F) engage in an act of physical violence in the Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings; or
(G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings.


(b) Other Offenses.— A person violating section 5103 or 5104 (b), (c), (d), (e)(2), or (f) of this title, or attempting to commit a violation, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

There are places where you can protest whatever you want. But during official proceedings (state of the union address) in the capitol building is not one of them. It's a federal crime. Too bad it isn't a felony, so sheehan can never vote again.
 
Now don't get me wrong - personally I don't agree that we should just up and withdraw immediately, because things would go quickly to hell in a handbasket, and that would make the lives lost, including her son's, all for naught. But since we should never have invaded in the first place, my heart is with her.
Click to expand...

A "Sheehan" or someone of another name and face was inevitable. They'll be more as this country becomes more and more disenchanted with this "war". You don't see these activities in totalitarian or communistic countries. Civil disobedience is uniquely a function of free societies ....democracies. I wouldn't trade it for anything.
The Constitution is designed to protect the minority view...the majority has no need to invoke it. Those "founders" were pretty darn smart.
BTW, losing a child regardless of age is beyond devastating. Though we're all free to interpret her actions in our own way, she's hardly the real problem in Iraq or here.
Perhaps an exit strategy would have helped. Maybe a basic understanding of the middle east, it's history, religion and culture.
Maybe it's best to be briefed by real experts including one's father than to here whispers from "God" in the middle of the night.
Apparently the Pope was tuned to a different frequency that night or someone got a bum steer.


Rimrock
 
Then we retrogress to the Civil War as it was known in the North or War for Southern Independence in the South and history tells us that the Great Beloved President, Lincoln had nay sayers jailed and suspended rather arbitrarily the First Amendment when it came to Northerners against the war.

Sometimes the Freedom of Speech is and has been stretched well beyond its intended usage and it should be used concerning: Is this the truth or just my opinion, does it harm anyone, government entity, military, or give aid and comfort to the enemy? And last but not least, do these utterings tend to sell air time, newspaper print, lessen the granduer of our Great American Republic in foreign eyes, regardless of its truthfulness or what?
 
What an idiot.

Hey, here's an idea: She could get together with Jane Fonda and Tonya Harding and make a porn movie - it would be a career boost for all three!:D
 
Steelheart , you just ruined my diner and planted a horrible image I may never be rid of . Thanks a lot.
 
Last edited:
orig post by Benonymous
Dominoes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free speech today..........guns tomorrow
Click to expand...

How right you are. It's not a smorgasbord!:(

Rimrock
 
Benonymous - You *do* know the difference between free speech and restricting the free movement of others, don't you?

If not, please read LawDog's post about a dozen spaces above this one.

-Dave
 
All this whining about free speech is pathetic. She BROKE THE LAW! She was not arrested because of what she said. As for keeping my mouth shut unless my soldier dies in Iraq, well I guess I'll just call sweet irony there. She has a right to act like an idiot. I have a right to laugh at her and call her an idiot. I'm sure her son would be proud. E
 
1. According to just about the only person in a psoition to know, Cindy Sheehan herself, her son was opposed to the war in which he died, but went anyway. If this is true, in what way does her stand against it demean his life or his death?

2. I've read the entire Constitution looking for the part where it says that our rights may be suspended by the government "in time of war." I can't find it. The 1st Ammendment has no wartime exceptions.

3. Cindy Sheehan opposes the war on moral grounds, "war is wrong." Many others, including some very prominent conservatives, oppose it on the grounds that they see no likely outcome that will be beneficial to American interests. Does a bad idea become immune from criticism once it's executed? If, in fact, this war was a mistake, if all of the likely outcomes leave us worse off than if we'd never done it, wouldn't that make all of the deaths and injuries and expense "for nothing?"

Don't be so quick to demonize those who disagree with you. If you would take away their ability to disagree with the government, you will take away your own as well.

I always wonder why some who defend the 2nd amendment loudly are so willing to ignore some of the others. The 1st, 4th, and 5th come immediately to mind.

--Shannon
 
Perhaps an exit strategy would have helped.
Click to expand...

Pretending we know what the exit strategy is/was, is naive. If we know what any exit strategy is so does the enemy. This is perhaps the silliest assertion from the left or is this one the silliest?

Maybe a basic understanding of the middle east, it's history, religion and culture.
Click to expand...



Maybe it's best to be briefed by real experts including one's father than to here whispers from "God" in the middle of the night.
Click to expand...

Unlike some of his predecessors, GWB Cabinet is one of the most experienced ever assembled.

Oh, and Cindy Sheehan should be ordered to have a psych evaluation, everytime my crazy aunt went out and acted nutty she would be delivered home. Is she a danger to herself or others? You have a right to say or believe anything you want, not anywhere you want.
 
Tube,
I'll take the first part of that one since it was me you were quoting. I never said she doesn't have the right to free speech. However, she doesn't have the right to lay down and impede others from entering the building. If her son were against the war he would not have re-enlisted, volunteered for the unit he was in and volunteered to be part of the QRF. He was an adult making an adult decision and was killed as a result. He was a decorated war veteran who died a "hero's" death and she makes him out to be naive, stupid kid who wasn't capable of making his own decisions. In my eyes that is demeaning to him and every other person who has served and died in war. She is against the war, so he must have been against it too doesn't hold water. She isn't against war, she is against her son being killed. If she was against war she would have been protesting before he was killed not after.
 
Tube, One of the best ways to protect the other amendments is with the right to bear arms!

Thats one reason I support so much!
 
Regarding Casey Sheehan's position on the war in which he was fighting, we'll likely never know. How could we? The only person who could definitively answered that question is dead... we can't ask him. But his mom says he opposed it from the beginning, but considered it his duty to go. Since nobody else was there, it's tough to call her a liar. That's a serious charge, and shouldn't be made without evidence, which nobody has.

Blocking the entrance to a building is illegal. I'm sure that she, and a lot of other people who've done the same thing, knew that. She got arrested for it, and I've got no issue with that. The arrest at the SOTU is a different matter entirely. The Capitol is our building. We own it, and the folks in it are our employees. They should not be allowed to silence us in our own building.

As to the 2nd and the other amendments, I couldn't agree more. But I've seen many people who are strong 2nd supporters argue that the 4th amendment "ties the hands" of the police. I've seen them support any violation of the 1st amendment's Establishment clause, as long as the religion being promoted was their own. We don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are important. They all are.

--Shannon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top