|
Author
|
Topic: Cindy Sheehan arrested!
|
blake 3:17
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10360
|
posted 26 September 2005 05:04 PM
quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who became a leader of the anti-war movement following her son's death in Iraq, was arrested Monday along with dozens of others protesting outside the White House.Sheehan, carrying a photo of her son in his Army uniform, was among hundreds of protesters who marched around the White House and then down the two-block pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. When they reached the front of the White House, dozens sat down -- knowing they would be arrested -- and began singing and chanting "Stop the war now!" Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests. One man climbed over the White House fence and was quickly subdued by Secret Service agents. Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She smiled as she was carried to the curb, then stood up and walked to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching." About 50 people were arrested in the first hour, with dozens of others waiting to be taken away. All 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.
Full CNN story.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052
|
posted 29 September 2005 01:34 AM
Gir, first of all, your quote sounds like reporting. Did the reporter really know what the demonstrators knew? Did they say so, or was the reporter a mind reader? But even if the statement was true, so what? Knowing that you'll be arrested is often a part of civil disobedience. To concoct an example: suppose that there were a law against 2 people of the same sex kissing in public. People might protest this by kissing in public, knowing that they'll be arrested. The fact that they know that neither invalidates the protest nor justifies the law being protested. Perhaps it is illegal to protest even peacefully outside the White House. So what? Maybe it shouldn't be illegal, and maybe that was one of the points of the protest.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722
|
posted 29 September 2005 03:58 PM
Albreo,
The reporter assumes they knew because the article says "Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests."So that would be a correct assumption. [ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
blake 3:17
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10360
|
posted 29 September 2005 04:36 PM
Exactly. The other board I saw discussing this had a number of posters dwelling on the threat of arrest and that it was made THREE times. Whoopsy doodles. Many of us have been part of protest actions which have been criminalized or been made the objects of police violence. The empire's thugs have their rules, we can have ours. As the Wobbly poet T Bone Slim put it, "Wherever you find injustice, the proper form of politeness is attack." Edited to add: Wikipedia on T-Bone Slim. Charles H. Kerr has also published this outstanding poet and activist's writings [ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: blake 3:17 ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 29 September 2005 04:38 PM
Actually that's pretty much the definition of civil disobedience. Do something "illegal" in the hope of drawing attention to the fact that it's illegal, or to the penalties involved.What does invaldidate it, however, is whining after the fact.  (And no, I'm not suggesting she did.)
From: ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723
|
posted 29 September 2005 09:55 PM
Right, right, don't whine, I agree, but DID ANYBODY READ WHAT THEY WERE ARRESTED FOR?!?: quote:
Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor.
Demonstrating without a permit. Demonstrating...without a permit. Arrested. Arrested for it. A misdemeanor. Isn't that fundamental right, or something? A right to assemble? Is that still a right? Maybe I'm confused...it seems so crazy...
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911
|
posted 29 September 2005 11:37 PM
Well you can't simply take over a public area for your, um, what was that again? Oh, yes, "first amendment rights." Yes, that's what we used to call it. Biggest reasons for arrests without permits (given with a straight face): It'll tie up rush hour traffic.
You'll need to provide insurance for anarchists
You need a surety bond and public toilets
Someone might get offended and attack you forcing a police presence
The public sidewalks must be maintained as a right of way
etc. etc. (Say, we're just here holding a "Stand Up for America" rally, Mr. Police Officer, is that OK?
Why sure, can I have one of those flags?
Oh, no problem, stick around for Glenn Beck's speech)
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
