http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/wardemonstrations.ap/index.html
Too bad she won't be locked up for us to never hear of her idiocy again. "Get the troops out of occupied New Orleans", pfft, stupid misguided liberal
I'm impressed that CNN didn't try to spin the story. That article was remarkably clean of fluff.. actual reporting at work. :)
Boo fuckin' hoo. Her son wanted to go out to fight, and he got killed.
If Kerry was President, he would have been ALIVE!!!!!11 BUSH IS THE REASON HE WAS KILLED, NOT THE TERRORIST WHO SHOT HIM!
About time she got arrested, she should really find something better to do other than stalk Bush.
QuoteOne man climbed over the White House fence and was quickly subdued by Secret Service agents.
OWNED!
Well, whatever. I will say that demonstrations should not require a permit. We're dealing with a similar problem here.
Demonstartions are fine, it's what she is complaining about. When you enlist in the armed forces, you know that there is a slight chance that you will die, or be injured.
She is handling this whole situation wrong, and she got what she deserved.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on September 26, 2005, 09:34 PM
Well, whatever. I will say that demonstrations should not require a permit. We're dealing with a similar problem here.
I think they got arrested because they STOPPED infront of the whitehouse. IIRC you can't do that for like suspicion reasons or w/e.
Yes, that's why she got arrested.
She also was protesting without a permit, which was an additional charge. They require permits because they don't allow certain groups to protest at certain places - for instance, a Nazi group wanted to protest at some national park or something here - and there was a lot of controversey over that. It's also so they can have the riot police prepared to guard the protestors/onlookers/buildings/whatever and so that they don't have two groups (especially opposites) at the same place.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on September 26, 2005, 09:34 PM
Well, whatever. I will say that demonstrations should not require a permit. We're dealing with a similar problem here.
I don't think there's anything wrong with requiring a permit for a demonstration so long as they're reasonably easy to obtain and cost nothing. The security and crowd control benefits, especially so close to the White House, outweigh the minor rigamarole that acquiring such a permit requires.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on September 26, 2005, 09:34 PM
Well, whatever. I will say that demonstrations should not require a permit. We're dealing with a similar problem here.
A demonstration permit allocates a place and time and also tells you that you are responsible for all the mess you make. Without that people would be blocking traffic causing massive delays for the working class, making a big mess that would have to be picked up at the expense of my tax dollars. How can not requiring a permit be a good idea?
Sheehan has become the ass of the joke. Before her little demonstration that was sponsored by an organization that supports North Koran way of life, Fidel Castro and Communism she stated on her website that hurricane Rita was getting too much media attention and that there are other more important things. Well guess what that fucking bitch was not getting enough media attention so she had to go get arrested. When she was getting arrested she was smiling!!! Tell me something, would a grieving mother be smiling like that? She has 3 PR people working for her, doing her makeup and other things. Since when do grieving mothers have PR people do their makeup?
I was in the Army and I have lost friends and I know that none of their mothers disrespected their sons memories the way that bitch has. Her son made a choice to go defend this country and she is flat out disrespecting him!
She also stated that the Bush administration is occupying New Orleans. WTF? She is a total nut job.
Requiring that the authorities are notified of a demonstration - thus allowing preparations to be made - is fine. I have a problem with a 'permit', because it implies that the government could deny the permit, and prevent the demonstration.
The demonstration could easily be illegal, or cause harm to surrounding areas. If the government were to deny them a permit, that group could easily bring it to the media and cause the government to back down (if their claim was legitimate).
Quote from: Arta[vL] on September 27, 2005, 06:34 PM
Requiring that the authorities are notified of a demonstration - thus allowing preparations to be made - is fine. I have a problem with a 'permit', because it implies that the government could deny the permit, and prevent the demonstration.
I somewhat agree. Demonstrations should be allowed. However, I think the government should have the right to deny the permit as requested, instead granting a different location and/or a different time.
Good reasons could be:
* Other demonstration at same location/time already received permit
* Other demonstration at same time using up resources
* Location bad (demonstrations here tend to have an impact on traffic etc)
* Not enough preparation time for government to assign resources